In My Right Mind

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

My Photo
Name:
Location: Universal City, Texas, United States

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Saturday, July 23, 2005

ACLU: The Enemy Within

I was thinking today about one the most vile, leftist institutions in our country today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I believe that they are misnamed. If they had any integrity about them at all they would rename themselves the Atheist Communist Litigation Union. This title more accurately captures the essence of what they stand for.

Like most liberals they have an agenda. And like liberals, instead of coming out clean and being forward in displaying their agenda out in the clear, they hide like cowards behind false, deceptive pretenses. This is of course, because they are aware of the fact that clear thinking Americans would never buy their dangerous communist/socialist anti-American, anti-Constitution drivel.

Instead, the ACLU want all Americans to believe that their sole mission is to care for and protect our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. They would also have us to believe that without their legal expertise, the civil rights that Americans enjoy, would be stripped of them by their government and at its earliest convenience. What a load of arrogant, lies.

Let’s take a look at elements of the current title that this group of lawyers are going by and examine whether or not any of them are a true and an honest representation of the services they claim to provide. Let’s start with the last element in their title, "Union".

The term union is a fitting one for this group of lawyers to use. When one hears the term "union", one usually thinks of labor unions like the AFL-CIO, or the Teamsters Union. The ACLU, like the corrupt labor unions of today, has gone beyond it's originally stated purpose and is no longer needed.

Labor unions were established as a remedy to the abuses that big industrial companies at the turn of the 19th century were committing against its employees without challenge. Thanks to these labor unions, child labor laws have been enacted and employees aren’t exploited as slave labor like they were before. Today, no one needs to "sell his or her soul to the company store". Employees today don’t have to live in company housing, or shop at company grocery stores.

While a lot of employees today complain about their income, (mostly workers in entry level/non college degree jobs), no one is really facing anything remotely similar to the horrible work conditions that employees faced back at the establishment of the labor unions.

The labor unions of today have become nothing more than fat, greedy institutions, which utilize their members’ non-voluntary contributions to turn the tables against the companies that provide employment. While they were originally established to protect the welfare of the workers from abuse at the hand of employers, today the worker himself is just a manipulated pawn that labor unions use to intimidate employers.

Because the labor unions of today have gone beyond their original intent, we don’t have justice in the employment arena. Instead, the upper hand has simply switched from employer to labor union. Labor unions have outlived their purpose.

Likewise, the ACLU is a union that claims to represent freedom of speech in this country. The only problem is the ACLU protects selected freedom of speech, not all types. For the ACLU, the freedom of speech for the perverted, criminal, pedophile organization: National American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is worth protecting, despite the fact that NAMBLA’s mission is to encourage the statutory rape of young boys by adult male pedophiles.

The ACLU routinely swoops in to ensure that the wishes of some overly sensitive, whiny little atheist is granted his or her wishes at the expense of the wishes of the majority of those around him or her.

Little whiny atheist is mortified that there is the phrase "One Nation Under God" in the pledge, the ACLU protect his or her freedom of speech and fights to have it summarily struck out of the pledge.

Little whiny atheist has his or her panties in a wad because, if you happened to study a particular city’s seal carefully enough, you'll discover that there is a Christian cross in it. Never fear, here comes that bastion of freedom of speech protectors the ACLU to save the day, and have that horrible detail, (no matter how small it may be in the overall design of the seal), removed.

Little whiny atheist just can’t get over the trauma of having to view a plague of the Ten Commandments posted on the wall of the city courthouse, the ACLU sees to it that that offensive plaque is removed.

What about the freedom of speech right of those who wish to openly express their religious faith, without fear of censure from the government?

Sorry, the ACLU doesn't care about their rights. Only perverts, atheists, communists, environmentalist whackos and "animals are people too" nuts need apply.

It should be clear to anyone paying attention to the ACLU's judicial history that they aren't really for the protection of every citizen's 1rst Amendment right, just the rights of select citizens, those that agree with the ACLU's vision for America.

