Zoya bewildered by ACLU Survey…Please Help

| August 10, 2017 | 109 Comments

As many of you know, I sleep next to a formerly Cold Hearted Soviet who is now a Red Blooded American.   She is such a lucky gal.

It seems the ACLU is targeting those who have recently become U.S. Citizens with their rendition of a “Survey”.   I did my best to explain to her, in an objective manner, what the mission of the ACLU is supposed to be.  Spending her early years behind the Iron Curtain, she is now wanting to fulfill her obligations as an American citizen.

Anything related to supporting Civil Liberties seemed to be a good idea.  She is having difficulty understanding what exactly the ACLU is trying to accomplish with this survey.  I think she has some notion that the ACLU is launching a full scale attack on The President of the United States.

I tried to assure her that the ACLU would never do such a thing.  After all, Civil Liberties should be protected by all Americans.  She still does not believe me and insists this ACLU group is some kind of thing conjured up by likes of Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev.   Ever since she did her own conversion of 9 inches from the metric system,  she is convinced I embellish things.

I told her that there would be no better place to get objective analysis done on this survey than right here at TAH.  Please take a minute to read the Survey and Letter sent to her and help me explain how it is only intended to strengthen our Civil Liberties and should not be seen as a direct attack on our President.  Maybe a few suggestions on how to answer some of the questions would be helpful.

Just in case some of you would like to help support the American Civil Liberties Union you will find the ability to do so at THIS LINK.  No, seriously…you need to check out the link.  God Bless America.

Category: Politics

Comments (109)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Sapper3307 says:

    DAt RAzist!

  2. Hondo says:

    DH: if that “survey” came in a prepaid return envelope, what I’d do if I received that would be:

    (1) mark the membership application “No thanks – take me off your mailing list”;
    (2) fold up the letter and application;
    (3) stuff the folded letter/application in the prepaid envelope; and
    (4) mail it back to them.

    I’d mark it “No thanks – take me off your mailing list” because I don’t know how to write the phrase “Yob t’voyu mat” in Cyrillic script.

    By the way: you’re a lucky man. If she’s already talking about the ACLU and Khrushchev in the same breath, your ex-Soviet is not only lovely. She’s also perceptive and intelligent.

  3. AZtoVA says:

    “how it is only intended to strengthen our Civil Liberties”? Yeah, I got nothing.

  4. Arby says:

    Wow. Talk about blatant leading questions. No semblance of neutrality there…

  5. Redacted1775 says:

    The ACLU names the Trump administration and describes, in detail, actions and antics of your not so friendly, less than neighborly antifa pukes. Every question is loaded. Promptly deposit in the circulatory file.

  6. Ex-PH2 says:

    I’m as concerned as Zoya is.

    I’m having trouble reading it, because when I try to enlarge it, it blows up in my face.

    It is full of angst-ridden, fear-inducing phraseology specifically parsed to scare the beejesus out of the uninformed or those not too good at spikkin’ da Eenglase.

    I would return it unanswered with a polite note, something along the lines of “I find your rhetoric to be incendiary to an extreme degree, aimed at frightening the naive, the newly-enfranchised, the tired, the poor, the beleaguered yearning to be free of hyperbolic, money-grubbing desk jockeys like you. Please put me on your hated people list, and stop bothering me.”

    Is that a sufficient response? Or should I bump it up a bit? Could I take their survey, revamp and revise it, send it out in broadcast mail and ask people to send me a check for $1.00 by return mail?

    Durnburnit! Now my mouse is fighting with me.

