ACLU slapped by Senate

[briannell]

The Senate Slaps the ACLU

Thursday, July 28, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly



The Senate slaps the ACLU. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

In the reporting of this story tomorrow, you will hear little about how the Senate has voted 98 to 0 to allow U.S. military bases to host Boy Scout (search) events. — That means even the most liberal senators in the country oppose the ACLU, which want the Boy Scouts banned from all federal property and has sued to make that happen.

This is a stunning rejection of the extremist group and a huge victory for fair play in America. The ACLU (search) has been trying to destroy the Boy Scouts ever since that organization decided to ban openly gay Scout leaders and require an allegiance to a higher power.

As a private organization, the Scouts have a perfect right to do that, as no one is forced to join. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are discriminatory, therefore have no place using any public facility for anything.

Now clear-thinking people know a vendetta when they see it. And that's exactly what this ACLU jihad against the Scouts is. So the U.S. Senate has made a statement. And we should all applaud that statement.

It's obvious the Boy Scouts help society and give children an opportunity to have fun and develop character. The greater good is served by helping the Scouts, even if you don't subscribe to their philosophy.

When people like Ted Kennedy (search) and Barbara Boxer (search) vote against the ACLU, you know that organization has gone mental. Only extremists, like columnist Molly Ivins (search), continue to support the dangerous group.

In a recent column, Ivins wrote, "I know that sludge for brains like Bill O'Reilly attack the ACLU for being 'un-American,' but when Bill O'Reilly's constitutional rights are violated, the ACLU will stand up for him."

Well, Ms. Ivins must be very proud of the "sludge for brains" line. That indicates a very deep thinker, and once again illustrates the immaturity of the far left.

You have an open invitation, madam, to debate me about the ACLU. You shouldn't have any trouble defeating a moron like me. We await your call.

Summing up, "Talking Points" feels very good about the Senate helping out the Boy Scouts and unanimously rejecting the ACLU. Things may be turning around.

And that's “The Memo.”

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

In the summertime we all have houseguests of the insect kind. And this family didn't much think much of some bees living in the attic, until honey started dripping from the ceiling. Well, the bee people were called in and smoked out more than 200,000 bees who were not paying rent.

The bees left unwillingly and now will be reassembled into four colonies, the bee people tell us.

My question is, who gets to count the bees? And how do you know which ones you counted? —They all look the same. Put a little number on them? What? Could be ridiculous. That's the way my mind works.

—You can watch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the FOX News Channel. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com

[SonomaCat]

Bill is doing a good job of his usual grandstanding routine. The ACLU is doing what they always do -- supporting the lawsuits that are consistent with their views of civil liberties regardless of the parties involved with the lawsuit -- not pursuing vendettas against organizations.

This is the kind of intellectually vacant arguments designed solely to make people angry that talking heads are famous for. It's right up with his "boycott France" campaign. He enjoys the bully pulpit, and it's good for ratings ... even if it is actually running contrary to finding truth in any form.

He would certainly not be one to point it out when the ACLU takes the same position as it had against the boy scouts against any other organization ... pointing out their consistency in their views on civil liberties isn't nearly as good of a story as painting them as "extremists" with a sinister liberal agenda. Consistency is a concept that is a bit too complicated for people who want to paint everything as a partisan black or white event, so it doesn't play well on talk shows.

And of course the senate is going to vote in favor of the boy scouts -- that's the popular thing to do, and that's how they stay in office. Politicians don't have the luxury of sticking to principles and therefore don't have the courage to support an unpopular position for the benefit of preserving the underlying civil liberty. That's why we get so many bad laws with unintended consequences coming out of D.C. -- they are forced to take short-sighted feel good routes as opposed to well thought-out approaches to law making.

[iaafan]

There was an excellent piece on Discovery last night regarding LBJ and what he had to do to get the Civil Rights Amendment passed. It was amazing to watch it some 40 years after. The utter ignorance of Americans on the topic was difficult to fathom, but when you consider the message sent from those in power -- not unlike today -- it unfortunately made sense in its twisted way. You would think that the "Right" would learn from that tidbit of history, but they still find ways to fight against things like the ACLU. A group that is guilty of going to great lengths in 'trying' to make sure that everyone...everyone....is protected against mob rule. Their job is a complicated and deep one, whereas, Bill O'Reilly's is only complicated and deep due to the all the effort he goes to be overly simplistic and narrow. Oh, nevermind, Bill isn't on the right...he's fair and balanced!

[Grizlaw]

In the reporting of this story tomorrow, you will hear little about how the Senate has voted 98 to 0 to allow U.S. military bases to host Boy Scout (search) events. — That means even the most liberal senators in the country oppose the ACLU, which want the Boy Scouts banned from all federal property and has sued to make that happen.

*snip*

When people like Ted Kennedy (search) and Barbara Boxer (search) vote against the ACLU, you know that organization has gone mental. Only extremists, like columnist Molly Ivins (search), continue to support the dangerous group.

