The ACLU: Self-Righteous Fools and Fascistic Bullies
by Burt PrelutskyI am not a religious man. I’m neither proud of that nor ashamed. I merely state that fact to establish where I’m coming from. I have friends who are believers and friends who are not. Where religion is concerned, I believe in live and let live. I only wish that the ACLU shared that attitude. I don’t like to describe myself as an agnostic or an atheist because I don’t care to align myself with the people whose own religion consists of a profound antipathy to everybody else’s.
I decided a long time ago that religion would play no part in my life, but I felt no compulsion to convert others. Oddly enough, I never resented the folks who would ring my doorbell and try to proselytize me. Although I don’t like dealing with uninvited guests, I always thought it was nice of them to be that concerned about the eternal soul of a perfect stranger. Having said all that, I wish to announce that I despise the ACLU for its relentless attacks on Christianity and Judaism. It’s bad enough that they will wage battle on behalf of any busybody looking to banish Christmas and Hanukkah symbols from public places, including one’s own front yard.
However, these very same lawyers will eagerly go to the mat to safeguard a Muslim’s right to wear a disguise on her driver’s license, a Navajo’s right to ingest peyote, and a cultist’s right to ritualistically slaughter small animals.
The ACLU proclaims that they’re merely abiding by the Constitution’s insistence on the separation of church and state. The only problem with that position is that the Constitution says no such thing. Although the secular Left has glommed on to that catch phrase like a pitbull gnawing on a shinbone, the First Amendment simply states: “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
That is a far cry from forcing apartment dwellers to remove holiday wreaths from their door, or insisting that communities remove Nativity scenes from parks, or compelling small towns to change “Christmas Holiday” in their high school calendars to “Winter Break.”
The problem with the ACLU is that it is composed in equal measure of self-righteous fools and fascistic bullies. Because so many of their members are rich and privileged, they will, on the one hand, blather on about their love of democracy, while, at the same time, assume they alone know what’s best for everyone else.
Because they are so out of step with the majority, they can rarely have their way via a democratic ballot. There are, in fact, only two means by which they ever have their way. The first is by getting liberal judges to set aside election results, as they have done over such issues as capital punishment, illegal immigration, and affirmative action. The second way is by intimidating those — be they individuals, cities or organizations – that lack the backbone or the financial wherewithal to defend themselves against the ACLU’s mob of shysters.
If the authors of the Constitution had ever, in their worst nightmares, envisioned a group as vile as the ACLU, I feel certain that they would have rephrased the First Amendment to read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Period! And we’re not kidding, so help us God!”
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
230 Comments
What you have to realize, is that the ACLU has no interest in any case they take beyond how complicated it is and how long they can drag it out. This is because they get paid, according to Federal law for going to court, NOT FOR WINNING. Just another bloodsucking group feeding at the public trough.
I think you said it all. Good one.
I would really, really be grateful to the ACLU if they would PLEASE read ALL of the Bill of Rights, not just the parts they want to selectively have enforced.
Losers must pay, that should our next amendment.
I'd have less trouble with them if they were as concerned with everyone's rights, but until they start sticking up for oppressed white males or anti-Christian discrimination as rabidly as they worry about everything else that might possibly offend or oppress, then I'm unimpressed. The problem is that the logical conclusion of their crusade is a featureless, genderless, completely colorless society. Only then will we be absolutely sure that we have expunged every last shred of anything that might possible cause civil liberty. Lois Lowry's _The Giver_ comes close.
I’m a Christian. Don’t have enough faith to become an atheist. Anyway, I don’t have an issue with religious people knocking on my door, with a message, even if they are atheists. Prefer Mormons though. They have good manners.
You get the feeling they think "respecting" means "showing respect to," not "with respect to, regarding."
They clearly fail to realize that "an establishment of religion" means "establishing a state church" — there's no way to establish religion in the abstract, only a particular denomination. This odd formula was intended to accomplish two things: Prevent establishment of federal church while guaranteeing states the right to establish their own — Congress was simply forbidden to weigh in on the issue of establishing a church on any level of government. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Virginia did go ahead and establish state churches (Congregationalist, Congregationalist and Episcopalian, respectively), down to the 1840s.
As a person of faith, it is funny that the ACLU would chastise me for my beliefs. The ACLU and most liberals have so much faith in their secular ideology that they put most Bible believing Christians to shame. The hypocrisy of it all…….
Right on, Burt! The ACLU is the virulent swine flu of the universe. Conceived from the pits of hell to torment the righteous, thwart the freemen, and confound reason. Liars, thugs, thieves, pimps, a**holes, all.
