The ACLU Exposed

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.,2933,171995,00.html (external - login to view)

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.
Reverend Blair
So you and Bill O'Reilly stand united against civil liberties, James? I'm not at all surprised to hear that.
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

So you and Bill O'Reilly stand united against civil liberties, James? I'm not at all surprised to hear that.

Apparently the ACLU does. The very thought of it. Kicking the Boy Scouts out of a San Diego park simply due to their pledging oath.

I wouldn't have believed that anyone would target children, unless I had read it.
* shakes head* are you gonna keep re-cycling the same old methods. I mean get real would ya now your using kids to troll your tripe
Well, the ACLU started it.
Come on you didn't really type that did ya
Dexter Sinister
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Kicking the Boy Scouts out of a San Diego park simply due to their pledging oath.

I wouldn't have believed that ... unless I had read it.

Well, maybe you read it, I didn't. There's nothing about it in the news item you posted, so I don't see what you're going on about. I also don't find Bill O'Reilly a credible source for anything. I've seen him interview people; I think he's a liar and a bully, paints himself as a friend of the common folks while shamelessly shilling for the powers that exploit them. He's used a typical trick here too, labelling as leftist anything he doesn't like, because that always goes down well in the United States. Left is bad, left is communism, left is tyranny, and you've used it too, equating leftism with felonies.

Also, your ignorance is showing in other ways, quite apart from the gratuitous insults implicit in your opening paragraph. There are lots of people way to the left of Canadian politicians. In most European countries, Canada's leftist party would be classed as centrist. Your Democratic and Republican parties would be categorized as right and far right respectively, if not far right and ultra right. In my personal experience as a visitor in various countries here and in Europe, the range of allowed political opinion in the United States is among the narrowest and most right wing in any country in the western world. You are a good deal less free than you think you are.
Reverend Blair
Ummmm...what Dexter said.
and ehm...why do make your posts like the national inquiry, I guess thats the neocon way eh? I decided to look up what you were postin there, I am kinda bored tonight :P big surprise! not!

In their letter, the ACLU and THLA point out that both Boy Scout leases bar discrimination based on religion and provide that the Boy Scouts must abide by all laws and regulations of the City of San Diego. The City's Human Dignity Ordinance bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. The letter asks the City to enforce those contracts by requiring the Boy Scouts either to end their discrimination or to move their operations to facilities not owned by the City. The letter also details the City's constitutional obligation to avoid preference for, or support of, religious activity. The Boy Scouts convinced the Supreme Court that instilling religious values was their primary organizational purpose and that the recreational aspect of scouting was secondary. Subsidizing discrimination against gays also puts the City in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

"The City cannot lease away people's rights, including the rights of gays, and atheists to be free from discrimination and to enjoy the use of unique public assets like Balboa Park and Fiesta Island," says M.E. Stephens, Co-President of the Ton Homann Law Association, San Diego's gay, lesbian, and bisexual bar association. "It is time for City leaders to earn their merit badge in tolerance (diversity?) by ending their sponsorship of the Boy Scouts."

A number of government entities have recently cut their ties with the Boy Scouts because of their intolerance. In 1993, the San Diego Unified School District banned Boy Scout activities from its campuses. Last year, following the California court decision, the City of Berkeley terminated free berthing space at a city marina for two Boy Scout training ships. And recently, the City of Chicago ended its thirty-year sponsorship of the Boy Scouts rather than be forced to defend the Scouts' exclusion of gays and atheists in court in response to a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Both the City and County of San Diego Human Relations Commissions have condemned the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies and have called on the City to ask the Scouts to vacate park land.

Related articles/releases: (external - login to view)
Vanni Fucci
Nicely done Peapod...
A large cheer for the good works of the ACLU
I don't agree with much of what the ACLU does, but I'm not going to break foul on them much. I may need them to defend me someday. I don't care for the minutemaids at the border. I think most of them are just racist vigilantes no matter what their official declaration are. I didn't know however that the ACLU opposed them. I oppose them, but not on a civil libertarian basis.
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Kicking the Boy Scouts out of a San Diego park simply due to their pledging oath.

I wouldn't have believed that ... unless I had read it.

Well, maybe you read it, I didn't. There's nothing about it in the news item you posted, so I don't see what you're going on about.

The Boy Scouts’ First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and and freedom of association were clearly violated here. Not to mention their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

Here are a couple of links ...

Boy Scouts vs ACLU (external - login to view)

Boy Scouts of America vs ACLU Legal Issues (external - login to view)

By the way, the ACLU has clearly demonstrated it's bigotry, corruption and intolerance, all against a children's organzation. I personally wish the worst of fate to any adult targeting children in this manner. Hope they get into a bad car accident.

In a recent ruling on behalf of the Boy Scouts, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed (no surprise here) that the Boy Scouts were well within their constitutional rights to freely choose who and what they accept in their private organization.

Here's another link (see the last two setions) ...