Largely agree with everyone else's comments on this thread. However, because I consider O'Reilly to be by far the most mentally devoid of the major talk show pundits currently on the air, I can never resist the opportunity to pick apart a quote that reveals him as the intellectual lightweight that he is.

According to O'Reilly logic, apparently the fact that Senators Kennedy and Boxer voted against the ACLU position on a single issue is proof that they "oppose" the organization, and "no longer support the dangerous group."

Okee dokee; great thinking, Einstein.

[Ponycat]

Peronally I was happy to boycott France, and although I'll never change any of the above three posters minds I think the ACLU is a joke, and even if they have supported a few conservative people/causes in my opinion it was just in an effort to soften criticism. The battles they most vocally support hurt America ie. NAMBLA, and there anti boyscouts stance. Yes everyone deserves freedom but that freedom comes with responsibilities, and not just a free pass to do what every you please. This in my opinion is what the ACLU wants and represents.

Just my opinion I could be wrong.

[mquast53000]

Hey Grizlaw, next are you going to tell us how great Michael Moore is?
I think your feelings of O’Reilly are a little bias… You and BAC seem to have a lot in common, you only see the "bad" in people.

[Hell's Bells]

In the reporting of this story tomorrow, you will hear little about how the Senate has voted 98 to 0 to allow U.S. military bases to host Boy Scout (search) events. — That means even the most liberal senators in the country oppose the ACLU, which want the Boy Scouts banned from all federal property and has sued to make that happen.

*snip*

When people like Ted Kennedy (search) and Barbara Boxer (search) vote against the ACLU, you know that organization has gone mental. Only extremists, like columnist Molly Ivins (search), continue to support the dangerous group.

Largely agree with everyone else's comments on this thread. However, because I consider O'Reilly to be by far the most mentally devoid of the major talk show pundits currently on the air, I can never resist the opportunity to pick apart a quote that reveals him as the intellectual lightweight that he is.

According to O'Reilly logic, apparently the fact that Senators Kennedy and Boxer voted against the ACLU position on a single issue is proof that they "oppose" the organization, and "no longer support the dangerous group."

Okee dokee; great thinking, Einstein.

no i belive that what B.O'R is saying is that when you try to do somthing that even the most left leaning senitors vote against you are going off the deep end

[SonomaCat]

Peronally I was happy to boycott France, and although I'll never change any of the above three posters minds I think the ACLU is a joke, and even if they have supported a few conservative people/causes in my opinion it was just in an effort to soften criticism. The battles they most vocally support hurt America ie. NAMBLA, and there anti boyscouts stance. Yes everyone deserves freedom but that freedom comes with responsibilities, and not just a free pass to do what every you please. This in my opinion is what the ACLU wants and represents.

Just my opinion I could be wrong.

If they really wanted to soften criticism, wouldn't it just be a lot easier to dodge the messy and unpopular cases (NAMBLA) in the first place?

I guess if people assumed that the ACLU as an organization embraces the virtues of NAMBLA (which I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that cynical), then our only option is to realize that they are truly representing the virtue of the law, and not the litigant or the litigant's views themselves.

If they wanted to take a free pass, they would only represent the popular cases, and then everybody would love them. As it is, they are reaping the scorn of the people who don't understand their mission by being so very consistent and true to their defense of civil liberties.

Representing NAMBLA doesn't hurt America -- nobody representing free speech and letting skewed holdings from the most extreme cases define our own free speech does indeed hurt America.

[SonomaCat]

Hey Grizlaw, next are you going to tell us how great Michael Moore is?
I think your feelings of O’Reilly are a little bias… You and BAC seem to have a lot in common, you only see the "bad" in people.

That's a strange observation, considering that I have said a lot of positive things about a lot of people ... mostly just about things that are positive aspects of those people, though.

I will always say bad things about people making intellectually dishonest arguments, though, especially when they make a lot of money by saying things that they know aren't true and make no sense just to please a demographic. If it makes you happy, I'm more than happy to assert that same criticism on Michael Moore (which I've done countless times) or Jesse Jackson.

[Grizlaw]

Hey Grizlaw, next are you going to tell us how great Michael Moore is?
I think your feelings of O’Reilly are a little bias… You and BAC seem to have a lot in common, you only see the "bad" in people.

Oh, you did not just say that...

Actually, Quast, for the record, I don't like Michael Moore, either. I'm glad to see that you are such a fan of mine to have read enough of my posts to presume to be able to tell me *why* I don't like a particular journalist, but in the future you might want to refrain from making such predictions, since you clearly don't have me figured out quite yet.

I don't like Bill O'Reilly for several reasons. First, he's arrogant, pompous and condescending. I could overlook that, though, if his show was informative and well-done, but it *isn't*. Let me explain:

I don't claim to be an expert on all topics under the sun, but there are a few areas where I am somewhat of an expert (namely tax law, tax policy and a few other areas of the law). Occasionally, O'Reilly will discuss a topic on his show of which I have specific knowledge, and whenever that happens, there are *always* serious inaccuracies in his report (i.e. a legislative proposal being misquoted in a material way, etc.) The pattern I've seen from him is that he'll discuss a tax proposal by Democrats, and lambaste it as being a ridiculous idea from a policy standpoint -- but the version of the proposal he's discussing is always inaccurate, and the inaccuracy is such that if he explained the proposal correctly, his criticism of the proposal would be destroyed. The worst part is, he usually has at least one guest on the show who *is* actually an expert and could probably explain away his criticism, if only he could get five words in edgewise without being interrupted and insulted by O'Reilly and the five other rabid guests that are always simultaneously yelling at each other.