  7. 3E9 says:

    As a SC resident I’m touched they are so concerned about my home state. Idiots

    • David says:

      sort of like Kris Kristofferson’s response to “said that I’d be leaving town if I knew what was good for me. I said it was nice to know that everyone was so concerned about my health”

  8. bg2 says:

    “I believe that Number 2 is particularly important, although I do have concerns that not enough diversity is evident in media coverage of ACLU-promoted activism. I suggest that future rallies/events make sure to tap into the full spectrum of our people…for instance, why not feature several women wearing niqab among the protestors? Place them front and center to dispel, once and for all, the notion that Muslim women are treated as second-class by their husbands. I’d also suggest sprinkling the crowd not only with “gay people,” but gays who attend as couples. Place pairs front and center also, to make sure the nation understands that we are not homophobic/sexist/racist bigots like the Trumpers. And while the level of emotion demonstrated in past rallies has been adequate, today’s greater threat requires _even more_ anger! Even more defiance! Even more raised fists (in unison) in time with simple, rhythmic refrains…or chants.” (/sarc)

  9. Graybeard says:

    That is too much for me to try to read while on the clock, and my off-the-clock time is too valuable.

    Suffice it to say that I believe that Zoya, like many naturalized Americans, has a clearer picture of the functioning of the ACLU than any welfare queen – male or female.

  10. Old Arty Sgt says:

    Just another fine way to steal your money.. I get stuff from AARP and AAA to answer questions and then they want a donation to help improve their bottom line. Just send it back like Hondo says.. They don’t listen to what you say anyway.. They just want you to send your money.

  11. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    For the questions aren’t all that relevant to most of my concerns when it comes our personal freedoms. I would choose “Not Concerned At All” under most of it.

    I find it interesting that Obama actually had journalists locked up while the ACLU put their thumb up their collective asses and did nothing.

    I’m not anti-ACLU, I believe they should be looking to strike down large components of the Patriot Act and to demilitarize our police. Ending the drug war would go a long way towards fixing that. My concerns have always been infringements on the amendments themselves and for the ACLU to create a question that asks if they work to keep Trump and company on point with the constitution is a great question, too bad they didn’t worry about that regardless of which party is in office.

    The first, the second, and the fourth are important amendments, seizure and forfeiture laws should be abolished and vigorously attacked wherever they exist as far too often those laws are applied without any due process.

    In addition to being a godless heathen I lean more towards libertarian when it comes to personal freedoms, even though fiscally I tend to lean conservative because the best form of government is a small relatively powerless government when it comes to controlling its own citizens.

    The ACLU occasionally remembers that they are the protectors of privacy, the Limbaugh case over health records comes to mind. Their defense of that fat, drug addicted shit bag was masterful and welcome. I wish they would pursue with equal vigor the concerns I’ve listed above.

    I will support their efforts and make my concerns known as I’ve always done.

    Many consider the ACLU to be a pain in the ass or to politically motivated, but they still sometimes get shit right. It’s up to us to direct that mission.

    So the short answer? Tell the new citizen she should answer however the hell she likes because this is America and each of us should get to do pretty much whatever the fuck we like as long as we don’t infringe on the personal or property rights of others.

    Too many of our fellow Americans these days not only have no fucking clue what freedom is they couldn’t recognize freedom if she sat on their faces and wiggled for an hour.

  12. CCO says:

    I should be praying that Congress defunds Planned Parenthood!

  13. George V says:

    I get this kind of fundraiser crap from the Republican Party (or is that the “So-called Republican Party”. Something like:
    1) Do you think Democrats suck?
    2) Do you want to repeal the Democrats crap (Hah! Like I believe that any more!)
    3) Will you send a $50 donation unless you’d rather send $100 or more?

    Such is the price of living in a society free-er than most. But not to worry, in another 10 years we won’t have to worry about getting such mailings from the Repubs as it will be illegal for them due to special rules governing certain political speech. But ACLU and others will probably make up for it.

  14. Jonn Lilyea says:

    You’d better warn her about the AARP mailings, too, though she probably has a few more years before she starts getting those.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      AARP mailings start when you’re 30. Endless mailings arrive, just in case you die before they can collect membership money from you, but no discounts are available for anything until you’re senile or close to it.

