ACLU Statement on Potential Sessions and Pompeo Nominations

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
" NEW YORK — In response to reports that Sen. Jeff Sessions will be nominated for the position of Attorney General and Rep. Mike Pompeo for director of the Central Intelligence Agency, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero made the following statement:

“As a matter of organizational policy, the American Civil Liberties Union does not take a position supporting or opposing presidential or judicial nominations. We do, however, educate the American people and the Congress about nominees’ records and past positions.

“Sen. Sessions has called the ACLU un-American and communist, assertions we flatly reject. His positions on LGBT rights, capital punishment, abortion rights, and presidential authority in times of war have been contested by the ACLU and other civil rights organizations. As the nation’s highest-ranking law enforcement official, the attorney general is charged with protecting the rights of all Americans. In his confirmation hearings, senators, the media, and the American public should closely examine his stances on these key issues to ensure we can have confidence in his ability to uphold the Constitution and our laws on behalf of all Americans.

“Congressman Pompeo’s positions on bulk surveillance and Guantanamo Bay also raise serious civil liberties concerns about privacy and due process. These positions and others merit serious public scrutiny through a confirmation process. His positions on mass surveillance have been rejected by federal courts and have been the subject of several lawsuits filed by the ACLU, including ACLU v. Clapper.” "

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-potential-sessions-and-pompeo-nominations
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
“Sen. Sessions has called the ACLU un-American and communist .....

that was the exact basis for the founding of the ACLU ..... Founded by Communists / Pacifists to remake the US from within with the Court System
American Union Against Militarism ---> The National Civil Liberties Bureau ---> ACLU

The ACLU's shocking legacy

From its very beginning, the ACLU had strong socialist and communist ties. As early as 1931, the U.S. Congress was alarmed by the ACLU’s devotion to communism. A report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.

Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.

Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Unearthed Letters Link ACLU Founders to Communist Party


Noted author Paul Kengor reportedly unearthed letters, including one written on ACLU stationary, dated on May 23, 1931 and signed by ACLU founder Roger Baldwin that requests help from then-American Communist Party Chairman William Z. Foster in coordinating travel arrangements for ACLU Chairman Harry Ward’s travels to the Soviet Union. The letter suggests Ward’s trip would revolve around a search for “evidence from Soviet Russia” that would undermine America’s capitalist system:

Dear Bill [Foster],

Dr. Harry ward, chairman of this organization, is going to Russia in august to make a six or seven months’ study of a type which nobody has done. Dr. Ward is, as you perhaps know, the author of several books on the profit motive. He has demolished it theoretically. Now he wants to demolish it practically by evidence from Soviet Russia.

Could you give him any letters of introduction or suggestions of persons to see who can show him exactly how non-profit incentives work?

Yours ever,

(Roger Baldwin)

According to the DC, Foster was a “key figure” in the early years of the American communist movement who also belonged to the ACLU’s National Committee in the 1920s, according to FBI documents. In 1932, he wrote a book titled “Toward Soviet America” and testified under oath before Congress that he opposed American democracy.
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Wah.

If the ACLU hates them, that's a good indicator that they're good people. ACLU only likes crazy leftists.

It's interesting how these groups work. ACLU is a non-profit, which you would presume to mean they don't make money. But of course they do. In fact, they bring in almost $100 million a year. And how is that dispersed? They have an enormous team of lawyers that receive a salary for doing legal work. It's a small salary, comparative to what they make in their real law practices, but still....it's not pro bono.

Their legal director rakes in $350k a year. Director of Communications gets $325k. Their Director of Advocacy makes $310k. Their Executive Director is listed as "uncompensated", but that's not true at all. He actually makes almost $500k per year through what they call "compensation from affiliates". What that means is that "affiliated" organizations kick in and pay his salary. (Board members are not compensated by the org itself, but they typically make some scratch on speaking fees and outside involvements that pertain directly to their charitable affiliation.)

When you see on Charity Navigator or some other watchdog website that x% of donations goes to "program expenses", that includes the salaries of employees and leadership. So, I could start a "non-profit", bring in $100,000 a year, pay myself $95,000 a year, and say that 95% of my charity's income is spent on "program expenses".

That's very much how the Clinton Foundation operates. They peddle the erroneous assumption that, because they are a "charity", that most of their funds go to help their intended target, when in fact much of those "program expenses" are big fat cat salaries.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I was glad to see that low down dirty, stinking, communists loving ACLU fight against the voter-enacted Washington State law giving judges a wide authority to seize the guns of citizens.

