I noticed that in the second section "Pass the Candidate Screening Test" that donations to the ACLU are a big No No. I'm all about civil liberties. Why is the ACLU being excluded from donations. Aren't our Civil liberties worth fighting for?

Here is a conversation starter...

The ACLU vs America:

http://www.wnd.com/news/...le.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959

...."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. "

Your right about them being "Subversives" dude. They are the cancer that seeks to destroy us from within. It would be nice if someone would come up with a like minded organization devoted to sueing them out of existance like they do to our own.

I can understand your optamism Fred but for the most part out in the real world it doesn't pan out that way.

Its been my experiance that you cannot just trust anyone just because they are a fellow american.

You would be amazed at what I have seen in the real world. Most people will not make others accountable for their destructive use of the media, or other organizations (ACLU) that have become detremental to our country and its traditions.

Freedom only works if those who participate do so from a position of accountability and responsibility for their actions and their opinions.It only works if the same people have the ability to inforce their beleifs on the system.

If you give some people who have no sense of dicipline (ACLU) a platform from which to spread their ilk they can effectively dirty the water for everyone else.

The same is true of any new party or of the media outlets in our nation today. Actually, its true of just about any institution or organization you might think of.

The american system today (DEM. vs REP.) has provided perfect sanctuary to the worst of the worst BECAUSE our legal system has successfully unplugged all old traditional methods of dealing with these miscreants and vagabonds from the individual. No one is accountable anymore unless you sue them. Period. BUT

That is not the worst of it. Most people are too busy earning a living to become adequately informed about the political process and current World events. How can someone make a good decision if they are not knowledgable enough.

I know plenty of people who are professionals at what they do but if you ask them a question about politics they swoon and blurt out some kind of pie in the sky idea that would never work in the real logical world in a zillion years.

ACLU MISSION: The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

These rights include:

* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

It doesn't get more American than that. This does not sound like the subversive, traitorous organization that some of you suggest. Granted, throughout its existence (it has been around since 1920), it has supported some pretty despicable people/entities (i.e. NAMBLA), but if you are going to prohibit citizens from participating in GOOOH for support of the ACLU, then you had better leave out all criminal defense attorneys and anyone who has ever worked with one...and their family members... and anyone who has bought a criminal defense attorney lunch or a beer. How far are you willing to take this?

My point - our judicial system is founded upon the notion that EVERYONE deserves their day in court and is innocent until proven guilty - EVERYONE - so while I have never donated to the ACLU, I can appreciate it's position in our representative democracy from that perspective, just as I appreciate criminal defense attorneys. I think GOOOH's position on the ACLU is issue-oriented, ill-conceived and GOOOH is overcompensating by including this question. This is suppose to be NON-PARTISAN and NOT a political party. I have faith that a participant who supports some of the more reprehensible clients represented by the ACLU will not be chosen by their peers as a candidate. If you want to know where participants stand on such issues, include them in the questionnaire, but a requirement as broad as the ACLU requirement is not appropriate.

The ACLU's shocking legacy


http://www.wnd.com/news/...cle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959

That is not true!!! Have you read their mission???

First of all, someone may have supported the ACLU not knowing it had anything to do with NAMBLA. Potential members could be turned off to GOOOH by that very question assuming it is because most consider it a "liberals' group":

"Conservatives and Republican have frequently criticized the ACLU. One well-known example occurred during the 1988 presidential election: then-Vice President George H. W. Bush noted that his opponent Michael Dukakis had described himself as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" and used that as evidence that Dukakis was "a strong, passionate liberal" and "out of the mainstream." The phrase subsequently was used by the organization in an advertising campaign." - Wikipedia

If you look at the mission of the ACLU, it is totally in line with the Constitution.

There is plenty of fodder for opponents of the ACLU - it has been in existence since 1920. Some other facts about the ACLU you probably didn't know:

"Among the founding members was Felix Frankfurter, who later became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States."- Wikipedia

"In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of communism, began with the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of both the Communist Party USA and the Industrial Workers of the World.[14] The ACLU's chairman since its founding, Harry F. Ward, resigned in protest of the decision.[15] But, the resolution was rescinded in 1967, allowing Communist Party members to rejoin the ACLU and in 1976, the ACLU restored Elizabeth Gurley Flynn's membership posthumously." - Wikipedia

The ACLU defends LOTS OF PEOPLE and groups - some, you may agree with, and some you won't, but most people DO NOT KNOW THE ACLU REPRESENTED NAMBLA AND MOST DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT NAMBLA IS! So the inclusion of this commitment increases the risk of making GOOOH appear as a partisan group. It does more harm than good. If you have such a problem with NAMBLA, as opposed to the ACLU, then fine, but it is not apparent from the question. Besides, NO ONE BUT NAMBLA LIKES NAMBLA, so this question is POINTLESS.

Look at it this way:

If you fund the ACLU with our tax money- by all fairness you should fund the NRA, who also champions constitutional rights.

If that makes you feel differently, then you probably see my point.

Bottom line: citizens should be able to get together and start these kind of rights watchdog organizations, but it's just not the government's job, period.

As someone who is a strict Constitutional Independent, I get the feeling that GOOOH wants to be viewed as Independent(non-partisan) but doesn't want to let go of some Conservative Christian principles.

I've read this thread about the ACLU with an open mind. I understand both sides of the coin as a major fence sitter.

Personally, as far as the ACLU is concerned, tax money should not go towards funding it. I'm a supporter of the ACLU in theory. However, I refuse to pledge my loyalty to them.

Interesting discussion nonetheless...