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      I got the AARP mailing to stop… every time I got one with a SASE in it, I sent it back with the words F… YOU written in big, bold letters on the form.

      After the third one, the mail outs stopped.

  15. timactual says:

    Typical political fundraising letter. I used to get them all the time. In my former naivete, I even used to conscientiously fill out the surveys and add comments.

    I think including the surveys and the boilerplate hysteria allows them to write the letters off as education and communication rather than fundraising expenses.

    • MSG Eric says:

      The difference is, the ACLU claims to be ‘non-partisan’ and only be interested in the truth and civil liberties. Also a somewhat significant lobbying organization, spending about a million a year lobbying.

      The same organization who supported the rights of NAMBLA to exist.

  16. Daisy Cutter says:

    Some of these are not really questions – they are statements framed as questions.

    A lawyer would say that they “assume facts not in evidence.”

    Unethical “pollsters” would then be allow to take the results and say “according to our poll, over 90% of new citizens are appalled that … yadda, yadda, yadda.”

    As well, new citizens would tend to be timid, and not want to rock the apple cart.

  17. SFC D says:

    I have far more concerns about the ACLU stripping away my rights than I have about Trump doing the same.

  18. Commissioner Wretched says:

    You get to wake up every morning next to that beautiful woman … and you’re worried about the ACLU? 😉 Dave, all I can say is, Ты счастливый ублюдок. (I machine-translated that; my Russian is very rusty.)

    I like the original suggestion of marking it “No thanks, take me off your mailing list,” and using their postage-paid return envelope. But stuff the envelope full of all the junk mail you can find that will fit, first. They end up paying more for it.

  19. Perry Gaskill says:

    It’s not a survey. It’s targeted direct mail marketing. The questions are the pitch.

    Trying to collect donations with a phony survey makes it that much harder for others trying to do legitimate research. It speaks to a lack of ethics the ACLU is willing to use to push an agenda.

    My view is to trash it. If you indicate response, even with hostility, it just confirms they have a valid mailing address that can be used again, or sold to somebody else.

    • Nicki says:

      I was JUST about to say that. It’s a direct mail marketing letter and the survey is an involvement device. LOL

    • Hondo says:

      They’re going to sell the address anyway, PG – and they don’t need your response to know if the address is valid. They can check that (less name) via the USPS website. And if they’re “trolling for dollars”, they don’t much care if the name is correct.

      It’s also been my experience that simply not replying to junk mail doesn’t guarantee you won’t get more of the same, either. How long does TV Guide or Reader’s Digest send breathless “renewal appeals” to people who let their subscriptions expire? How many repeated charity appeals do you get from charities to whom you never send a dime? Hell, I get probably 6+ a year from USO alone – and they get precisely one donation annually from me. The rest of their appeals get trashed.

      They’ll definitely sell the address to others if you send them $$$. I’ve known folks who sent a small donation to one charity, and a few months later were getting several appeals – all from different causes – weekly if not daily. ID yourself as an “easy mark” to some so-called “charities” by donating any amount, and you’ll get buried in paper from folks you’ve never heard of. That’s a particular problem for those older folks who are on a fixed budget and may be beginning to “lose it” a bit mentally; financially, they can get “nibbled half to death by ducks”.

      However, if you send them their stuff back marked “Take Me Off Your List”, it’s my experience that you get far less of that. My conjecture is that they flag the address as a “don’t bother”. Whether they sell it or not I can’t say – but I’m guessing they either don’t or sell it flagged as a “don’t bother”. That’s particularly true if they send you a prepaid return reply envelope – because that effectively doubles their cost to solicit.

      Junk mail has a different economic model than spam email. Spam email is effectively free to the sender, so it’s to their advantage to blast it to as many recipients as they can. If even 1 in 10,000 responds, they’ll probably make money.

