State Department Withdraws Anti-Terror Ad After Pressure From ACLU, CAIR, SEIU, Others

    The State Department yielded to pressure from a coalition of Seattle and Washington State politicians, community groups, and advocacy organizations and agreed to withdraw at least one ad in the department's Metro bus ad campaign in Seattle promoting the “Rewards for Justice” campaign. The program pays rewards to individuals who provides leads about the location of wanted terrorists.
    Congressman Jim McDermott, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, and King County Councilmember Rod Dembowski joined forces with others in the community, as well as organizations like the ACLU and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), to raise concerns about the ads.  Mayor McGinn reported at least some success in their efforts [emphasis added]:

[Arsalan] Bukhari [of the Council on American-Islamic Relations] worked with the ACLU of Washington State to convene a meeting that included Magdaleno Rose-Avila and Sahar Fathi of our Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs. After a productive meeting, the lead investigator for the State Department’s “Rewards for Justice” program, Tim Corso, acknowledged our concerns with the ad that featured the language “Global Faces of Terrorism” along with photos of men from the Philippines, Somalia, Russia, Sudan and Algeria. He has agreed to take down this particular ad and to work with community advocates in doing outreach in Seattle going forward.

    Mayor McGinn expressed optimism that Seattle's opposition would make a difference elsewhere as "Seattle is the first city to receive these ads and the recommendations provided by the community will drive how the program is implemented in other cities across the country."  In addition to the ACLU and CAIR, the mayor credited a long list of organizations who participated in the efforts which also included the Service Employees International Union:

This was made possible through the collaborative work by the many community advocates who came together on this issue: in particular (and in no specific order), the American Civil Liberties Union – Washington, Council on American-Islamic Relations (Washington Chapter), Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, Office of King County Councilmember Rod Dembowski, Office of Congressman Jim McDermott,  Minority Executive Directors Coalition, Mothers for Police Accountability, the Seattle Human Rights Commission, Consejo Counseling and Referral Service, SEIU Healthcare 775NW, Asian Counseling and Referral Service, the Northwest Washington Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Faith Action Network (Seattle).

Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard. 

The ACLU's Versatile First Amendment

    The ACLU has long been the target of critics who claim that, with a few exceptions, the organization is far more concerned with liberalism than liberties, its name notwithstanding. Two recent posts on the ACLU website will bolster the arguments of the critics, of whom I count myself one.   On April 3, 2013, the ACLU weighed in on a case currently before the Supreme Court:

Yesterday, we filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court in a case called United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, opposing the so-called "Anti-Prostitution Pledge." The Pledge is a requirement that public health organizations who wish government funding for their work combatting AIDS and other diseases make a formal statement "opposing prostitution." 

The Pledge puts organizations in a quandary: On one hand, they can take the government's money and say something they might not really believe, have no opinion about, or see as a complex social issue irreducible to anything as simpleminded as "opposing prostitution." On the other hand, they can take a principled stand against the Pledge, forfeiting a share of billions of dollars in government aid that they could otherwise put to good use curbing disease and relieving human suffering. 

As we argued to the Supreme Court, the Constitution forbids the government from engaging in such moral compulsion. The First Amendment is, at its core, a shield against government intrusions into belief. When the government attempts to compel adherence to its view on any issue, it invades our very minds.... 

... the Supreme Court has made it clear that – whatever else the government may do – it may not dictate personal thoughts or beliefs. Any attempt to do so does violence to human dignity and distorts public debate.

    A conservative, especially a religious one, might be inclined to Amen the characterization of the First Amendment as "a shield against government intrusions into belief." The ACLU, however, finds that shield to have limited application on the judicial battlefield.  Contrast the stirring defense of "personal thoughts or beliefs" with the position the ACLU takes on the "contraceptive mandate" that is part of the Affordable Care Act:

[T]he ACLU and the ACLU of Illinois filed a friend-of-the-court brief in two additional appeals challenging the Affordable Care Act's ("ACA") contraceptive coverage rule... 

The contraceptive rule, which requires health plans to include coverage for contraceptive care without a co-pay or deductible, ensures that millions of women will have access to affordable birth control, and represents one of the greatest advancements for women's health in decades. Ignoring this fact and the fact that the contraceptive rule is constitutional, the companies and their owners argue that providing health insurance coverage for contraception to their collective 1,168 employees imposes a "substantial burden" on their religious exercise. We strongly disagree... 

As we noted in the brief, the contraceptive rule does not compel or coerce employers to use or purchase contraception themselves. The rule simply requires employers to provide their employees with a comprehensive health plan.

    The ACLU has taken a constitutional stance that allows no conditions to be imposed on an organization receiving taxpayer money, yet permits the government to coerce an organization to spend its own money in violation of its beliefs.  The values and priorities of the ACLU have created this ludicrous pairing of positions that would be comical if the stakes were not so high.  The First Amendment "shield" is not strictly a defensive weapon for the ACLU, but, depending on the objective, can be used as a bludgeon as well.

ACLU: "All Too Many Parents Physically Abuse Their LGBT Children"

    Last week, a Tennessee state senator introduced a bill in the General Assembly called the "Classroom Protection Act." A similar bill introduced last year did not pass. The legislation seeks to prohibit human sexuality classroom instruction for kindergarden through eighth grade from including topics "inconsistent with natural human reproduction." However, the provisions requiring parental notification of certain counseling situations are attracting particularly virulent opposition. The provisions in question state that:

"Parents or legal guardians of students" [who receive counseling for] "engaging in, or who may be at risk of engaging in, behavior injurious to the physical or mental health and wellbeing of the student or another person"... "shall be notified as soon as practicable that such counseling has occurred." 

    And:

"Parents or legal guardians of such students shall be notified as soon as practicable of the circumstances requiring intervention" [for] "a student whose circumstances present immediate and urgent safety issues involving human sexuality."

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) responded to this proposed legislation with an entry on its national blog entitled "Bill Would Threaten Free Speech and Place LGBT Students at Risk." The ACLU contends that the legislation "places LGBT students at risk and limits teachers' and counselors' free speech." Referring to the bill as the "Don’t Say Gay" bill, the ACLU also suggests the bill is discriminatory and will hamper anti-bullying efforts.

    However, the main targets of the ACLU are the very parents of the kindergarten through eighth grade students whose rights this bill seeks to protect. Executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee, Hedy Weinberg, unleashed this torrent of vitriol:

[I]t’s inexcusable to make counseling professionals out LGBT or questioning young people to family members, when all too many parents physically abuse their LGBT children, force them into quack 'reparative therapy' programs, or kick them out of their homes. This disgraceful bill pays lip service to student safety, but in reality it puts vulnerable young people at terrible risk."

    In the eyes of the ACLU, parents are a "terrible risk" to their own vulnerable children. The attitude here is similar to the one used to attack parental notification for minors seeking abortions. Parents are assumed to be the last ones qualified and apparently the least emotionally capable of dealing with the sexual questions and confusion of their own offspring. This is the nanny state at its worst, and not even the built-in protections in the legislation have assuaged the ACLU's fear of parentally wreaked carnage.  The bill explicitly states that:

[N]otice shall not be given to any parent or legal guardian if there is reasonable cause to believe that the parent or legal guardian may be the perpetrator or in any way responsible for sexual abuse of the student.

    The ACLU is not even bothering to mask its hostility to parents. That organization's assumption is that abuse by parents ("all too many parents") is the rule rather than the exception. The rights of parents are not even in the same league as the rights of the state to hide personal details of the children in its charge. The ACLU's opposition to this proposed law is a preemptive strike against the family, and it needs to be exposed for the subversive organization it has become.