What about the element "Civil Liberties" that is found in their title? Like the examples given above regarding protection of 1rst Amendment rights, the ACLU is only concerned with the civil liberty of those who agree with their agenda.

Finally, there's the last element in their title, "American". Unless, simply living in America is the only factor to be considered, this one element in their title is definitely false. They are no more for America's best interest than al Qaeda is.

ACLU's founder was one Roger Baldwin, an avowed communist. It was his desire to change the face of America and slowly but surely make America a communist nation. Of course, to do so, he had to ensure that his ACLU looked patriotic, hence the bogus name American Civil Liberties Union. Their communist agenda must be hidden from the public at all costs.

Slowly but surely, Baldwin's communist union of lawyers has been eroding away the values and freedoms of the America that the founding fathers sacrificed their very fortunes and property to design. The America that minutemen sacrificed their very lives to fight and die for against overwhelming odds. ACLU lawyers specialize in molesting and raping lady justice.

Sure, every once in a while they will make a show of defending some legitimate civil rights issue, (Brown v. Board of Education), to make it look like they aren't all that bad. They've even gone so far as to defend the KKK and Nazis, (to try and sell the image that they are for the civil liberties of all Americans no matter how controversial). These tactics work well in duping gullible, uninformed Americans into believing that the ACLU is an important organization that exists to ensure that their constitutional rights are protected.

The Constitution is the last document that Baldwin's ACLU is interested in protecting. It is the Constitution with it's precepts of freedom for American citizens, and a government that serves it's people, not the other way around, that threatens the ACLU vision for America. Their vision is a communist vision.

The ACLU is counting on all of the useful idiots that it can find for support. The Soviet Union may have fallen from power, but the communist threat is still alive and well today. It exists within the borders of our country in the form of the ACLU.

This union of anti-American lawyers hides behind patriotic disguises. This union of communist lawyers is able to plan this country's demise while enjoying the protection of the very Constitution they seek to overthrow.

They are the enemy within, that if allowed to go unchecked will surely not only "bite the hand the feeds them", but slit their benefactors throat, and assume politcal power.

Are you sure you want to live under the Atheist Communist Litigation Union's vision for a new America? I'm certain that I don't!

11 Comments:

Blogger John said...

Excellent job! I'm adding you to my blogroll. I think you may want to add me to yours too.

stop the ACLU Blog

7:29 PM  
Blogger Gribbit said...

You are also invited to join the Stop The ACLU BlogBurst. To do so, please visit Protest The ACLU and sign up. We think that you could be an excellent addition to our group. If you aren't sure what we are, I have some info posted about our group at Gribbit Online. And if you think it fits in with your goals, please feel free to sign up. We'd love to have you.

7:50 PM  
Blogger Billy said...

I wish I could get my thoughts on the ACLU down on my blog in such a coherent post. When I try, all that i produce is incoherent gnashing of teeth and screaming ;-). you are added to my blogroll.

7:55 AM  
Blogger Rich | Championable said...

Okay. As far as I can tell, the only fact-based point you raise is that you don't like that the ACLU tries to remove religious statements or imagery from public forums, like schools or courthouses. Their view is that this is a violation of the separation of church and state. You disagree. But the ACLU does NOT attack religion in general.

In the public arena, the ACLU has challenged laws which restrict freedom of expression, including the right of folks to go Christmas Caroling: look up the Flemington, NJ case of 12/2005.

The rest of this post seems to be, I hate to say it, unfocused rage:

Examples follow:

While Roger Baldwin did, stupidly, have communist sympathies: "In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members." This is from the article to which your post links. Why did you fail to mention that?

You say: "They would also have us to believe that without their legal expertise, the civil rights that Americans enjoy, would be stripped of them by their government and at its earliest convenience."

As an dues-paying ACLU member, this is not my understanding at all. Where is your evidence that the ACLU thinks the government would immediately strip people of their civil rights?

You say: "The only problem is the ACLU protects selected freedom of speech, not all types."

Where is your evidence for this? Could you cite examples of cases that the ACLU should have taken but didn't?