      In contrast, sending a junk mail ad or appeal via USPS costs the sender somewhere around a quarter – plus the cost of printing, envelopes, etc . . . . So they’re not going to be that willing to send to addresses that they don’t know are “good prospects”. If they send you a prepaid return reply envelope, then a reply costs them about double that – they have to pay to receive your reply, plus pay to have someone open it, read it, act on it, throw it away, and haul off the trash.

      Make it more costly for them, and you’ll get less of the stuff. That’s my theory, and it seems to work for me.

      Finally, none of this may matter all that much. I’ve moved a couple of times in the last decade. Each time I did, I started getting junk mail – addressed to me by name – fairly quickly at my new address. I’m convinced that they got my new address from one of two sources: the DMV, or the USPS themselves. The USPS gets a good deal of revenue from direct mail, so it stands to reason that they’d be very interested in selling known good addresses to advertisers.

      Just my $0.02 worth; YMMV.

      • Graybeard says:

        FWYW, I still receive junk mail for my deceased father’s business – which quit operating 15 years ago.

        What I have found is that one of those interwebz sites that lists businesses in an area got my address when I sold Dad’s house and had the mail to our surname forwarded to me. People have cold-called me to pitch a sale to his business based on those websites.

        When the caller asks for him by name, I know exactly what they’ve done – and can be as rude as I feel that day cause they’re cheep no-accounts anyway. The junkmail goes right into File 13.

        The folks who developed the algorithms to trace folks are not able to program (yet) for all the variables – and we routinely are able to screen them out by the mistakes they make.

      • nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

        Concerning organizations selling our personal info…

        A few years back the wife and I responded to some forgettable org and intentionally spelled her name wrong just to see what would happen.

        10 years and three address changes later and she still gets a ton of crap mail from groups that spell her name wrong.

  20. The Other Whitey says:

    Zoya seems to be a very perceptive and intelligent woman, Dave. I think she might be on to something.

    When me and my wife first started dating, politics came up despite my best efforts to avoid it. I told her why I didn’t like Obama or his policies. She said, “Wow, you sound just like my Dad, only in English!”

    I reminded her that A) her Dad is a very smart man, and B) he’s seen firsthand what happens when socialists get their way, and it wasn’t pretty.

    • Poetrooper says:

      “Zoya seems to be a very perceptive and intelligent woman, Dave.”

      Well, except in math, where Hardin, typical Jarhead that he is, has her believing “THAT” converts from metric to nine inches.

  21. just some feller says:

    Dayummmm … she’s BEAUTIFUL!

    Oh …. what was the question?


  22. Texas Nomad says:

    I wake up next to an ex-Muslims from Oman every morning, and am glad the ACLU wouldn’t care about any of that before filing a lawsuit if her rights were abridged.

    To that end, they serve a purpose in society of challenging government power. There is plenty of room to disagree with how they allocate their resources and chose to market themselves for the purpose of soliciting donations. But they’re pretty consistent – skimming the comments, I think many people would benefit from googling “ACLU sues Obama administration” if you think they’re overlooking something.

    They’re unabashedly liberal and I think disproportionately expend resources on cases which would be high profile among their donors. They’re a non-profit, but its the same mentality many non-profits have – keep your donors happy. I can’t fault the organizational mentality, but it also means I won’t be among their donors.

    I have a similar frustration with other organizations which provide a unique service, but allocate their resources to target a certain demographic for financial support. AARP is a mentioned example.

    Personally, Amnesty International is one of the few organizations that will document and report aggressively on human rights abuses by countries that would never make it in the news (like my wife’s native Oman). But they also have 7x the amount of staff committed to documenting every rash on terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Its unfortunate, but that is what gets donations.

    So feel free to let Zoya think the ACLU is the enemy. Someone else will donate to ensure if she ever needs the ACLU they will still be there. Perhaps there are advocacy agencies she could get more passionate about.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      I take it you’re a supporter of the American Communist Litigation Union.