The left like to leave out that last part. They want it to only say: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The would prefer no one practice religion.
Don't worry religious folks will be allowed to display anything they want. The ACLU just wants to be like Obama and place a Black sheet over it. Thats all!
Except their own religion. Ronald and others have it right on about how DEEPLY and PROFOUNDLY ultra-liberals and the ACLU feel about their own beliefs. Their intensity puts almost every person of faith I know of to shame.
A=American
C=Civil
L=Liberties
U=Union
just another reason to be anti-unions.
I don't even think they know what ACLU stands for, or what those words mean.
more like
A=All
C=Communism
L=Lovers
U=Unite
*
I'd be grateful if they'd read ANY of the Bill of Rights.
American Civil Liberties Union… most of the people who belong to it don't even know what any of those words mean, except of course for the last one.
I've always been intrigued by the following argument relating to the "free exercise clause": if "Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is to be taken at its face value, what if the State of Tennessee decided by popular vote to make Southern Baptist the official State Religion?
It could happen. Although, Church of Christ is pretty strong out here as well so there may be a battle at the polls.
But, what if? Isn't that at its core a states' rights issue?
I'd probably move, but other than that, under what authority would the Federal Government become involved?
Lawhawk, do you have a carefully weighed legal opinion on this?
“Religion is the opiate of the masses.” -Karl Marx
When Marx coined this phrase he was pointing out to the communists [Marxists] that so long as the people have God they will have a higher morality to strive for. Jews wear the yarmulke on their heads as a symbol that God is above them. Marx understood all of this and his goal was to supplant religion with govt. He wanted govt to be the opiate of the masses not God. This philosophy was ascribed to by the worst regimes in human history and now we see the same happening here; it is no coincidence that Barack Hussein ordered the name of Jesus Christ be covered up when he spoke at Georgetown. Christianity has been under attack in America by the intolerant ACLU bigots for some time now.
Thank you for your words here, especially since you are coming from a non-religious POV!
Exactly. It meant that the US would simply not have a "Church of the United States of America" to which all of its citizens had to be members.
Don't hold anything back, Gary, go ahead and tell us how you REALLY feel…
ROFL!
The ACLU was created not to safeguard and protect the Bill of Rights, but to counter it. Ever notice how every action of the ACLU works to limit our liberties rather than expand them?
While visiting downtown Seattle, my husband and I were approached by a young man collecting petition signatures. Before he could launch into his pitch, my husband cut him short by saying, "Sorry buddy, but we're evil Republicans from Alaska, and we're not interested". So the kid says, "I'm actually not with the Democrats, I'm with the ACLU". And I said "That's even worse!" right to his face. Then he left us alone.
Here's Gary again with his talent for understatement and his reluctance to offend. To paraphrase Dean Wormer "shy, timid and reticent is no way to go through life son." You've got to get into some assertiveness training Gary.
As Charles Perry noted above MA, Ct & VA all had established state churches until about 1840. It seems that an individual state could do so.
Like you, I am not a religious man. Like you, and unlike the aclu(lower case intentional), I am not threatened by the sight of a Menorah or a Star Of David or a Nativity Scene or a Christmas Tree or a Christmas Wreath or a schools Christmas Pageant or the word Christmas. Or Hanukkah. The United States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The aclu is dedicated to destroying that and remaking this country in their own liberal image using idiot spokespeople(see picture) to do it. Conservative lawyers need to fight back against these clowns. Hard.
When I was kid I noticed some of my relatives were always "wanting to help". I think I was in college when I realized that this help meant interfering busybodies, trying to control or obtain information to use as gossip. There are so many people in this world whose help is a disguise.
Thankfully, we have a wonderful caring president who will always be there for us, he knows whats best and only wants to help.
"Jews wear the yarmulke on their heads as a symbol that God is above them. "
To be accurate it’s more of a reminder than a symbol.
The ACLU the Brownshirt SA of the Radical Left.
I like Sidney Hook's definition of religious liberty: "It's your right to believe and proclaim that you are married to the most wonderful woman in the world, when I know for a fact that I am."
The Founders viewed religion as a positive force, which should be encouraged by government without being constrained by government toward any particular denomination. Repeatedly you will find statements from all of the founders—including those like Jefferson and Franklin who held heterodox religious views, that public religious observance should be encouraged. In short, they recognize freedom OF religion.
The ACLU has a negative interpretation of religious liberty, viewing religious belief as a divisive force which should be eliminated from public discourse. They seek to enforce freedom FROM religion.
exactly!!! secular liberalism IS their religion. they actually have alot in common with radical islam, that is why they find it so easy to defend them.
