Glenn Reynolds lays an egg,
and I just wrote to him about it. His entry from yesterday, saying the ACLU’s Refuse to Surrender Pledge is a good idea, is ridiculous. Apparently a lot of peple agreed with me, because he’s saying “Jeez, a lot of people don’t like the ACLU.”. So this morning he’s come up with a lame justification;
My point, however, was the desirability — no matter who is in power — of defending the Constitution, with a slight tweak at the ACLU for treating the Bush Administration’s threats more harshly than the Clinton Administration’s. The ACLU was actually very critical of Clinton on specific issues, but never took the “barbarians at the gate” approach notwithstanding that Clinton’s record on civil liberties was, if anything, worse than Bush’s.
OF COURSE I REFUSE TO SURRENDER MY CIVIL LIBERTIES TO ANYONE IN POWER! And I sure don’t need the Instapundit or the ACLU for that.
And no, we don’t need the ACLU, which is defending nudist camps for children, and pedophile murderers, while attacking the Boy Scouts of America. As the Wall Street Journal said,
If there’s one thing we’ve learned by now, it’s that the ACLU offensive [against the Scouts] says more about the degraded status of the civil liberties group than it does about the Boy Scouts.
If Prof. Reynolds had done a little research before endorsing the ACLU, he’d noticed that, as Hans Zeiger says,
Our very capacity for self-government is at risk when we allow the ACLU to deny a boy’s opportunity to learn to be, “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”
So much for Reynolds’s “good idea”.
Join me in the Support the Scouts Initiative today. Here’s how you can help:
The Save Our Scouts bill will be reintroduced in the next session of Congress. We need to act now.
And if Glenn Reynolds won’t post this entry in the Instapundit page, so be it.