      • Texas Nomad says:

        “I can’t fault the organizational mentality, but it also means I won’t be among their donors.”

        Thanks for reading. I recognize their virtues, and their flaws. I only support veterans orgs.

        • Fyrfighter says:

          I take similar position with the Humane Society.
          If they focused their efforts on true animal welfare / cruelty issues, I’d support them whole heartedly.
          The problem is (in addition to how inefficient they are) is that due to their strong left lean, they but a large percentage of their efforts to anti-hunting/ anti-ammo efforts, which is a flat out no-go at my house.

          • David says:

            Depends on which one. Humane Society of the US operates no shelters and is strictly a fund-grabbing group which bankrolls anti-gun and anti-hunting activities. The American Humane Society, while still leftist, is far more palatable and actually does good things for animals’ benefit. Per the wife who is heavily into that sort of thing.

    • Hondo says:

      Ah, yes – that “wonderful” organization called the ACLU. Among its ten founders, we have:

      – 2 committed and overt Communists (In one case, the individual did reform – at least somewhat – after learning about just how bad Stalin’s regime had become. The other never did, later becoming the Chairperson for the CPUSA, and died in the USSR during a 1964 visit – where they were given a state funeral.)

      – 4 committed Pacifists and an “antimilitarist” – which appears essentially to be a “Pacifist-lite”.

      – Lawyers who helped represent anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti.

      – The lawyer who was hired by the Dominican Republic’s Trujillo regime to “investigate” the disappearance of Trujillo critic Jesús Galíndez in NYC in 1956 – widely believed to have been effected by Trujillo’s operatives. His “investigation” cleared the Trujillo regime of involvement in Galíndez’s disappearance, and was at the time widely believed to be fraudulent and a whitewash.

      Sorry, but I have a hard time admiring any organization whose founders have such a history regarding their political philosophy and actions in support of same.

      Regarding their occasionally beneficial actions, as I noted in an earlier comment: a stopped clock is correct twice daily.

      • Texas Nomad says:

        I wouldn’t expect a zealous advocacy organization like the ACLU to be widely beloved than the NRA. But to me they represent the canary in the coalmine of repression. A lawful and free society should produce professional dissidents who can successfully avail themselves to courts to limit the power of government.

        The ACLU is perhaps not the best example, but certainly aggressively court controversy. Perhaps a more successful example of that is Judicial Watch, which is widely derided on the left but serves a similar function.

        • Hondo says:

          I could buy that – if the ACLU were indeed ideologically neutral. But left-bias was built into the organization at birth, and it has never wavered in its direction.

          Political neutrality is anathema to the ACLU – it’s “leftward or bust”. The way the survey above is written is proof positive of that.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Hondo, I despise Sacco and Vanzetti just as much as you do, but they did have a right to a fair trial and representation, didn’t they? If not, why? Just because you and I detest them? The whole point to our legal system is to NOT put people in jail or execute them just because we can. Must I bring up Jon Burge, THE most corrupt Chicago cop EVER? http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jon-burge-ex-chicago-cop-who-ran-torture-ring-released-prison
        He was no better than any of Peron’s or Pinochet’s thugs, and certainly no better than Saddam Hussein or Qaddafi or Pol Pot. Despots exist at all levels of society, everywhere. If given a chance to be thugs, they will use it.

        • Hondo says:

          Yeah, there were issues with their trial.

          That doesn’t alter the fact that they were both legally guilty as sin (one was the triggerman for murder, the other a willing participant in the robbery conducted to get money to support the Anarchist cause) – and their lawyers knew that, and reputedly attempted to gin up a false alibi for them (though the lawyer who helped defend them who also was an ACLU founder might not have been the one to do that). Look up the “Sinclair letter” that was made public in 2005.

          The process was indeed flawed. But in the Sacco and Vanzetti case, a flawed process produced a defensible and correct result.