You say: "Slowly but surely, Baldwin's communist union of lawyers has been eroding away the values and freedoms of the America that the founding fathers sacrificed their very fortunes and property to design."

What rights have the ACLU removed, exactly?

You say: Are you sure you want to live under the Atheist Communist Litigation Union's vision for a new America? I'm certain that I don't!

What vision is that, specifically?

Aside from the one point about religious imagery and speech in government institutions like schools and courthouses, I don't see anything here other than anger and ridicule... but nothing specific that anyone who was willing to have a discussion could actually discuss.

2:04 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

Rich,

The first issue that must be addressed is that of this favorite liberal phrase: "separation of church and state". When one looks in the Constitution it becames immediately apparent that it appears nowhere in the document.

The only occurence is in a letter of Thomas Jefferson to a Danbury Baptist Preacher assuring him that the government can not discriminate against his church.

What one does find is the Constitution's guarantee that the government can't establish a state Church, like the Church of England was for those who fled England to America. No state church that would demand attendance and force donations of money from the citizens would ever be allowed in the USA. And thank God, it never has!

I submit to you that is more likely what was in the mind of the framers of our Constitution and NOT whether or not there is a manger scene on public property during the Christmas season.

The other point made in the Constitution regarding religion is that the government cannot prohibit the citizen's right to free expression of the religion of his or her choice.

Simply put, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, NOT freedom from religion.

The ACLU is using "separation of church and state" as a weapon to limit citizens' free religious expression under the guise that the Constitution demands this.

A manger scene on public property or the display of the Ten Commandments on a courthouse, hardly constitutes the establishment of a Church. Any one can see that.

I have yet to see a judge who demanded the people in his court room to fixate on a Ten Commandment display, pay tithes to it out of their pockets and regularily be in its presence and swear allegiance to its tenants. Have you?

The same goes for a small cross on a section of a city seal, that you would have to actually focus on the seal to see it in the first place.

You may think I am just being flippant, but actually, the way I see it, it is clear that the ACLU is the one being flippant and extremely disengenous.

If people want to say the pledge of alligience and repeat the phrase "one nation under God" then that is their constitutional right. If they don't, that too is their constitutional right. But to maintain that no one can say the phrase is unconstituitional and an affront to the freedom of speech that the ACLU claims to be the onus of it's existence in the first place.

The burden of proof that a State Church has been established is on the ACLU. The burden that the ACLU is not trying to get the government to prohibit the free expression of religion by its citizens is also on their hands.

They may sound like a noble organization to you but I do not see the ACLU that way.

Their defense of NAMBLA is shocking. As a Christian I am appaled. As a responsible citizen concerned for the safety of our children I am appaled.

There is no way I would ever support a group who would rush to the defense of such an evil organization as NAMBLA as the ACLU obviously has.

Think about it. NAMBLA is devoted to promoting the sexual conquest of boys by perverted adult males. Winking at evil is not a smart thing to do.

Michael Newdow is obviously one of those people who expects the masses to bow to the sniveling demands of one person. He used his own daughter to falsely claim that she was victimized by having to say "one nation under God" while reciting the pledge of allegiance, which was later revealed to be not the case at all. It was later revealed that his daughter had no issues with the pledge in the first place, just her egotistical selfish father.

[Yes I just called him egotical and selfish. Would else would you call a man like him.]

But hey, the ACLU liked him!

I'm sorry, but I don't share your enthusiasm for an organization who aligns itself with a man who would lie and use his daughter against her own consent to be the icon for his personal crusade against the freedom of others to acknowledge God in public.

I'll respond more to you comments on this post at a later time as I wish to finish watching Sherlock Holmes on A&E right now.

Later,

Clay

6:23 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

Ok, now to continue with my response to you, Rich.

You said:

"While Roger Baldwin did, stupidly, have communist sympathies: "In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members." This is from the article to which your post links. Why did you fail to mention that?"

Rich, I've read and re-read the article that I link to in my post regarding Baldwin, and I'm sorry, but I can't find this passage that you quote anywhere in it.