“The ACLU of Washington has not taken a position on Initiative 1491. We do not support the initiative because of the due process and other concerns outlined below. While keeping guns out of the hands of people who pose serious risks to safety is a reasonable public safety measure, the ACLU’s role is to evaluate such measures by their impact on civil liberties, and we have concerns that the initiative has inadequate due process procedures. Further, these deficient due process procedures could set a bad precedent for other criminal justice processes.
1.The initiative allows a broad and vaguely defined group of people (family, household member, police) to seek the protection order. A protection order can be issued based on vague criteria (“significant danger”) that a person is an “extreme risk.” The protection order can be obtained from a judge ex parte – without notice to the person being accused. This severely limits the ability of a person to challenge an order once it is entered.
2.The initiative puts the burden of proof on the accused to show, after 12 months, that the order should be lifted. It is unclear how persons would prove their lack of danger. The concerns are compounded because of problems we’ve seen with other kinds of protection orders in WA: Although they are initially temporary, after a period of time, there are efforts to expand the scope of the orders to make them permanent, or to further abridge the due process provisions.
3.The initiative requires recording the order in court databases, which are open to the public. A record showing that a person had gun rights taken away based on being an “extreme risk” may well haunt an individual for the rest of their life – regardless of rehabilitation – erecting barriers for them when they undergo a background check for employment, housing, etc.”

https://know1491.org/aclu-wa-position/


Sessions isn't exactly the choice most liberty-loving people choose, but I can see why Trump's supporters would like him.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Sessions isn't exactly the choice most liberty-loving people choose, but I can see why Trump's supporters would like him.

I know very little about Jeff Sessions other than that Democrats hate his guts and think he's Hitler and Satan. I'll go check him out and report back with my findings.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
You mean places like: wnd, the blaze, brietbart and zerohedge???

You haven't been interested in fact or knowledge...why start now?

Pop quiz:

When was the last time I linked or referenced WND or Blaze?

I believe you are thinking of someone else.

I might have referred to Zerohedge once or twice, but certainly not regularly, and just because Breitbart doesn't spoonfeed leftwing propaganda doesn't mean they aren't just as reputable - if not more so - than the lying WashPo and ridiculous NYT where you get your "news".

Oh, and:

gary.jpg
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Wah.

If the ACLU hates them, that's a good indicator that they're good people. ACLU only likes crazy leftists.

My thoughts run along similar lines.
I hardly think the left is ever going to approve of any appointment unless - maybe - it's one of their own -
And they will almost certainly disavow them IF that happens.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
SO! In running down Sessions, it appears that the major objection against him is his hardline against illegal immigration. Also he makes jokes that Dems want to take literally and get all bent out of shape over whenever they possibly can. (Apparently the only thing the Left finds funny is threats of raping and killing Ann Coulter.)

Well, hate to tell you this, but a large part of Trump's appeal was his promise to close our borders and boot out illegals - the criminal element, if nothing else. Jeff Sessions fits right in with that mission and, therefore, shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Hey lefties? Progbots? You lost. The winner isn't going to do what the loser wants; that's not the way it works. We had 8 years of Barry and the extreme opposite of what *we* wanted, and now it's your turn to suck it up.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Surprised that ACLU has such venting of the Spleen for Sessions, he promises to keep them at work for 4 years.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Sessions isn't exactly the choice most liberty-loving people choose, but I can see why Trump's supporters would like him.


Dear Lefties, Spawn Of Satan Jeff Sessions Actually Took On The KKK and Desegregated Schools (And Supported Eric Holder's AG Nomination)

but Progressives call him a Racist :shrug:
[and I am NOT calling you a lefty Chris]

How ugly will Democrats get in smearing Jeff Sessions?

No sooner had Sessions been named than the left — and much of the press — were tarring the Alabama senator as a racist. The NAACP tweeted that he “supports an old, ugly history” when it comes to civil rights.

Most of this traces to 1986, when the Senate rejected his nomination for a federal judgeship, based on hearsay testimony from two lawyers alleging he’d made racially charged statements.

Sessions denied some of the statements and apologized for others, while defending his record. The late Sen. Arlen Specter, a liberal Republican who cast the deciding vote against Sessions, later called it “a mistake” that “remains one of my biggest regrets.”

Later, as a US attorney, Sessions desegregated schools and successfully prosecuted the head of the state Ku Klux Klan for murder — then, as the state’s attorney general, saw the killer executed. That prosecution set the stage for a $7 million civil judgment that broke the Alabama Klan.

Then Sessions won election to the Senate in 1996. That’s when Specter (who actually finished his career as a Democrat) came to know him, and reversed his opinion.


I am sure Progressives will try to give Sessions the BORK Treatment
 
Last edited:

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Dear Lefties, Spawn Of Satan Jeff Sessions Actually Took On The KKK and Desegregated Schools (And Supported Eric Holder's AG Nomination)

but Progressives call him a Racist :shrug:
[and I am NOT calling you a lefty Chris]




I am sure Progressives will try to give Sessions the BORK Treatment

One thing is certain: There is no freaking way any white Republican, no matter what he has done for blacks will ever suit the NAACP Talk about a bigoted outfit. They own that title.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
One thing is certain: There is no freaking way any white Republican, no matter what he has done for blacks will ever suit the NAACP Talk about a bigoted outfit. They own that title.

It's nothing personal against whites. They hate black Republicans, too.
 
Top