Post by The PeelerOn Sat, 06 Oct 2018 05:41:38 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry'
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)Post by The Jews[chuckle]
Your abject fear *is* an excellent result!
It, IS jew bastard. No, WONDER you tried to throw, circumcised jew
cunt Iris under, the jew bus instead !
ROTFLOL Trying to find comfort in your ridiculous psychotic delusions again,
you absolutely ridiculous psychotic idiot?
it is all that he has.
Now here is an article from Alan M. Dershowitz, a man much better than
the mangina.
ACLU's Opposition to Kavanaugh Sounds Its Death Knell
by Alan M. Dershowitz
October 6, 2018 at 4:00 pm
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13087/aclu-opposition-to-kavanaugh-sounds-its-death
Send
Print
Share304
So why did the American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to
the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual
allegations directed against that judicial nominee? The answer is as clear
as it is simple. It is all about pleasing the donors. The ACLU used to be
cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office,
the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor.
The problem is that most of the money is not coming from civil libertarians
who care about free speech, due process, the rights of the accused and
defending the unpopular. It is coming from radical leftists in Hollywood,
Silicon Valley and other areas not known for a deep commitment to civil
liberties.
The old ACLU would never have been silent when Michael Cohen's office was
raided by the FBI and his clients' files seized; it would have yelled foul
when students accused of sexual misconduct were tried by kangaroo courts;
and it surely would have argued against a presumption of guilt regarding
sexual allegations directed against a judicial nominee.
When the ACLU's national political director and former Democratic Party
operative Faiz Shakir was asked why the ACLU got involved in the Kavanaugh
confirmation fight, he freely admitted, "People have funded us and I think
they expect a return."
President Trump greeting Brett Kavanaugh and his family. Why did the
American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme
Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations
directed against him? (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Now that Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed, it is appropriate to look at
the damage caused by the highly partisan confirmation process. Among the
casualties has been an organization I have long admired.
After Politico reported that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was
spending more than $1 million to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to
the Supreme Court, I checked the ACLU website to see if its core mission had
changed -- if the ACLU had now officially abandoned its non-partisan nature
and become yet another Democratic super PAC. But no, the ACLU still claims
it is "non-partisan."
So why did the ACLU oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and
argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed
against that judicial nominee?
The answer is as clear as it is simple. It is all about pleasing the donors.
The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after
Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet
principle-poor. Before Donald Trump was elected President, the ACLU had an
annual operating budget of $60 million dollars.[1] When I was on the ACLU
National Board, it was a fraction of that amount. Today it is flush with
cash, with net assets of over $450 million dollars. As the ACLU itself
admitted in its annual report ending 2017, it received "unprecedented
donations" after President Trump's election. Unprecedented" it truly has
been: the ACLU received $120 million dollars from online donations alone (up
from $3-5 million during the Obama years).
The problem is that most of the money is not coming from civil libertarians
who care about free speech, due process, the rights of the accused and
defending the unpopular. It is coming from radical leftists in Hollywood,
Silicon Valley and other areas not known for a deep commitment to civil
liberties. To its everlasting disgrace, the ACLU is abandoning its mission
in order to follow the money. It now spends millions of dollars on TV ads
that are indistinguishable from left wing organizations, such as MoveOn, the
Democratic National Committee and other partisan groups.
As the New Yorker reported on the ACLU's "reinvention in the Trump era,"
"In this midterm year...as progressive groups have mushroomed and grown more
active, and as liberal billionaires such as Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer
have begun to imagine themselves as political heroes and eye Presidential
runs, the A.C.L.U., itself newly flush, has begun to an active role in
elections. The group has plans to spend more than twenty-five million
dollars on races and ballot initiatives by [Midterm] Election Day, in
November. Anthony Romero, the group's executive director, told me, 'It used
to be that, when I had a referendum I really cared about, I could spend
fifty thousand dollars.'"
This new strategy can be seen in many of the ACLU's actions, which would
have been inconceivable just a few years ago. The old ACLU would never have
been silent when Michael Cohen's office was raided by the FBI and his
clients' files seized; it would have yelled foul when students accused of
sexual misconduct were tried by kangaroo courts; and it surely would have
argued against a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed
against a judicial nominee.
Everything the ACLU does today seems to be a function of its fundraising. To
be sure, it must occasionally defend a Nazi, a white supremacist, or even a
mainstream conservative. But that is not its priority these days, either
financially or emotionally. Its heart and soul are in its wallet and
checkbook. It is getting rich while civil liberties are suffering.
There appears to be a direct correlation between the ACLU's fundraising and
its priorities. When the ACLU's national political director and former
Democratic Party operative Faiz Shakir was asked why the ACLU got involved
in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, he freely admitted, "People have funded
us and I think they expect a return." Its funders applaud the result because
many of these mega donors could not care less about genuine civil liberties
or due process. What they care about are political results: more left-wing
Democrats in Congress, fewer conservative justices on the Supreme Court and
more money in the ACLU coffers.
When I served both on the National and Massachusetts Boards of the American
Civil Liberties Union, board members included conservative Republicans, old
line Brahmans, religious ministers, schoolteachers, labor union leaders and
a range of ordinary folks who cared deeply about core civil liberties. The
discussions were never partisan. They always focused on the Bill of Rights.
There were considerable disagreements about whether various amendments
covered the conduct at issue. But no one ever introduced the question of
whether taking a position would help the Democrats or Republicans, liberals
or conservatives, Jews or Catholics or any other identifiable group. We
cared about applying the constitution fairly to everyone, without regard to
the political consequences.
As the New Yorker described these more innocent times: the ACLU "... has
been fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with political
power that its leadership, in the nineteen-eighties and nineties, declined
even to give awards to like-minded legislators for fear that it might give
the wrong impression."
Those days are now gone. Instead we have a variant on the question my
immigrant grandmother asked when I told her the Brooklyn Dodgers won the
World Series in 1955: "Yeah, but, vuz it good or bad for the Jews?" My
Grandmother was a strong advocate of identity politics: all she cared about
was the Jews. That was 63 years ago. The questions being asked today by ACLU
board members is: is it good or bad for the left, is it good or bad for
Democrats, is it good or bad for women, is it good or bad for people of
color, is it good or bad for gays?
These are reasonable questions to be asked by groups dedicated to the
welfare of these groups but not by a group purportedly dedicated to civil
liberties for all. A true civil libertarian transcends identity politics and
cares about the civil liberties of one's political enemies because he or she
recognizes that this is the only way that civil liberties for everyone will
be preserved.
Today, too few people are asking: Is it good or bad for civil liberties?
Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard
Law School and author of The Case Against Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse
Publishing, July 2018.
[1] A New Yorker article from the end of November of 2009 says that after a
major donor "has withdrawn his annual gift of more than $20 million,
punching a 25 percent hole in its annual operating budget and forcing
cutbacks in operations."
Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