I do see where it says he abandoned communism because of his disillusionment with the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939, but nowhere does it go on to say that he then tried to purge the ACLU of communist members.

It would appear that this is possibly speculation on your part. However, even if he did try to do what you say that he did, there is nothing to suggest that he would have been sucessful.

Let's face it, Baldwin, a communist sympathizer, was instrumental in the forming the ACLU, of whose origins arose out of the the American Union against Militarism (specifically, its legal arm, the National Civil Liberties Bureau). What sort of people do you suppose he attracted to join his ACLU? Communist sympathizers of course. [Obviously those opposed to communism would not be interested.]

The ACLU would have been well established by the time Mr. Baldwin had his "change of heart". So, it is doubtful that those communist sympathizers who had pledged their allegiance to the ACLU would just all of the sudden renounce their communist affiliations soley on Baldwin's "change of heart".

So, by speculating that Baldwin would have necessarily tried to convince the ACLU members to abandon thier communism, you have in no way established that a). He actually did try this, or b). That his attempt was in any way sucessful.

All of this being said, we are still left with an organization that is communist in its origins. Which would explain why it uses catch phrases like "Church vs State" (found no where in the Constitution itself) to pervert the meaning of the Constitution regarding religion, and then use that to divide the country over the whole issue of the expression of religion in the public square.

It is also explains why they have planted the important American term "Civil Rights" right into their title. That would, and in fact does, fool some people into believing that that is what the organization's main focus is on.
After all, who would possibly be opposed to an organization dedicated to the preservation of civl rights?

Now, I will engage in some speculation of my own. Perhaps, the ACLU's motives are to divide and conquer until they achieve their goal of overturning the Constitution and replacing it with a Communist Manifesto of some sort?

While I admit this is speculation on my part, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to expect that this is their ultimate aim.

A goal that requires deceiving the public as to what the organziation is really about and most importantly practicing the virtue of patience would could certainly be to such an organizations' advantage.

It takes a while to slowly boil a frog or lobster to death. So it is with an entire free nation like the U.S.

[I'll continue with my response to Rich perhaps tommorrow.]

8:41 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

Part three of my response needs to begin with addressing a statment you made in your critique that I inadvertantly overlooked:

"In the public arena, the ACLU has challenged laws which restrict freedom of expression, including the right of folks to go Christmas Caroling: look up the Flemington, NJ case of 12/2005."

While this on the surface looks admirable, (let the caroling continue courtesy of ACLU), it only serves as a distractor. So, the ACLU in it's infinite wisdom has decided that it will allow Christmas caroling?

Or, perhaps I can put it this way:

See, the ACLU is not against Christianity or religion at all. You must be mistaken.

The problem with your example is that it is a case few and far between where we can witness the ACLU defending religious rights, or should I say Christian religious rights.

(As I will demonstrate in a later response, they have no problem supporting Islamic expressions in the public square and in our public schools with their silence).

Let's look again at what you say.

""In the public arena, the ACLU has challenged laws which restrict freedom of expression..."

What about Judge Moore in Alabama who, in the end was forced to take down his ten commandments display or be fired?

Where was the ACLU then when his right of religious expression was being threatened?

AWOL that's where.

As you can see the "dog and pony show" the ACLU pops up and shows from time to time, like their "defense or Christmas caroling" is only meant to fool the gullible into believing that they exist to defend everyone.

I submit that they have more beef with the Christian religion than they do with any other.

As a Christian, I am deeply offended, and would never support the ACLU with money or anything else for that matter.

More to follow,

Clay

6:22 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

Ok. I owe Rich an apology. While I did not find anywhere in the article I linked to about one of the founding members of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin any mention about him trying to purge the organization of communists after his abandonment of the poltical ideology, I did find a reference to it in Wikipedia's ACLU entry:

"In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of Communism, began with the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of both the Communist Party of the USA and the IWW."

