Jump to navigation
|Wednesday, April 26, 2006|
Many of us find it disturbing to hear the sympathetic apologists defend the ACLU's work to protect pedophiles over our children.
We watch the ACLU fight for sex offenders to live next to Elementary schools
, and playgrounds. We watched in horror as the ACLU defended NAMBLA
, under the banner of free speech, to plan and talk about how to rape young boys. It doubles the anger to hear the apologists defend the ACLU with some twisted talk perverting the Constitution.
In Mississippi, billboards of sex offenders and child molesters are being errected, but of course the ACLU oppose this. Of course all of these things we hear excused away by liberal apologists, but lets take a deeper look at the ACLU's agenda. Let's take a deeper look at the industry that the ACLU wants to defend here.
"It would be a mistake to think that all the children who are being exploited sexually are kidnapped by "kid porn" operators. Many of the children are being sold to people by their parents. In some cases, the parents have agreed to perform incest with their children. Gonorrhea of the throat in infants as young as nine and eighteen months has been reported".source
This is as sick as it gets folks. But the ACLU believes it is a freedom being denied to people. And before liberals start to ask. Yes, the ACLU has a current policy advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession.
"Students of liberty, from John Stuart Mill to Thomas Emerson, have all intentionally excluded children from their formula for freedom. The ACLU does not. Not even when the subject is pornography.Quote from Twilight Of Liberty
In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography."
The case is...: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747
It can be found here.
The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit."
The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be " a gross violation of privacy."Quotes from Twilight Of Liberty
I don't think that any other ACLU stance evokes more anger from me, than this one. I mean, how sick can you get? Do these people not have a conscience at all, or are they just plain EVIL? How can one argue this sick, twisted view in the name of "protecting civil liberties?" Please, some liberal out there that loves defending this evil organization...explain this to us. No wonder the ACLU doesn't want the public to have access to its policy guide!
Since the ACLU thinks that child pornography should be legal, it is not surprising to read that it is against making it a felony to advertise, sell, purchase, barter, exchange, give, or receive child pornography. It is particularly distressed about the prohibition on advertisement, arguing that "the law cannot expect every publisher to decode every advertisment for some hidden and sinister meaning," as if it took a technician-armed with a special decoding device-to ferret out pictures of children ludely exhibiting their genitals.Quote from Twilight Of Liberty
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers' ages was impermissible.
"If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or Star Wars," he said, "there can be no such requirement for Hustler or Debbie Does Dallas."Quoted Reference
Is the ACLU completely retarded? I would love to think there was some kind of saving grace for an organization that says it is about protecting civil liberties, but with positions like this...which you KNOW are against the will of the people, I don't know if there is. My head is about to explode just typing this stuff!
Let's take a deeper look at the industry that the ACLU wants to defend here.
"It would be a mistake to think that all the children who are being exploited sexually are kidnapped by "kid porn" operators. Many of the children are being sold to people by their parents. In some cases, the parents have agreed to perform incest with their children. Gonorrhea of the throat in infants as young as nine and eighteen months has been reported". source
This is as sick as it gets folks. But the ACLU believes it is a freedom being denied to people. And before liberals start to ask. Yes, the ACLU has a current policy advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession. Yes, the ACLU still currently defends pedophile organization's.
"Mere possession should not be a crime," said John Roberts, executive director of the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union."
They are a radically, out of control organization that consistently goes too far, and they must be stopped, before they destroy our Nation. And as for those who support the ACLU, this is the kind of crap your money goes to. As a parent of a 5 year old child, and as a citizen of this great nation, I am outraged! Help us stop this insane organization!
STAND UP! TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF RELIGION ACT OF 2005
Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off The Taxpayer's Dole
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 180 blogs already on-board
Posted on 04/26/06 at 22:28:13 by Bobbette Madonna
My first time over here... nice blog you have.
Keep up the good fight!
- [Link to this item]
"This is an important defeat for the ACLU and other groups that are committed to removing our religious heritage and traditions from the public square."
Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel
WASHINGTON, April 24, 2006 - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals announced today that it would reject a request to rehear a Ten Commandments case out of Kentucky. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), who represents Mercer County, the defendants in the case, was pleased by the court's 9-to-5 vote to not revisit the December 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Mercer County display.
"It's very clear that the full appeals court believes that its three-judge panel ruled correctly in upholding the constitutionality of this display," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "This is an important defeat for the ACLU and other groups that are committed to removing our religious heritage and traditions from the public square. If this case is appealed to the Supreme Court, we stand ready to defend the display and remain confident that the constitutionality of the display will prevail."
(Click title to continue to the website)
From the Minuteman National Blog
Members of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps can continue patrolling on state trust lands without permits because they've been invited by ranchers leasing the land and agreed to do ranch work, a state official said.
The decision ends an attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union to get Arizona to force the volunteer anti-illegal immigration activists off the land because they hadn't gotten state permission.
"They are authorized to be there under the terms of the lease," deputy state Land Commissioner Richard Hubbard said Tuesday. He said a state employee who had told the Minutemen members on Monday they needed permits was incorrect.
|Wednesday, April 19, 2006|
While two parents
in Lexington, Mass., are upset about the fact their second-grade son was read a fantasy book in school about two princes getting married, what makes them even more angry is the fact the boy's teacher said because same-sex marriage is legal in their state there is no way a mother or father can opt out a child from such experiences.
"We are outraged," parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin told the local Article 8 Alliance. "This is a highly charged social issue. Why are they introducing it in the second grade? And we cannot present our family's point of view to our children if they don't tell us what they're saying to them."
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No, sir," continued Ollie.
"No? And why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.
"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore!
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
In memory of all those who perished on 9-11; the passengers and the pilots on the United Air and AA flights, the workers in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and all the innocent bystanders. Our prayers go out to the friends and families of the deceased.
|Wednesday, April 12, 2006|
from John Stephenson (stoptheaclu.com)
JUST CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF THOSE PHOTOS! The ACLU isn't finished wringing the propaganda juices out of the Abu Ghraib scandal.
A civil liberties group on Tuesday demanded the release of more pictures of U.S. soldiers and detainees after the government acknowledged it had only one new Abu Ghraib prison picture because the rest were already public.
Hours after the acknowledgement by the Department of Defense, the American Civil Liberties Union said the government must now turn over 29 more photographs and two videotapes related to the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
According to military experts, Iran has ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
While Tehran denies it is trying to develop a nuclear arsenal, ballistic missile experts advising the United States say it has succeeded in reconfiguring the Shahab-3 ballistic missile to carry nuclear weapons, the London Telegraph reports.
"This is a major breakthrough for the Iranians," said a senior U.S. official, according to the London paper. "They have been trying to do this for years and now they have succeeded. It is a very disturbing development."
Recent test firings of the Shahab-3 by military experts show Iran has been able to modify the nose cone to carry a basic nuclear bomb, the experts conclude.
(click title for more info)
The jury has come to a decision
in the penalty phase trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, who some think was to be the 20th hijcacker in 9/11. He will either receive life without parole or be eligible for the death penalty if the jury finds a 'direct' link from him to 9/11.
BUT REMEMBER, death is what Moussaoui wants - so he would be a martyr. Letting him rot forever in a cell would be a much more severe punishment. We'll see.
(click title for more)