Everything that is wrong with the American legal system could be righted if, 1] Losers were required to pay court costs, 2] Lawyers were not allowed to be judges, 3] Lawyers were not allowed to be legislators, and 4] Juries were
empoweredre-empowered to decide ANYTHING they agreed upon, including that the law in question was unjust, and so should be stricken from the books.Before lawyers took over the American government after the revolution, judges were almost never lawyers, and juries had the powers I described. Oh, and some Churches would not suffer to have three groups of people buried within their gates on consecrated ground: Prostitutes, actors… and lawyers. Lawyers were considered by some denominations to be fundamentally spiritually unclean, because they bore false witness for a living (Defense attorneys defended the guilty, and prosecutors prosecuted the innocent, regularly, and as a matter of course), thereby breaking a Command of God for a living.
Sure, the lawyers involved in the revolution, Jefferson and Adams, notably, were very enlightened, but they were an historical anomaly, and their blind spot was that they couldn't see that future lawyers would revert to type.
Now, it has so devolved that all of our legislators are lawyers – a clear conflict of interest – all of our judges are lawyers – another undeniable conflict of interest – and juries are only allowed to decide what a lawyer-judge tells them they can decide. It's a racket. If the RICO laws were turned back upon the American legal system, a goodly portion of legislators, judges, and lawyers would be in prison (Where I think they belong).
Lawyers create nothing, lawyers produce nothing, and lawyers provide no essential service that a man can't live without, and yet our legal system allows them to get rich suing the most productive members of our society – doctors, for instance (Would you rather have a famous MD for a neighbor, or a shyster like John Edwards? No contest).
Oh, and the vaunted "rule of law" is what killed The Christened Son of The Living God. Ask Jesus what He thinks about the rule of law sometime. Lawyers have been a scourge upon civilization since Old Testament times, when they were called scribes.
Jeremiah 8:8 RSV: "How can you say: 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribe has made it into a lie."
Just read that as, "The false pen of the lawyer" and you have the crux of the problem, which has existed since the dawn of civilization. The don't call the legal profession the second oldest one for nothing.
whine whine whine. The ACLU doesn't make these decisions… the judges do. The ACLU just brings up the issues. The government (our representative democracy) makes the calls. You're scapegoating.
And the NRA is the Gestapo of the Radical Right! your turn!
its true! and here I thought that this breitfart place was all close minded types.
Excellent.
Awesome. When the Jehova's Witnesses came to our door my dad told them we were Jewish. my mom almost died.
yes, I look forward to the eventual return of Republican Power. On that glorious day we can be relieved that we are once again a True Christian Nation. Of Christians, by Christians and for Christians. It is only when our people, and our government that is a reflection of our people, embraces the Lord Jesus Christ, that we may be saved as a nation.
Love my bumper sticker I bought several years ago from ProtestWarrior's web site: The ACLU – We don't hate religion. We just Christianity!
From one atheist to another, agreed.
The good news is… you won't run in to any of them in heaven.
Little history lesson you ignorant DOLT: Hitler banned all citizens gun ownership I believe in 1936. There was no German NRA in Nazi Germany. So you wanna go for another round? Lets see who knows history better idiot.
Amen!
(sorry, it's really what immediately came to mind)
Great post, Mr. Prelutsky.
I know that Dear Leader truly cares because he is generously spending my money, my children's money and my unborn grandchildren's money to be sure that we have the world that he knows is best for us.
The depth of my gratitude is exceeded only be the depth of the deficit that he and his gang of tax-chiseling do-gooders have pursued.
There are no Federal laws that rule the way lawyers get paid and sometimes the ACLU lawyers will take a case for free. ANd the ACLU when it is paid is paid by the client and not by the government. Gee whiz .
Loser pays would be good for our incredibly litigious society.
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Although+the+secular+Left+has+glommed+on+to+that+catch+phrase%22&hl=en&safe=off&num=100&filter=0" title="">Recycled article. Congrats on your currency.
So you have qa problem with some of the rights that the constitution lists for citizens of the US?
The ACLU is the bane of American society, and we on the right need to counter these ba$tards whenever possible!
The ACLU takes cases over the rights of a person w/o judging the victim by political or ideological leanings. They have taken cases for gun owners and a person that was wearing a anti-gay T-shirt.
First time I read it. That has to count for something.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
You should actually read the constitution and not try to rewrite it.
I'm worried. Maybe Burt's really dead and they keep recycling these to make us think he's alive. JUST LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN.
Religious Critics
Conservative Christians, citing the ACLU’s involvement in the separation of church and state, often contend that the organization is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government. In minor legal battles, the ACLU has claimed that the presence of religious symbols within state or county seals constitutes a government-sponsored endorsement of church and state.