But, then of course I have to turn the tables on Rich and ask him why he omitted this from the same Wikipedia entry that he uses to try and negate ACLU's communist possible affiliation, due to Baldwin's actions:

“The ACLU has been criticized by some of its later members for this policy, and in the 1960s there was an internal push to remove this prohibition.”

Basically, assuming that Baldwin and company were sucessful in purging their organization from communists, then one is to understand that the organziation was communist-free until perhaps the 1960's when there was the beginnings of resentment of this ban on the part of some of the ACLU's members.

So, the assertion that because Baldwin changed his mind about the validity of communism and fought to purge its influence from the ACLU's membership, that this somehow negates the association of the ACLU to communism just doesn't fly.

Especially when one encounters the ommited history of the ACLU in the 1960s where there were criticims of his purge and an internal push to include communists back into the organization.

A very disturbing and revealing action on the part of the ACLU in turning down sizeable funding both from the corporations and the federal government centers around the ACLU's reluctance to distance itself, or stand against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11:

"However, recently the ACLU rejected $1.5 million from both the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because it viewed a clause in the donation agreement stipulating that "none of the money would go to underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities" as a threat to civil liberties. The ACLU also withdrew from a federal charity drive, losing an estimated $500,000, taking a stand against the attached condition that it would "not knowingly hire anyone on terrorism watch lists."

So, let's see, not only does the ACLU find perverts who want to teach other perverts how to kidnap the innocent children of American parents, for the sole purpose of sodomy and rape (ref. NAMBLA), but they also don't want to ever stand in the way of al Qaeda in any way shape or form.

I have to ask the question, how is it then that the ACLU isn't anti-American?

I submit that is NOT the American way to embrace the demon possessed terrorists who slaughtered over 3,000 innocent lives on 9/11, beheaded countless women and children in Iraq, and beheaded innocent captives "all in the name of Allah".

I will never, ever forget 9/11. And there is no way in the world that I would ever be a dues paying member to any organization that refused to stand against the scum who were behind it, even though I wasn't in New York watching the second plane fly over my head.

I fail to see anything really admirable in the ACLU. I do find a whole lot about that anti-American organization repulsive, and worth standing up against.

Here's some other stands that the ACLU takes (that you can find in Wikipedia's article about them) that make them ridiculous and not worthy of one penny of any decent American's money.

When it comes to child pornography, the ACLU has no problem with it whatsoever. That is, as long as no photographs of actual children are used. Computer generated images, and cartoons of children being sexually abused, however, get the ACLU thumbs up.

As a parent, hell, as a human being, I can't understand why any parent or decent human being would even consider supporting the ACLU with their membership support and dues.

When it comes to SPAM, the ACLU is all for it.

"The ACLU's stance on spam is considered controversial by a broad cross-section of political points-of-view. The ACLU has opposed many anti-spam laws, and in 2000 Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, claimed that anti-spam laws are a bad idea because "it's relatively simple to click and delete," advice which is rejected by many spam fighters."

They think that the jerk who floods your e-mail inbox with countless amounts of time wasting junk has the constitutional right to assault you in that way.

After all, you can always spend the next 36 hours "pointing and clicking delete".

Of course, we all know that if spammers began to flood the inboxes and websites of the many chapters of the ACLU, threatening them with denial of service issues, it would be, "a different matter when it comes to them".

This is a wrap for my fourth installment of my response to Rich.
I still haven't heard from him yet, But no matter, his critique deserves to be answered.

More to follow,

Clay

7:30 PM  
Blogger Rich | Championable said...

Hi, Clay!

I've got to reread your responses for better clarity, but I have a couple quick comments.

I would NEVER put "speculation" in quotes. I was quoting directly from the wikipedia article, in re: the Baldwin/Communist purge. Search google for the exact phrase: "In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members." And you will find it.

When you look at the ACLU's defense of Christmas Caroling as the ACLU saying that it will "allow" caroling, then you're making us (since I'm part of the ACLU) seem sinister no matter what they do. The ACLU wasn't trying grant permission for people to carol. That kind of claim to power is absurd. They were trying to defend folks from being barred from doing it.

You've completely blown the reasoning behind the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA. There's a post on my blog about it. The ACLU defended the National Socialist party, and they're evil, too. Basically, as horribly disgusting as NAMBLA is, they don't promote murder and torture. They were being sued for causing a murder because of a completely different kind of gross thinking. Personally, even writing this is unbelievably distateful.

The ACLU, by the way, refers to NAMBLA as vile.

There's a lot more, but I've got to go pick up one of my kids from a birthday party.

Hope things are good with you.

12:30 PM  
Blogger Rich | Championable said...

One quick note, in re: "The ACLU would have been well established by the time Mr. Baldwin had his "change of heart."

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean... are you saying that once the ACLU was established, it's direction was utterly set in stone?

I believe some other organizations have radically changed their tunes in the past, as well. Two that quickly come to mind are the Democratic and Republican parties. And I'm pretty sure the hubbub over the Supreme Court nominees isn't over a LACK of change in the future direction of the court.

:-)

More later.

1:52 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

Rich,

You said:

"I would NEVER put "speculation" in quotes. I was quoting directly from the wikipedia article, in re: the Baldwin/Communist purge. Search google for the exact phrase: "In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members." And you will find it."

If you had read all my responses you would have read this:

"Ok. I owe Rich an apology. While I did not find anywhere in the article I linked to about one of the founding members of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin any mention about him trying to purge the organization of communists after his abandonment of the poltical ideology, I did find a reference to it in Wikipedia's ACLU entry..."

That Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of communists doesn't mean that he was entirely sucessful. All it means is that he had some sort of change of heart about communism and tried to change what he himself had already established.

It's funny how you mention about organizations having radically changed their tune. As I pointed out in one my responses, you seemed to think it important to cite Baldwin's efforts to purge the ACLU of communists, yet left out the fact that members in the 1960's questioned his ban. Putting us right back at the ACLU's relationship with communism.

It is entirely possible that the ACLU has changed its tune and has communist ideals as it underlying goal.

You said:

"When you look at the ACLU's defense of Christmas Caroling as the ACLU saying that it will "allow" caroling, then you're making us (since I'm part of the ACLU) seem sinister no matter what they do."

To which I would reply, if your organization is sinister, it's sinister. I'm not making it seem like anything. It is what it is. I am under no obligation to ignore the ACLU's history and sing it's praises. There is little or nothing to praise them for. The caroling incident just an example of their "dog and pony show" to fool people into thinking that are well rounded and open in their stances. The caroling type stance happens way to few and far between the rest of their controversial stances.

Let's face it, the truth is a majority of the time they back attempts to silence the free speech rights of Christians far more than any other religions. And I don't think I need to run down a laundry list of examples. You are a member and you should know the ACLU's history regarding the bogus "separation of Church from State" cases it pursues.

When was the last time that the ACLU fought against the public expression of Judaism, Islam?

I can think of two events after 9/11 that the ACLU was curiously silent about. One of them involved a school, I believe in California, where the students were taught the tenents of the Muslim religion, adopted Muslim names, learned how to pray the Muslim prayers etc. Where was the ACLU on this one? Where the outcry of the need for separation of Church and State?

They rush to the rescue fast enough when a cross is found to be part of a city's seal, or a judge is found to have the Ten Commandments on public display, but are silent when it comes to the teaching of Islam to school children.

The other example I remember in the news involved a town in Michigan or Minnesota where the ringing of church bells was called into question, yet the Muslim Call to Prayer was loudly broadcast through public speakers each day.
Where was the ACLU? Again, they were hypocritcally silent.

Let's return for a moment to NAMBLA. You said:

"Basically, as horribly disgusting as NAMBLA is, they don't promote murder and torture. They were being sued for causing a murder because of a completely different kind of gross thinking. Personally, even writing this is unbelievably distateful."

And yet you are a member of the organization that rushed to the aid of the perpatrators of the "unbelievably distasteful."

