Part-Time Pundit

Columns and Commentary by John Bambenek

Stop the ACLU - Selective Rights Protection

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”-Voltaire

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas(NAMBLA) and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its history. Exception: in the case for pro-lifers.

The ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project has a lot to do with why the ACLU is so reluctnat to defend the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

With a $2 million dollar budget and a staff of 17 employees, Janet Benshoof was the Union’s most devoted activist for abortion rights…..she became so overextended in her approach that she advocated mob pressure on the judiciary; she pushed for “pro-choice” activists to march on court rooms where abortion cases were being heard.Twilight of Liberty

To the ACLU, anti-abortion protesters are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60’s, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom.

Hence, the reluctance of the ACLU to defend principle, that is, the excersize of First Ammendment rights by anti-abortion activists. Ironically, real facists-like the American Nazis and Klansmen-have had thier rights protected more often and with greater vigor by the ACLU than anti-abortion demonstrators.Twilight of Liberty

Of course there are loonies in the anti-abortion movement, but that was true of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement of the 60’s, and even today in the “pro-choice” demonstrators. Every movement has it’s fringe element. But while the ACLU was right on top in defending any violations of the law for all of these movements, when it comes to the opponents of abortion having their First Amendment rights violated by the authorities, the ACLU is completely absent.

Not even having the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(RICO) thrown at anti-abortion protesters moved the ACLU into action.

The ACLU is nominally opposed to the RICO statute, and there are some senior members, like Washington official Antonio Califa, who are truly opposed to the invocation of RICO against any protesters, including opponents of abortion. However, due largely to the influence of Benshoof, the ACLU’s record is grievously stained in this area.Twilight of Liberty

It was actually her suggestion in a booklet titled, “Preserving the Right to Choose: How to Cope with Violence and Disruption at Abortion Clinics.” The ACLU would not tolerate the use of RICO against nuclear weapons dissedents, but in the case of anti-abortion protesters the matter is quite different. In fact, the ACLU has actually used the RICO against them. When pro-life demonstrators were sued under RICO in Philadelphia, the local chapter of the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Northeast Women’s Center.

The ACLU missed another opportunity to defend civil liberties in 1989 in West Harford, Connecticut. It was on June 17 that 261 persons were arrested, and then physically abused by police, for staging a sit-in.

The police used “come-a-long” holds, or “pain compliance holds”, with a result that many claimed permanent nerve damage. Some were denied medical care, and others were not allowed phone calls for over two days. One woman had to have surgery after the police damaged her uterus. The ACLU did nothing.

When John Spear, a publisher of a small New York newspaper, wrote an editorial against police brutality, he too was slapped with a RICO suit. He was charged with extortion. The ACLU did nothing.

“Why do they still call it a civil liberties union?” commented ACLU member and nemesis Nat Hentoff. When pressed about cases like the West Hartford one, the ACLU typically responds that it can’t get involved with the defense of antiabortion protesters because it is already committed ot the ise of the abortion clinics. When John Leo asked Alan Dershowitz, “Can it be that the affiliates sometimes deliberately involve themselves early on one side so they will have an excuse not to help victims on the other?” the Harvard Law professor replied, “Absolutely. They go to the pro-choice people and say, “Get us in right away, “thereby giving them the excuse of conflict of interest in the event they are contacted by the anti-abortion side. And what does the ACLU say when asked specifically about its duplicity regarding RICO? Lynn Paltrow, who worked for Benshoof, explained the Union’s attitude: “Its ACLU policy to oppose application of RICO, but there are those on staff who feel that as long as RICO exists, this kind of behavior (Operation Rescue tactics) does fit.” “In other words,” as John Leo puts it, “RICO is totally bad, but sort of useful.”Twilight of Liberty,

It looks pretty clear to me. In the eyes of the ACLU you the First Amendment protects child molesters, perverts, and facists, but not Pro-lifers! Quite hypocritical in my opinion.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says “sign up now”, and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additonal advantages and features that will be available for you there…you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender’s Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit’s Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind’s Eye
Cao’s Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
The View From Firehouse
Ogre’s View
Fundamentally right
Conservative Rant
My Political Soap Box
Common Sense Runs Wild
Redstate Rant
Time Hath Found Us
American Dinosaur
Merri Musings
And Rightly So
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
Smithereen’s Files
Pulpit Pounder
Ravings of J.C.B.
Is It Just Me?
Blogtalker
Parrot Check
Stuff You Should Know
Rancher Blog
Christmas Ghost
Vista On Current Events
Musing Minds
Pirate’s Cove
Mr . Minority
The Lesser Of Two Evils
RAGE
The Life And Times

We are trying to raise money for full page ads and eventually commercials exposing the ACLU’s radical agenda. Help us out! Buy a bumper sticker!
Click Below To See Our Store!

Share and Enjoy:
  • BlinkList
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Furl
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • TailRank
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Digg
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Related Posts:

  • Stop The ACLU Blogburst
  • Stop the ACLU: The War on Abstinence
  • Stop the ACLU: Stop the Pilfering of Tax Dollars
  • StoptheACLU Blogburst: War against a discredited story
  • Why Does the ACLU Hate the Troops?
  • May 26th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | Law / Legal Issues | 3 comments

    Friday Fax - Ok we lied, we really are trying to push abortion

    This Friday Fax brings us a document that admits people are pushing for legalized abortion as a human right everywhere by abusing the Beijing conference that explicitly did not make abortion a human right. They continue to parrot the lie that strict abortion laws lead to higher maternal mortality despite the fact that even they don’t believe that any more. Here it is.

