Jay at Stop the ACLU makes a compelling case that the ACLU should lose its tax exempt status.
The ACLU proudly claims that they are "wholly non-partisan." It portrays itself as an objective organization that is "neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat." They say instead that they are "a public interest organization devoted exclusively to protecting the basic civil liberties of all Americans." However, while the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church's tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Wiccans. They went and got a tax administrator to rule that a coven of witches were entitled the same tax-exemption as churches had.Read it all and watch the video.Does this sound like the position of a "nonpartisan" group? Does it sound like the position of a group that should be tax exempt? What happened to opposing tax exemptions on all religious bodies? Pick your policy. Either oppose it for all, or fight to expand it to all. You can't claim non-partisanship while opposing it for one religious body and fighting to expand it to others.
Now imagine if an organization claiming to be non-partisan used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. What if this organization used its funds to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain "American values" as interpreted by that organization?
We don't have to imagine, the ACLU's hypocrisy shows us. It also has once again brought it into internal division as one local branch thinks it crossed the line. The Political Pit Bull has video of this being talked about on O'Reilly.




Comments (17)
Hypocritical and inconsiste... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Brian | October 12, 2006 3:13 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hypocritical and inconsistent, yes. But how is this politically partisan? Are they advocating for political candidates (as the Catholic Church does)? I don't even know... are Wiccans Democrats or Republicans?
1. Posted by Brian | October 12, 2006 3:13 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 03:13
2. Posted by Hugh | October 12, 2006 7:36 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Republicans of the wingnut strain
2. Posted by Hugh | October 12, 2006 7:36 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 07:36
3. Posted by Jay | October 12, 2006 7:51 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Brian, go read the entire post from the link before commenting. Yes, they are creating commericals against certain candidates.
3. Posted by Jay | October 12, 2006 7:51 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 07:51
4. Posted by jhow66 | October 12, 2006 9:48 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hughie who started the ACLU?------A COMMIE!
4. Posted by jhow66 | October 12, 2006 9:48 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 09:48
5. Posted by Hugh | October 12, 2006 9:54 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
As usual JHow you display your utter and absolute ignorance. That said, loons like you should bow down and kiss his spiritual ass for the gift he left America.
5. Posted by Hugh | October 12, 2006 9:54 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 09:54
6. Posted by 914 | October 12, 2006 10:01 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yes jhow66 Its founders are commies and anti semite's. Not only that, They got their hands into the pockets of taxpayers to pay for their ridiculous lawsuits. John Edwards has nothing on these pimps!
6. Posted by 914 | October 12, 2006 10:01 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 10:01
7. Posted by jhow66 | October 12, 2006 10:07 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hey "hughie" look who calling who dumb? By you standing up for the ACLU shows your support for those that want to undermine the USA. You lowlife piece of dogshit commie loving coward. Stick that up your ass(the one under your nose-that is if you can keep it out of our enemies ass long enough). Bring it on you leftwing wacko moonbat.
7. Posted by jhow66 | October 12, 2006 10:07 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 10:07
8. Posted by The Listkeeper | October 12, 2006 10:13 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm failing to see how the comparison of actions between the Catholics and Wiccans indicates partisanship.
Now, if you wanted to compare the ACLU's actions against the Catholics and their lack of action against the many other churches that have gotten away with political action, that's a different matter.
8. Posted by The Listkeeper | October 12, 2006 10:13 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 10:13
9. Posted by jp2 | October 12, 2006 11:08 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"The ACLU proudly claims that they are "wholly non-partisan."
Didn't they defend Rush Limbaugh? That's about as clear-cut as you can get.
I always look at it this way - if your civil liberties are being violated, you can rely on them 100% of the time to defend you. I cherish that.
9. Posted by jp2 | October 12, 2006 11:08 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 11:08
10. Posted by Sheik Yur Bouty | October 12, 2006 11:21 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
jp2,
So, the Boy Scouts weren't having their civil liberties violated? Only the gays were?
That's funny, freedom of association is actually IN the contstitution. Where in the constitution do gays have the right to force themselves in organizations that don't want them?
Tell me again how they are non-partisan. I love a good fantasy.
10. Posted by Sheik Yur Bouty | October 12, 2006 11:21 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 11:21
11. Posted by scsiwuzzy | October 12, 2006 11:22 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I dunno. I thin defending Limbaugh indicates more of a consistent stance on defending drug users than a lack of partisanship. That is, they are partisan in positions they take, not nesc in the persons they interact with.
If it advances their agenda, they will gladly defend, support or be supported by just about anyone, regardless of the person's affiliations.
11. Posted by scsiwuzzy | October 12, 2006 11:22 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 11:22
12. Posted by Brian | October 12, 2006 11:43 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yes, they are creating commericals against certain candidates.
You're right, didn't see that. That's bad.
12. Posted by Brian | October 12, 2006 11:43 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 11:43
13. Posted by suhnamis | October 12, 2006 12:31 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The ACLU always seems to want it all ways to their favor. Sounds like politics to me. Didn't Dennis Miller say the ACLU needs an A CLU-E
13. Posted by suhnamis | October 12, 2006 12:31 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 12:31
14. Posted by Scrapiron | October 12, 2006 12:44 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Having applied for and had approved 501-C tax exemptions it is a fact the ACLU has violated every rule. Th ACLU and several other national organizations should have lost their exemptions long ago. Government employees are either members of the organizations and are breaking the law themselves or they are scared of the organizations. Some the government just snicker at their stupidity, and others like the NAACP are protected simply because the government fears being called racists. Enforcing the laws equal is not racist, so enforce them or eleminate the laws.
14. Posted by Scrapiron | October 12, 2006 12:44 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 12:44
15. Posted by spurwing plover | October 12, 2006 4:00 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Time to revoke the ACLUs tax exempt status and have this leftist group investigated
15. Posted by spurwing plover | October 12, 2006 4:00 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 12, 2006 16:00
16. Posted by MikeSC | October 13, 2006 2:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
As usual JHow you display your utter and absolute ignorance.
jHow might have crap insults (nothing personal, but you got to them go, jhow. Truly terrible ones) --- but he's correct. The founder of the ACLU was a Communist.
-=Mike
16. Posted by MikeSC | October 13, 2006 2:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 13, 2006 14:46
17. Posted by Russell | December 29, 2006 4:22 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I fail to see why the ACLU should retain any 501 tax-exempt status. Nor do I understand why it receives funding from the government. The ACLU seems to pick whom they defend based on which law violation they were charged with. Translation: they seek to exploit the new pattern of legal precedence created from the bench rather than from congress or the senate.
17. Posted by Russell | December 29, 2006 4:22 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2006 16:22