          The process has since been fixed, as best as any system composed of humans can be fixed. (Hell, it IMO probably bends over backwards too far to protect the guilty “just in case”.) But the outcome of their trial, though the result of a flawed process, was indeed just.

          Sacco was a murderer. Vanzetti was a willing participant in the crime. I have no issue with them receiving a just punishment for those crimes. That’s what happened.


    Hoser Question……

    Did the Patriot Act ACTUALLY do anything clearly beneficial for the average American?

    Or it
    just a knee jerk ploy steeped in fear to collect personal info from ordinary citizens?

  24. AW1Ed says:


    As soon as you get to the part that states, “Send along a donation of $XX…”

    Wad the entire document into a firm ball, and toss into nearest trash receptacle, commonly referred to as a “shit can” in Navy and Marine parlance, and walk away.

    You are very welcome,

  25. Mark Lauer says:

    The ACLU has a bunch of “bright legal scholars” on their team?

    Then how the fuck did they miss the fact that we don’t live in a Democracy?
    How did they miss the fact that such things as funding PP is not listed as a right in the Constitution.
    How could they think that allowing Tom, Dick, or Mohammad into the country can be regulated by Congress under the…wait for it…Constitution?
    How the fuck could they get the idea that a “right” is something that interferes or takes away from another persons life?
    They ain’t that smart.

    • Mark Lauer says:

      Let’s try that again.

      how could they think that allowing Tom, Dick, or Mohammad into the country CAN’T be regulated by Congress, when it is clearly spelled out in the Constitution?

  26. CM says:

    Frankly I would be more concerned about how the ACLU has obtained information more than anything else Dave. Unless she/you or someone close to you has provided them with such information I find it overly suspicious that they have such a database.

    How the hell does the ACLU know this information to be able to even send such information to a recent immigrant? If none of you have ever signed up for such a thing then I think you may have just stumbled on to something very serious here my man.

    Consider this for a moment. The ACLU is targeted recent immigrants with information that is, without a doubt, both being used a means to fear monger but also could be used to find where people, their political opinions, etc. This is not good on its face and I think a LOT more attention needs to come to this as I doubt its just her receiving this.

    • CM says:

      On this note, I went to visit my Father recently (different state than I am in) and was helping him clean up and noticed he received a recent letter from the “Mayo Clinic”.

      I will link the information or send it to John if need be/he thinks it needs to be brought up on the site. Anyhow, the Mayo Clinic was looking for donations, had absolutely no previous connection to my family, however, in every single statement in the memorandum they brought up exact (literally) medical issues he has had through the past many years. Mountain climbing leg injury, pace maker, colon cancer, etc. Every single major medical situation he had… was in the letter.

      Point being, if he, a man who had no connection to them (ever) was receiving such a letter then I am damn sure others were too. That letter in addition to this letter from the ACLU to Zoya raises serious suspicions about records of people being given out.

  27. HMC Ret says:

    Dave: If that is your wife, ‘ya done goode’.

  28. Dave Hardin says:

    The individual that penned the letter could use a lesson in the use of a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence.

    And, they should be aware of how distracting that becomes when it is done too much. I learned that from Jamal Wallace.

    But, it’s use can be effective when it is used to accentuate a point.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the ACLU has done some very important work on Civil Rights. As HONDO pointed out most eloquently, all their paths eventually make a left turn.

    I object to the nefarious use of the ACLU to usurp the legitimacy of the Oval Office. Never before has the ACLU carried out a blanket assault on a President of the United States.

    Their website and that letter are obviously being done by the same individual. And, that individual will continue to alienate more than he attracts to their cause.

    Yes, the ACLU does do good works…So does Hamas. The ACLU obviously has no understanding of what a letter like that does to someone who worked for 6 years to become a citizen of this country the right way.

    If anyone can be allowed to vote, use social programs, public education, and so on…whats the point in having citizens?

    I guess we need people to drive the mail trucks…for now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *