www.InformingChristians.com-

 

 


 

                                    Did The ACLU Really Defend Rush Limbaugh?  

I have had a number of emails sent to me that refer to the ACLU supposedly “defending” Rush Limbaugh. I found that there are several places online that speak of such also.

Back in January 2004, the ACLU published the following page, “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:”
Click Here.
 
The title of the above online page looks quite impressive: 

"ACLU Asks Court to Protect Confidentiality of Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records
(1/12/2004)”

At first glance, one may think that the ACLU was working for Rush Limbaugh during his case. Seriously, read the article. The ACLU makes them self out to be Rush’s knight in shining armor. If one did not know better, one may actually be impressed. But some of us know better.

Some of us are well aware of how the ACLU operates. We know that the ACLU purposes them self to get involved in situations that get them attention and make them look “good.”

Many of us were also taught a simple little lesson as children; we were taught to never take candy
from a stranger. Many of us are not fooled by grannies with huge teeth and bulging eyes, either.

Power of Persuasive Thought

Manipulative measures are nothing new. Getting on board a catastrophe to make oneself look good is nothing new. Giving unsolicited “help” to seek indebtedness from another person is nothing new. And we all know that boasting of a “good deed” after the deed is done is nothing new.

I believe that the ACLU has a very clever way of putting things to the general public. They have a way of using the power of persuasive thought.
 
Check out this article that I found on “persuasive thought” that tells how to win people over to one’s way of thinking:
Click Here

Some highlights:

"Demonstrate your sense of fair play."

"Speak expressly in terms of the truth of what happened and the fair and just resolution of the dispute. By speaking of truth and fairness as shared values, you reinforce in your listener's mind your own adherence to these values."

"Be honest. For purposes of persuasion, it is the perception of integrity that matters. It is possible to create that perception without a basis in fact, but doing so is much harder and more uncertain."

One thing I notice that the ACLU does is that they often take something that they have done and
make it sound good when it was bad. In the same way, they take an action by them of little or no
worth and make it sound of great worth.

Thought Inuendoes

It is the way in which they present it to the public. For instance, some of you may recall a
documentary on the ACLU site. The documentary paints the founder of the ACLU as some kind of hero for refusing to defend our nation in WWI. The ACLU, by way of innuendo over-tones, portrays Roger Baldwin as a hero. (
Click Here)

If I tell you something bad, but I tell you it in a good way, you will think that which is bad, is good.

And if I boast of my actions in a situation, which were really nothing great, but I word things to make my actions sound great, you will think I did something great.

People have a natural tendency to just believe, that which is said with a positive innuendo over-tone, often never checking things out.

Friend-of-the-court brief

The following is an excerpt from the (1/12/2004) ACLU write-up of what they “did” for Rush Limbaugh:

“The ACLU's request to submit a ‘friend-of-the-court’ brief on behalf of Limbaugh was filed today with the Fourth District Court of Appeal.”

On the surface this looks like the ACLU was part of the case. But when one seeks answers, as to just what a “’friend-of-the-court’ brief” actually is; one will find the following:
 
Amicus curić
Amicus curi'span (Latin for friend of the court; plural amici curi'span>) briefs are legal documents filed by non-litigants in appellate court cases, which include additional information or arguments that those outside parties wish to have considered in that particular case. (
www.reference.com)

Conclusion

Someone, who is not party to a case, files a "friend-of-the-court" brief. In other words, the ACLU was not directly involved in Rush Limbaugh's case. The ACLU was an outside party.

Some people would see the ACLU going to bat for Rush Limbaugh in any way as a kind and fair act. But what those people may not realize is that such an act is actually quite a strategic move. It is like letting someone take your castle in the game of chess because you know such a move will set you up to get his queen.

Also, such an effortless tossing of crumbs on the part of the ACLU tends to gain support from onlookers, hence, getting more people into the ACLU corner.

One last thought: There is an interesting thing about the game of chess. There is no rule saying that a player has to take his opponents piece.

Debra J.M. Smith
© Copyright 2006  July 9, 2006

Home



© Debra J.M. Smith