Back Room Corruption Campaign Against The San Diego Boy Scouts
(external - login to view)
Dexter Sinister
From (external - login to view), under the general heading of Scout Law, we find, among other things, these statements about how a Scout should behave:

He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.

He treats others as he wants to be treated.

He respects the beliefs of others.

Noble ideals indeed. Evidently the Scout can respect ideas, customs, and beliefs different from his own as long as someone who holds them doesn't try to join his organization. Then he'll treat you like a pariah. That's what the ACLU is on about. Your links provide fairly typical right wing cant against gays and lesbians, atheists, agnostics, and one of them tries to tie homosexuality to pedophilia, which is simply false. I don't find them credible.

It would also help, in your original post, if you'd linked to and/or posted an article that had something to do with what you seemed to be objecting to. There's a complete disconnect between the first two paragraphs in your OP and the article that fills the rest of it.
to Nascar James credit, ACLU does do some really wierd things and bill oreilly isnt the only one to highlight there somewhat hypocritical policies. ( things that come to mind are the defence of the North American Man Boy Love Association which is just a front for child molestation).

That said civil unions and other groups promoting essential rights and freedoms are whats needed to avoid our rights being trampled on by facists.
Ten Packs
Bill O-Really? and Faux News - yeah, that MY source of information....
GL Schmitt
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

. . .
• 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. . .

Anybody who follows the ranting of Bill O’Reilly for too long, will soon become afflicted with an “If’n yer not fer us, yer agin us mentality.

The ACLU is not supporting NAMBLA, it is supporting the NAMBLA’s legal position that says because someone may have read from an NAMBLA website, NAMBLA cannot be charged as an accessory to inciting to commit a crime.

The ACLU contends that the web site is protected under First Amendment guarantees to freedom of speech, and has moved to dismiss the case.

It is strange that the folks who are first to claim their Constitutional Rights when it comes to purchasing and possessing firearms, have the greatest difficulty recalling the parts of the Constitution which protects freedom of speech and assembly, when there is anybody around whom the wish to muzzle.

This is legally similar to those cases in the fifties that tried to sue and suppress Superman Comics because a boy jumped off a roof attempting to fly, with predictable results.

To recap, the ACLU is not defending the NAMBLA, it is defending the NAMBLA's position against an infringement of the Constitutional.

That is, after all, what the ALCU does: defend the Constitution against any and all attempts to infringe upon it — even when it means defending such a reprehensible organization as NAMBLA.


ACLU asks federal judge to dismiss case against man-boy sex group (external - login to view)

BOSTON — A group that promotes sex between men and boys asked a federal judge yesterday to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the parents of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley, who was murdered by one of the group's members.

Curley was killed on Oct. 1, 1997. Salvatore Sicari, of Cambridge, was convicted of first-degree murder in the case, while Charles Jaynes, of Brockton and Manchester, N.H., was convicted of second-degree murder and kidnapping.

Last year, the boy's parents, Barbara and Robert Curley, filed a $200 million wrongful death lawsuit against the North American Man/Boy Love Association, claiming Jaynes was incited by the group.

In court yesterday, lawyers with the Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is defending NAMBLA in the lawsuit, said that even though many people may find the group's beliefs repugnant, its publications and Web site are protected under First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.

"We contend that the First Amendment was intended to apply exactly to organizations like this. If we can't protect their rights, then the rights of other organizations are all at risk," said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts ACLU chapter.

Lawrence Frisoli, a lawyer for the Curleys, said the boy's death was a direct result of the encouragement Jaynes received from NAMBLA to sexually attack young boys.

"The lawsuit is about NAMBLA training Charles Jaynes to rape kids," Frisoli said.

Prosecutors said the men lured the boy from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, then smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances.

The men molested and suffocated the boy before stuffing his body into a concrete-filled container and dumping it in the Great Works River, in South Berwick, Maine.

The lawsuit alleges that Jaynes joined NAMBLA in the fall of 1996, read the group's publications and Web site and "became obsessed with having sex with and raping young male children."

The suit also alleges that Jaynes viewed the NAMBLA Web site shortly before he and Sicari lured the boy. The suit does not allege that Sicari was a member of the group.

"Can NAMBLA be held responsible for Jaynes' conduct based on these allegations? No," Reinstein said.

Barbara Curley, the boy's mother, said the lawsuit is aimed at exposing NAMBLA.

"They got him interested in little boys and taught him how to lure little boys," she said. "They don't fall under the First Amendment rights at all."

U.S. District Judge George O'Toole took the request to dismiss the lawsuit under advisement. He did not say when he would issue his ruling.

Sicari is serving a life sentence without parole. Jaynes can seek parole in 22 years.


Similar Threads

Sin and Satan EXPOSED
by pfrattali | Dec 18th, 2009
ACLU: Protesters placed in terror files
by jjw1965 | Dec 10th, 2005
no new posts