Why do right-wingers consider the fight to strengthen civil liberties?

Question

a communist agenda? While those who work to protect those rights are considered anti-American?

which part of this would be communist agenda 1 Fish ??

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

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 - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

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.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

Common Sense, I prefer to think for myself. I don't need some entertainer who denounces everyone who doesn't adhere to his OPINION, as communists, telling me what to think.

harryd, here is a whole bunch of right-wingers doing just what i claimed. Now try to claim my argument is based on false pretense!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071108194532AAUGlnn&show=7

greatrightwingconspiri..., is "right to bear arms" not in the bill of rights?
that would make it a civil liberties would it not?
They are all like supports of a bridge, when one is gone, they are all weaker. While your type keeps crying about one particular right, that is never in leopardy, you attack all others? hmm

Answer 1

Those are the idiot neocons who have no idea what conservatism is anymore,
they are woefully confused,

blame the Bush/Clinton dynasty of thugs.

Answer 2

There is neither the time or space evidence the following but from both an ideological and philosophical view point,conservatives are essentially profoundly un or anti-democratic.

Often conservatives go to great lenghts to point out that the US is NOT a democracy but rather a republic.Conservatives abhor any reality that would see WE,THE PEOPLE in a position of power and control.

In fact of all the western democracies,the US is by far the least democratic (power of the people's elected representatives) .

Conservatism is all about elitism and the rule by elitists for elitists be it by a plutocracy (which in FACT the US is )aristocracy, dictatorship etc.

Always remember that another phrase for conservatism is
"status quo".Conservatives essentially do not want change and they do not want change simply because change threatens their elitist control over governments and society.

Had conservatism been allowed to prevail ,there would still be slavery and Jim Crow and no Civil Rights Act.There would be no Social Security,no Medicare ,no laws/regulations protecting workers and their slaughter in the robber baron's mines and factories.The list is simply endless down through history.

All of this to say that conservatives consider civil rights not of any great importance and such rights certainly cannot be allowed to hinder the conservative elitist plutocrats from usinf and abusing their society as they see fit .

Any google search on polling will show support for the ACLU for example is very high among liberals but correspondingly very low among conservatives.

Conservative denial of humans of their civil rights (or natural rights) is a well documented historical reality almost from recorded time.

Anytime elitist conservatives want to pull the strings on the American puupets,they just have to say three words : GOD PATRIOTISM and COMMUNISM and the majority of inane intellectually and morally crippled Americans will knee jerk the CORRECT conservative reaction.

Conservatives are masters at FEAR MONGERING as if the war/fear mongering Bush and his illegal war all based on filthy LIES was not proof enough .When the neo-conservative Bush pulled the strings of the lemming Americans,the lemmings just jumped of the cliff.

Last term ,the US Supreme Court issued THREE momentous decisions declaring Bush's actions UN-CONSTITUTIONAl , i.e. ILLEGAL and it is expected more of Bush's and Congresses UN-CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS will be struck down.

Americans HAVE ALLOWED the crime against humanity Bush to trash their Bill of Rights and the Constitution THE VERY FRIGGIN THINGS THE US TROOPS ARE SUPPOSEDLY FIGHTING AND DYING FOR.

These vile right-wing /conservatives and their repulsive use and abuse of GOD and Patriotism to demonize and vilify all those who are RIGHTLY USING THE BILL OF RIGHTS to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND DE FACTO THE US can all be described as the famous Samuel Webster stated many years ago:

"PATRIOTISM IS THE LAST REFUGE OF A SCOUNDREL"

Answer 3

If it have been a civil rights situation, it could be civil rights for the guy who's pregnant. there is fairly no reason that some thing unaware that isn't be in a position to survive by ability of itself could have rights that take rights far flung from the individual that's inhabiting. And FYI for anybody who thinks that this might incorporate a infant. a infant does not choose somebody else to help it poop or breath. in case you hand a infant over to a sitter or perhaps to a pair different family individuals, it may no longer die the minute it leaves your palms. that's a criminal offense for a creature or in keeping with threat a individual to apply a human beings blood, organs, or physique without their consent. A fetus makes use of the blood, organs, and physique of the guy who's pregnant with it. It even makes use of the calcium from their bones, and is in one in each of those place that it could replace their hormones. Heck, it may even kill them. there is in simple terms no reason that a fetus desires rights. no longer in easy terms might those rights mean that it particularly is mom might unfastened rights, yet in many cases it could be sure the child could be born right into a unfavourable undertaking the place it may be missed, abused, or perhaps killed.

Answer 4

The easiest answers are:
1. if you follow the money trail you will find that the ACLU is funded by a communist organization.
2. the civil liberties that groups like the ACLU say that they are attempting to protect are hypocritical (the attmpt to protect NAMBLA but do not attempt to protect young boys)
3. When they attempt to protect "civil liberties" of one person or group they have no problem in stomping on others.
There are many more specifics and other examples I can give, but I am just getting frustrated.

Answer 5

Tyrants have always accused their opposition of lack of patriotism.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war...but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a parliament, or a fascist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country"

--Nazi General Hermann Goering

Answer 6

I would get along with the ACLU except for their conspicuous lack of support for the 2nd amendment. All the others are mere scraps of paper, of no concern to tyrants as they have no teeth. Only the 2nd amendment protects the rest.
In the real world, you have no rights except those you are willing to fight and die and kill to protect. Tyrants know this, and the ACLU's peculiar stance on the subject leaves me very suspicious.

Answer 7

Would any liberal patriots like to explain the meaning of the word "unreasonable" found in Amendment IV?

How about the word "except" conspicuiously found in Amendment V?

Or these words found in Article III Section 3 regarding treason; "adhering to their (USA's) enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

I notice the Founders omitted the word "intent" in regards to giving aid and comfort to an enemy, actions alone being reason enough.

If you are acting for the extension of "rights" to enemies of the Constitution, although with "good" intent, provides no protection from charges of treason, if those actions are detrimental to any war effort.

Now, if you care to explain in what ways Bush has violated Amendments IV and V, I'm listening.

Care to explain how some actions taken and words spoken by some are not detrimental to the war effort and do not provide unintentional aid and comfort to the enemy?

Answer 8

Your argument doesn't hold water. The conservatives have always believed in the rights of the individual to pursue success in life. The communist agenda is the backbone of the modern liberal movement and is repulsive to those on the right.

Answer 9

because they are shortsighted. as soon as they lose control of the white house and there is a significant majority of democrats in congress, you can bet faux news will do an expose on the powers the executive branch has usurped over these last 6 years and they will all be biotching and complaining about it.

why do you think they are really afraid of Hilary? because they dread her having the same expanded powers they now trust Bush with.

Answer 10

the right is called that for a reason. Watch Fox News if you want the answer. O'Reilly can explain it better then I can.