In 2004, the ACLU of southern California threatened to sue the city of Redlands and the county of Los Angeles if it did not remove a religious cross from their official seals. The city and county complied with the organization and removed the symbol from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. Religious critics have claimed the organization acts in excessive pursuit of the separation of church and state, and misrepresents the clause’s intended purpose.
In 1990, Pat Robertson founded the American Center for Law and Justice as a counterweight to the ACLU. Robertson claimed the ACLU was "liberal" and "hostile to traditional American values." The Thomas Moore Law Center, a non-profit legal center, also bills itself a "Christian answer to the ACLU."
Despite its religious controversy, the ACLU has defended the rights of jurors to religious expression and the rights of Christian students to distribute religious literature in schools.
Many minority religious groups, including Jehovah Witnesses and Muslims, have at times been defended by the ACLU. In the Mormon community, the ACLU has been viewed positively by those citing the case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The case, litigated by the ACLU, was taken on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer. The ACLU has also aided the Mormon community in legal cases regarding objections to military service, the reciting of the pledge of allegiance, and a case over doorbell-ringing. Despite these measures, the ACLU has taken harsh criticism from a number of Mormon leaders who strongly oppose the actions of the organization.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/America...
Not True!!!
Sarcasm doesn't become you.
The ACLU argues the constitutional rights of people as it is written. MAybe you should read it.
If you were to do a poll about the people that would support such a move then no state would even attempt to do this.
No show me. And read up on the ACLU that you are obviously do not know very much about. Please prove me wrong.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/America...
Can you produce an example? That's what I thought.
Conservative critics also argue that the ACLU has been inconsistent in defending civil liberties equally, citing the organization’s hesitation to protect gun rights. The ACLU declares itself officially neutral on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation of a well-regulated militia, and “the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." In 2006, the ACLU Texas joined with the National Rifle Association to claim that current legislation allowed for the harassment of gun owners, but continued to maintain their public neutrality regarding the issue of gun control.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/America...
little advice simply posting as anonymous doesn't help your case. you pretty much are being dismissed as a troll
Not so.
Despite its religious controversy, the ACLU has defended the rights of jurors to religious expression and the rights of Christian students to distribute religious literature in schools.
Many minority religious groups, including Jehovah Witnesses and Muslims, have at times been defended by the ACLU. In the Mormon community, the ACLU has been viewed positively by those citing the case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The case, litigated by the ACLU, was taken on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer. The ACLU has also aided the Mormon community in legal cases regarding objections to military service, the reciting of the pledge of allegiance, and a case over doorbell-ringing. Despite these measures, the ACLU has taken harsh criticism from a number of Mormon leaders who strongly oppose the actions of the organization.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/America...
In the past, theoretically a state could establish an official state religion, with the idea that, if a person didn't adhere to that religion, he could "vote with his feet" and move to another state.
However, the 14th Amendment declares that no state shall deny a citizen of the U.S. privileges or immunities, or "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The passage of this Amendment thus started the process of incorporation, by which the amendments were declared to apply to the states as well as the federal government. (Prior to this, amendments were viewed as applicable only to the federal government.) The incorporation process has been slow, and some amendments still haven't been fully incorporated; however, the First Amendment's religious clauses have been with cases such as Everson v. Board of Education.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/America...
Learn who yo are talking about and who they work for.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/America...
I'm back and angry.
I see no penumbra of privacy in the constitution per se. Not the way it's been seen.
ACLU – hey why dontcha defend us from unions – they interfere with our right to free speech/expression?
Should you, ACLU be against the EFCA?
ACLU – suck on this.
I think the ACLU is far more interested in perpetuating their "NEWSPEAK ideology" than protecting civil liberties.
Have you?
I disagree. Constantly financing nuisance suits is a tactic to intimidate people into doing what the group wants, regardless of what a court might find. My father had a small business and a former manager sued us for a bogus charge (he claimed he hurt his back doing something he wasn't supposed to do…..and he was the one in charge). My father went to a lawyer who said he could easily win the case. The problem was, it would cost triple to win, so we had to settle and give the scumbag what he wanted. That's the way the court system works, and that's the system the ACLU plays to force it's will on people who can't afford to fight.
Is anyone really surprised by the ACLU's activities, it's selective interpretation of the Constitution, or its patent bias toward all things Left? Just take a look at who founded the organization in the first place:
On January 16, 1981, President Jimmy Carter awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union and the International League for Human Rights. Dr. Baldwin left behind as his legacy an institution that is fundamentally un-American and subversive to the principles upon which America was founded.