Like I said, I don't claim to know everything, but about 10-20% of the time when I watch the show, there are "facts" that he states that I *know* for certain to be incorrect. In my mind, that casts a fair amount of doubt as to whether his "facts" are accurate the other 80-90% of the time.

Anyway -- that's why I don't like O'Reilly, Quast. It's not because of bias; I don't hate *all* conservative pundits, and I don't like all liberal ones (in fact, I'm not even really a liberal...but whatever; we've already covered that in another thread). I don't like him because he's a bad journalist. Period.

I have a couple questions for you now, Quast:

1. You may recall that, in the post you were responding to, I did actually make an argument regarding O'Reilly's memo. In your haste to jump immediately into slamming me for being "biased" and "only seeing the bad in people," you never actually addressed my argument. Since you clearly think I'm wrong, perhaps you would care to show me where my logic has gone astray?

2. More broadly, why does my not liking O'Reilly lead you to make such broad generalizations about me as a person? Were you just looking to pick a fight, or are you an O'Reilly worshipper who felt compelled to jump to his defense?

[mquast53000]

Just wanted to give you and BAC a hard time. I like O’Reilly, but I wouldn’t go to bat for the guy.

Jeez, GL I thought you knew that I try to throw a little trash talking your way once in awhile. You sure are thin skinned for a lawyer.

[SonomaCat]

Just wanted to give you and BAC a hard time. I like O’Reilly, but I wouldn’t go to bat for the guy.

Jeez, GL I thought you knew that I try to throw a little trash talking your way once in awhile. You sure are thin skinned for a lawyer.

Okay ... with that explanation ... we are now even.

[Grizlaw]

Just wanted to give you and BAC a hard time. I like O’Reilly, but I wouldn’t go to bat for the guy.

Jeez, GL I thought you knew that I try to throw a little trash talking your way once in awhile. You sure are thin skinned for a lawyer.

Nah...O'Reilly just brings out the worst in me.

And for future reference -- Emoticons work wonders.

['93HonoluluCat]

Just wanted to give you and BAC a hard time. I like O’Reilly, but I wouldn’t go to bat for the guy.

Jeez, GL I thought you knew that I try to throw a little trash talking your way once in awhile. You sure are thin skinned for a lawyer.

Nah...O'Reilly just brings out the worst in me.

And for future reference -- Emoticons work wonders.

I'll toast to that--says he that often gets his satire misread...

[Hell's Bells]

Just wanted to give you and BAC a hard time. I like O’Reilly, but I wouldn’t go to bat for the guy.

Jeez, GL I thought you knew that I try to throw a little trash talking your way once in awhile. You sure are thin skinned for a lawyer.

Nah...O'Reilly just brings out the worst in me.

And for future reference -- Emoticons work wonders.

note to self: dont talk smack with a lawyer....lol

[iaafan]

It's not surprising that people don't like and are even disgusted with the ACLU. The organization is difficult to understand because of its complexity and the complexity of the issues it undertakes.

I'm glad for BAC and GLaw being on this board as they are very enlightening.

The same can be said of people's views of government and big business.

[Ponycat]

did ya here that fellas, we ain't complex or enlightened...yee haw

[iaafan]

P.C. - Good one. C'mon now, I wasn't saying that. I'm definitely not one that has a thorough understanding about the ACLU, but the more I try to understand some of the things they are doing, I find there's much more to it than meets the eye. Hence the gov't/big business line. They, too, are more complex than the Bill O'Reilly types make them out to be.

[Ponycat]

iaafan, Grizlaw, BAC, and whoever else.

I see the the NYCLU is fighting random searches in subway stations. Curious as to your guys' thoughts on this. Not sure if I disagree with the NYCLU, but is this any different than airport searches?

[SonomaCat]

I was talking about this with my roommate yesterday (yes, I still have a roommate -- it's what happens when you are in your 30s, still single, and live in a place where rent is ungodly expensive), who just got done with an anti-ACLU rant (how timely ).

I don't have a problem with bags being searched for bombs. I think the national security considerations exceed the privacy issue in that regard.

However, I don't think that if during one of these searches done in the name of national security, if a cop finds a bong or some pills or an open beer can, that they should be able to arrest that person. At that point, national security has been used to bust someone for something that should have been protected under their right to privacy.

In other words, I am fine with searches limited exclusively to protecting people from terrorists. I am not fine with the use of searches under the guise of national security to justify searches for non-security crimes. The Patriot Act has already been used a couple times in drug busts, which I also feel is wrong. We shouldn't let our freedoms be infringed upon any more than absolutely necessary, so any creeping power of the police state should be stopped before it picks up further momentum.