I was under the impression that you could not get any further left than Canadian politicians. I stand corrected. This organization is so far left that some of it's policies amount to felony related crimes.
What kind of organization goes after Boy Scouts for Heaven's sake! Last year, they went after the Boy Scouts to kick them out of Balboa Park in San Diego.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
Last night, we reported that the Supreme Court of Oregon had ruled 5 to 1 that live sex shows are permitted in that state under the freedom of expression banner. The ACLU and The Oregonian newspaper both filed briefs in favor of that ruling. But why would the ACLU do that? What's in it for them?
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states and local communities have the right to limit expression. This is the U.S. Supreme court, in a time, place, and manner, application of standards. That is, you can't have sex on your front lawn, even if it's a personal expression on private property. The Supreme Court realizes the Constitution requires boundaries for what Americans do. If you don't have boundaries, you have chaos. Thus, community standards and public safety trump personal expression.
But the ACLU doesn't believe that. The organization has moved so far left, that now anything goes.
• Item: The ACLU is defending the North American Man Boy Love Association, saying that although the organization champions the criminal rape of children, it has a right to do that under free expression.
• Item: The ACLU endorses virtual child pornography and has defended the right of people to obtain real child porn.
• Item: the ACLU opposed the Minutemen protests at the border, obviously, a legitimate form of expression.
So it seems the ACLU cherry picks its cases. The Minutemen certainly have a right to protest the porous border situation, but the ACLU opposes that expression. — Off the chart hypocritical.
So let's apply the no spin concept to this. The ACLU simply wants a different country, a nation where conduct it approves of, public sexual displays, child molestation literature is allowed. But the ACLU wants to inhibit conduct it disagrees with, like protesting the border and celebrating the birth of Jesus. That's what's going on.
Now my next comments are directed at our liberal viewers. How can you support a group as nakedly, pardon the pun, radical as the ACLU? This isn't about freedom. This is about imposing a radical secular progressive agenda on a country that has traditionally voted on public policy issues. If the live sex act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it'd be voted down big. Remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage.
So once again, the ACLU is using an activist court to undermine what the folks want. This isn't democracy. This is judicial fascism.
It's also a joke. The founding fathers didn't write the First Amendment with live sex shows in mind, OK? Everybody understand that? You can easily pervert the Constitution by saying every kind of expression is protected, but again, that would lead to chaos and conflict.
"Talking Points" believes the 400,000 members of the ACLU should wake up and smell the totalitarianism. This organization is bent on undermining freedom, not fighting for it. And everybody should understand that.
And that's "The Memo."
The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
Patricia Hearst, who was kidnapped in 1974 by domestic terrorists and then helped them in a Stockholm Syndrome situation now says Americans need to get tougher when facing the terror war.
Ms. Hearst says, "I was kidnapped by terrorists, but get real. There's so much weeping and wailing and memorializing, my feeling is it'd be a lot healthier if people didn't externalize so much and kind of bucked up a little bit."
Apparently, Ms. Hearst feels we are too afraid of the terrorists and you can make the call on whether that is ridiculous.
By the way, we did promote a story this evening on those abused kids in Ohio, but we need to do a bit more investigation, so we postponed it. It would be ridiculous to put a story on the air that was not ready.
What kind of organization goes after Boy Scouts for Heaven's sake! Last year, they went after the Boy Scouts to kick them out of Balboa Park in San Diego.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
Last night, we reported that the Supreme Court of Oregon had ruled 5 to 1 that live sex shows are permitted in that state under the freedom of expression banner. The ACLU and The Oregonian newspaper both filed briefs in favor of that ruling. But why would the ACLU do that? What's in it for them?
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states and local communities have the right to limit expression. This is the U.S. Supreme court, in a time, place, and manner, application of standards. That is, you can't have sex on your front lawn, even if it's a personal expression on private property. The Supreme Court realizes the Constitution requires boundaries for what Americans do. If you don't have boundaries, you have chaos. Thus, community standards and public safety trump personal expression.
But the ACLU doesn't believe that. The organization has moved so far left, that now anything goes.
• Item: The ACLU is defending the North American Man Boy Love Association, saying that although the organization champions the criminal rape of children, it has a right to do that under free expression.
• Item: The ACLU endorses virtual child pornography and has defended the right of people to obtain real child porn.
• Item: the ACLU opposed the Minutemen protests at the border, obviously, a legitimate form of expression.
So it seems the ACLU cherry picks its cases. The Minutemen certainly have a right to protest the porous border situation, but the ACLU opposes that expression. — Off the chart hypocritical.
So let's apply the no spin concept to this. The ACLU simply wants a different country, a nation where conduct it approves of, public sexual displays, child molestation literature is allowed. But the ACLU wants to inhibit conduct it disagrees with, like protesting the border and celebrating the birth of Jesus. That's what's going on.
Now my next comments are directed at our liberal viewers. How can you support a group as nakedly, pardon the pun, radical as the ACLU? This isn't about freedom. This is about imposing a radical secular progressive agenda on a country that has traditionally voted on public policy issues. If the live sex act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it'd be voted down big. Remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage.
So once again, the ACLU is using an activist court to undermine what the folks want. This isn't democracy. This is judicial fascism.
It's also a joke. The founding fathers didn't write the First Amendment with live sex shows in mind, OK? Everybody understand that? You can easily pervert the Constitution by saying every kind of expression is protected, but again, that would lead to chaos and conflict.
"Talking Points" believes the 400,000 members of the ACLU should wake up and smell the totalitarianism. This organization is bent on undermining freedom, not fighting for it. And everybody should understand that.
And that's "The Memo."
The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
Patricia Hearst, who was kidnapped in 1974 by domestic terrorists and then helped them in a Stockholm Syndrome situation now says Americans need to get tougher when facing the terror war.
Ms. Hearst says, "I was kidnapped by terrorists, but get real. There's so much weeping and wailing and memorializing, my feeling is it'd be a lot healthier if people didn't externalize so much and kind of bucked up a little bit."
Apparently, Ms. Hearst feels we are too afraid of the terrorists and you can make the call on whether that is ridiculous.
By the way, we did promote a story this evening on those abused kids in Ohio, but we need to do a bit more investigation, so we postponed it. It would be ridiculous to put a story on the air that was not ready.
big surprise! not! 