As far as torture goes, sexually molesting an innocent child is a form of torture that will no doubt leave a psychological scar in that innocent's emotional and well being that will remain with him for the rest of his or her life. That to me, brother is torture!

As a Christian, as a parent, as a citizen who cares about the safety and well being of our young, I can not and will not support any organization that will even consider defending an organization that goes out of its way to train perverts how to stalk and score with young boys. That someone under NAMBLA's instruction took it to murder doesn't excuse NAMBLA in any way.

That's about as convincing as those "security sites" on the web that teach you how to hack and have hacking tools available for download, and yet use a disclaimer that it is all only for educational purposes to hide behind.

NAMBLA may or may not support the murder of innocent boys, but it doesn't have to to be wicked and something that is a public enemy.

The ACLU may be fooling some into believing in its noble efforts, even when it has to defend the vile and wicked but they aren't fooling me. And I am not alone.
All that the ACLU has managed to accomplish is once again alienate themselves from decent citizens as well as aid and abet NAMBLA with it's continuing existence.

Their claim to being dedicated to safeguarding freedom of speech, is upon further examination, revealed to be nothing more than an elaborate web of sophistry, which by the way, lawyers are usually quite good at.

Let's face it when they work to have the phrase "Under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance they work to deny the freedom of speech of those who wish to recite that phrase. When they work to force a judge to remove his Ten Commandments display from his court room, they are denying him his freedom of speech to display whatever he wishes as well as his freedom to express his religion. When the ACLU stands against prayer in school, they stand against the freedom of speech of those who wish to pray.

The sad thing about all of this is that a. no real damage is being done if someone hangs a Ten Commandments display on a wall, or if someone chooses to pray. Those who don't wish to see the display, don't have to look at it. Those who don't wish to pray are free not to pray. And b. they only exist to protect the freedom of speech of some, not all.

When you allow the selfish, attention getting tactics of one to hold those around him or her hostage to his or desires, you are not doing free society any favors whatsoever. Freedom gradually is sacrificed to the never ending web of selfish individuals who will only become more and more empowered until society and culture mirrors their whiny opinion and wishes and theirs only.

Of course you can't really please everyone, a common sense observation that when oberved and heeded allows society to exist. When it is ignored the results of trying to please every one results in no one being pleased and the eventual dissolution of society into chaos and mayhem.

Unfortunately, that is precisely what the ACLU is doing. And I don't believe for one minute that it is out of ignorance on their part. I'm willing to bet they have an agenda.

You may wish to support the ACLU, and find them insdispensable but I don't. I recognize them for what they are. I don't want to live in the America that they wish to create. I recognize the fact that they are for the freedom of speech for some over the freedom of speech of others. They are not helping American society they are hurting it.

Besides, there are the recent ACLU stances to scratch your head over and wonder "What the...?".

It seems the ACLU is upset because lethal injection denies the person being executed his or her freedom of speech rights, since the injection paralyzes them thus rendering them unable to speak. Huh?

Yeah right, maybe we should abandon such a humane form of execution and return to drawing and quartering, or crucifixion. At least then the victim is able to express themselves freely, albeit through screams of intense pain.

Who do the ACLU think they are kidding? How is their stance good for America or upholding the Constituition? You might find this admirable, I find it ridiculous and aburd. When will it all end for the ACLU? How many absurd stances can they keep taking?

Then there is their defense of Fred Phelps and his gang of hate-filled Christians (I hate to even us the term Christian)right to get in the face of greiving mothers, fathers, wives, children, family and friends of the deceased military member and flaunt their vitriol, disrupt the funeral, and cause even more stress and damage and such a devasting time.

Does Fred Phelps and his gang of idiots have a right to protest? You bet. Is he guaranteed the right to in the face access to those mourning people and disrupt their funeral No. No more than you or I have a right to falsely yell fire in a public place, or call a school with a bomb threat as a joke.

How can you support the ACLU who empowers NAMBLA with their defense, rushes to help Fred Phelps be assured of his freedom and access to inflict more damage to the mourners? How can you find any of this worthy of membership and support?

It beats me.

5:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home