    ===========================================================
    New Report Shows How Beijing Document Promotes Abortion

    Merely two months after the close of the “Beijing +10″ conference at the United Nations, where pro-abortion lobby groups and delegates from several countries vehemently denied that the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action supports a right to legal abortion, a prominent abortion advocacy group has released two briefing papers admitting that Beijing promotes legalized abortion.

    In “Abortion and the Law: Ten Years of Reform,” the Center for Reproductive Rights, the world’s only organization of human rights lawyers focusing exclusively on abortion, states that Beijing “provides vital support to advocates seeking abortion law reform in their countries.”

    The report explains that Beijing, while not directly calling for legalized abortion, provides a “global commitment to stopping unsafe abortion.” The report highlights Beijing’s call upon governments to “to deal with the health impact of unsafe abortion as a major public health concern.” According to the report, Beijing thus “link[ed] women’s health to abortion law reform” and “affirmed what has become increasingly clear to governments and advocates worldwide: that removing legal barriers to abortion saves women’s lives, promotes their health, and empowers women.”

    In its second recent briefing paper, “Beijing and International Law: UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies Uphold Reproductive Rights,” CRR explains how Beijing supports the activities of other UN bodies that are pressuring countries to legalize their abortion laws. CRR states that Beijing “focuses primarily on the impact of unsafe abortion,” and various UN treaty monitoring bodies have found illegal abortion to be unsafe.

    According to CRR, such committees have “made the important connection between illegal, unsafe abortion and high rates of maternal mortality.” According to these committees, “maternal mortality caused by unsafe abortion [is] a violation of women’s rights to health and life.” Thus, these committees argue that women’s rights to life and health mandate legalized abortion.

    CRR highlights activities of the Human Rights Committee (HRC), which monitors implementation of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Covenant, created at a time when most countries banned abortion, does not refer to abortion in any way. However, HRC has nonetheless frequently used its ICCPR mandate to pressure countries to liberalize their abortion laws.

    For example, in March 2005 HRC told Kenya that it is concerned about the “maternal mortality…caused, inter alia, by a high number of unsafe or illegal abortions,” and stated that Kenya “should review its abortion laws.”

    In 2004 HRC told Poland that it “reiterates its deep concern about the restrictive abortion laws in Poland, which may incite women to seek unsafe, illegal abortion…the State Party should liberalize its legislation and practice on abortion.”

    Copyright 2005 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).

    Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

    Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
    866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427
    New York, New York 10017
    Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212) 754-9291
    E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.org

    Share and Enjoy:
    • BlinkList
    • del.icio.us
    • Fark
    • Furl
    • NewsVine
    • Reddit
    • TailRank
    • YahooMyWeb
    • Digg
    • Slashdot
    • StumbleUpon
    • Technorati
    Related Posts:

  • Friday Fax - Racist UN Continuing To Try To Exterminate Africa with AIDS
  • Friday Fax - UNFPA Tried to Subvert Muslim Teaching on Abortion
  • Friday Fax - Abortion Doesn’t Lower Maternal Mortality (Duh)
  • Abortion Advocates Fight Against Choice
  • Union Busting?
  • May 26th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | Friday Fax / Culture & Cosmos | one comment

    Carnival of the Vanities Up / Bonfire of the Vanities Hosted Here

    The 140th Carnival of the Vanities is up at Alarming News.

    I will be hosting #100 of the Bonfire of the Vanities on June 1st, looking forward to the entries when they come.

    Share and Enjoy:
    • BlinkList
    • del.icio.us
    • Fark
    • Furl
    • NewsVine
    • Reddit
    • TailRank
    • YahooMyWeb
    • Digg
    • Slashdot
    • StumbleUpon
    • Technorati
    Related Posts:

  • Bonfire of the Vanities - Tomorrow
  • This week’s Bonfire
  • BOTV #100
  • COTV #138 Up
  • COTV #139 Up
  • May 26th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | Carnivals | no comments

    Lashing Out

    My friend over at Papa Familias pointed out some interesting MSM bias by classifying Cardinal Keeler’s statement not going to Loyola’s graduation as “lashing out”. It’s obviously ridiculous when you read the letter, but to show you what lashing out would be, I’ll provide an example.

    [Satire mode on]

    Dear Doctor Haddad,

    By inviting and honoring pro-abortion politicians you make clear that you have cashed in your spiritual inheritance in heaven and have chosen the way of the prodigal son. You have thrown your lot in with whores, idoloters, and drunkards. We pray that like the prodigal son you will return but until then we commit your body to satan that your soul may be saved.”

    THAT would be lashing out.

    Share and Enjoy:
    • BlinkList
    • del.icio.us
    • Fark
    • Furl
    • NewsVine
    • Reddit
    • TailRank
    • YahooMyWeb
    • Digg
    • Slashdot
    • StumbleUpon
    • Technorati
    Related Posts:

  • No related posts
  • May 26th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | Religion | one comment