Should the ACLU be stripped of its tax-exempt status?
posted at 12:55 am on October 12, 2006 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Jay at Stop the ACLU presents his case with several examples, video, and many, many links.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Not only do I feel they should be stripped of any tax exempt status, I feel their actions and freedom to manuever cases through our courts should be severely curtailed.
I can’t think of another group that so effectively uses our Constitution to destroy that very Constitution.
LewWaters on October 12, 2006 at 1:05 AM
if this question has to be asked and thought about then you have to wonder what your doing here
Defector01 on October 12, 2006 at 1:41 AM
I don’t think any here have to actually think about an answer, Defector. ut it is sure a great way to vent our ill feelings about this Communist Organization and their anti-American antics.
Hopefully others that stop by just to read will havetheir eyes opened soon to this band of subversives.
LewWaters on October 12, 2006 at 2:14 AM
Damn straight!
They were founded by communists with the intent to subvert the United States by attacking our most important institutions.
If they want to continue, they should do it on their own dime.
georgej on October 12, 2006 at 2:26 AM
They’re reverting to their natural state…
Entelechy on October 12, 2006 at 3:46 AM
I disagree with that. While there’s a good case to be made that they should lose their tax-exempt status, they’re a legitimate (if repugnant) organization that ought to be able to work on behalf of their clients. After all, the records of the cases the ACLU works on are made public, and the more those records are publicized, the fewer sensible Americans will support what they’re advocating.
Sean M. on October 12, 2006 at 5:47 AM
I’m sure that sedition charges could be leveled at the ACLU. The problem is finding someone with the power willing to bring the charges. How about using a favorite tactic of the liberal/communist groups. Look how they are trying to litigate the firearms industry into submission. Maybe if they had to face lawsuit after lawsuit, they might be severely strapped financially and be too busy defending themselves that they won’t have the resources to sponsor their bogus legal actions against good, well-intentioned Americans.
DAT60A3 on October 12, 2006 at 7:58 AM
The ACLU is the legal arm of the Dhimocratic party. I would prefer a forced name change like “Socialist People’s Anti-Constitution Brigade”. Neither will happen.
Hening on October 12, 2006 at 8:26 AM
I remember several years ago when the ACLU was objecting to the construction of a Nativity Creche on City Hall grounds in Providence, RI.
Then-Mayor Buddy Ciance (himself of questionable repute) summed up the ACLU’s motivation very well…
“The reason the ACLU is so upset about a Nativity scene is because there are no wise men nor virgins in their organization.”
Well said…
Corky on October 12, 2006 at 8:32 AM
Is the headline a rhetorical question?
SouthernGent on October 12, 2006 at 8:37 AM
Absolutely.
Abigail Adams on October 12, 2006 at 8:47 AM
Maybe if they had to face lawsuit after lawsuit, they might be severely strapped financially and be too busy defending themselves that they won’t have the resources to sponsor their bogus legal actions against good, well-intentioned Americans.
Good idea, DAT60a3.
tormod on October 12, 2006 at 8:50 AM
Stripping them of tax-exempt status is difficult. If you follow Landmark Legal’s battle against the NEA, the best they have been able to do so far is get them to pay back taxes for their political activity. This would be a great start as these are not small amounts of money.
Valiant on October 12, 2006 at 9:08 AM
Yes.
Lawrence on October 12, 2006 at 9:16 AM
tax exempt? yeah, that should be stopped, but then I think the whole thing should be dismantled.
One Angry Christian on October 12, 2006 at 9:38 AM
Not only yes, but hell yes!
d1carter on October 12, 2006 at 10:20 AM
My understanding is that the ACLU crosses the line when they endorse (or oppose) specific candidates. Which they clearly did in the Lieberman situation. They have a case though, that some churches do endorse specific candidates. Think any tax exempt org, be it a church or the ACLU, should have that tax status challenged if they go over the line. The blurring of the line between church and state is getting worrisome.
honora on October 12, 2006 at 11:37 AM
what president should do is put the ACLU on the terrorist watch list
Starblazer on October 12, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Is this a ballot question? Can I vote? Please?
Priest on October 12, 2006 at 1:45 PM
Anti-American Civil Liberties Union… or Anyone-but-American Civil Liberties Union….
E L Frederick on October 13, 2006 at 12:49 PM
Comment pages: