ACLU is now making government policy?

In most cases, they don’t have any real stake in what they claim is affecting them. They’re individuals who band together to force their views on others. They don’t own any property or run any business having anything to do with their gripe. These stakeholders say they represent a majority of people who do. They are lobbyists who represent themselves and a few victimized, pompous or unwitting souls paraded as window dressing. This is the basis of groups like the ACLU (whose name speaks for their stakeholders’ identity – unionized bullies) that either create a legal dispute or drop themselves into the middle of one, thumping their chests as champions for the ill-used and disadvantaged. But that’s not the case. The poor individuals or factions they represent are pawns of the stakeholder organization that inserts itself where it doesn’t belong by using the hard luck narrative to change the world in the stakeholders’ image. And it’s not a pleasant one. The vision of the ACLU and other progressive representatives of the oppressed (though most of their clients aren’t) is to divide this nation to the point of dissolution, leaving power up for grabs by self-serving do-gooders. Bitterness isn’t behind this outing of the stakeholder scam. It is an effort to unmask the decades-old deception of organizations that bank on caring for the less fortunate. They do not serve justice as do other advocate organizations that work to retain the Constitution, not change it. (The difference between civil and constitutional rights is an aspect of this argument that is too lengthy to be discussed here.) With the complicity of federal judges, who pretend to know better than the people of this nation who legitimately voted in their representatives and president, these non-stakeholding stakeholders are vested with power to decide and implement government policy?

This is exactly the case in California where repeat offender Judge Dana Sabraw issued an order that the ACLU collaborate with the Administration to resolve the problem of reconciling children with already deported parents. Can’t say their children as in some cases legal guardianship hasn’t been confirmed. The asylum dispute has become a free-for-all for human traffickers, a crisis that has been wholly disregarded by the ACLU and activist judges such as Sabraw. At issue are adults who have been deported according to law, law that Sabraw doesn’t like and is trying to overrule. Yet this judge decides that a group of stakeholders (which they aren’t) should have the same authority as duly appointed or elected government officials to decide their fate? By no stretch of the imagination is this proper or needful. If the parents, and I’m forced to use the term loosely, have been deported according to law that President Trump did not create or enact, and the ACLU is worried about the separated children, then indeed they should be reunified – but not in the United States. Logically, if these are families that have been separated by the parents’ ill-advised lawbreaking, they should be reunited back where they came from, not rewarded for crashing the border by bringing the adults back to the United States. The US government, i.e. taxpayer, is not the foster parent for these children or the welfare agent for criminals otherwise known as illegal aliens. Neither the ACLU or any other advocacy organization has the power to implement government policy. That is solely the jurisdiction of the administrative agencies placed in office by an elected president and Congressional approval no matter what dissenting judges or those who fancy themselves “the Resistance” think. Note: To better understand how stakeholders have infiltrated economic and governmental policies, Paul K. Driessen’s book, Eco-Imperialism – Green Power. Black Death., is a must read.