Baldwin, who visited the Soviet Union in 1927, was greatly intrigued by Communism. In addition to Baldwin’s ties with members of the Communist Party USA, William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, two of the first board members of the ACLU, would later become card-carrying Communists.
Read more at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3775.html
"he knows whats best and only wants to help."
Spoken like a true minion. Too bad you're so pathetic to believe Obama "knows" what is best for you.
Obama doesn't 'know' anything, he has 'beliefs' and I know his beliefs aren't good for me.
The ACLU was founded by Communists for the purpose of defending Communist infiltrators and subversives. It is and has been a Communist front organization.
It's purpose has always been to damage an weaken this country, in order to pave the way for Communist dictatorship.
Neither does coherent thought.
Is that why they were censoring their own board members?
The ACLU from its inception was an anti-American organization. Unlike our deceptive bolsheviks and socialists in the media and academia the ACLU's founder was open about his true motivations……
“Roger Nash Baldwin : the founder, and director of ACLU. At the time of the founding, he was deeply involved in the communist movement. In late 1935, he gave a speech that said his political goal was communism. Baldwin wrote the following in his college yearbook:
“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…….”
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/07/12/am...
I'm guessing your sarcasm detector is stuck somewhere between "anemic" and "non-existent", Cognitive Dissident.
You are a moron.
Go away, Anthony Romero.
Trolls for Obama! Is this your "public service" for the Incompetent one?
Only partially true. The ACLU is not a government-funded organization (although they have their ways of getting federal funds), but there are multiple federal rules governing awards of attorney's fees. In civil cases, the awards are based in large part by who wins and who loses. The winner, under certain carefully delineated rules, can get an award of attorney's fees, but it is from the opposing party, not from the government. That award of "attorney's fees" is almost invariably far less than the attorney's regular rates, and the client must make up the difference. In criminal matters, a private attorney who can show sound legal justification can be compensated directly by the government for representing an indigent client. And again, the court-set attorneys fee rate is far less than most attorneys would ever be able to exist on. Pro bono cases are rarely free, and except in well-funded organizations such as the ACLU, somebody has to pay costs (not fees). But you are right about the ACLU not being directly funded by the federal government. But Soros alone could keep them afloat, considering that he now probably has more "real" money than the federal government anyway.
This may be a [near] duplicate post. The original went into the black hole, and if the site is consistent as it was with three others today, the original will never be seen again.
You're the one re-writing it. "Congress shall make no law . . . " The Constitution is entirely silent about the states doing so.
Judges are not representatives. They often impose their own personal ideology. Stop pretending otherwise.
Let's also not pretend that the ACLU is an impartial ombudsman of the spirit of the Constitution. They are very obviously agenda driven. The examples in the article are adequate supporting evidence. They have double standards for anything related to American tradition.
The ACLU probably has cameras all over their offices in Manhattan to make sure no one steals any pens and staplers…That is one office I wouldnt mind ransacking
I think the ACLU takes cases here and there that makes them look normal…the Rush Limbaugh case another example.
Simply put the ACLU has the noble purpose of being a watchdog and barking when the government goes too far. Sadly it seems unable to that this current government is going to far. Because it's members think that it is doing the right things.
Nothing is at all wrong about watchdogs just wish it was not selective in which issues it tries to protect.
This is a Roger Baldwin quote:
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Can anybody see these principles being slid in to an unsuspecting mass?
The ACLU was started by the American Communist Party in the 1930's. Things haven't changed
I don't know of any instance where they haven't given it a liberal interpretation.
and "drunk" Dom, don't forget the drunk part!
Dang,,,well said. I bow….
No, we have a problem with organizations that proclaim to up hold the rights of the people and in the end it is normally small fringe groups who in the long run hurt the community more than the symbol they are against.
The ACLU sent me a fundraising letter last year – I wrote "God Bless President George W. Bush" on the reply, and sent it back using their postage-paid envelope. I haven't heard from them again.
Anyone that defends NAMBLA should be considered a terrorist organization…..
(chuckle)
Who am I kidding…
ROFLMAO!
The single, most powerful defense the industrialized western democracies have against soc/marx/comm is, religious faith, specifically Judeao/Christian. Early on, SMC's realized that those ideaologies would never take hold until religion was marginalized then finally disenfranchised to the majority. The ACLU will only appear to take on a religious cause when there is a much greater benefit for SMC and similarly further degrades anything Judeao/Christian. Hence, they never do. If politicians had the population's best interests at heart, the ACLU would be outlawed. Hence, they never will.
Full Disclosure: Born, raised, baptized, confirmed, grade school educated Catholic. Currently, non-practicing. Despise being clubbed over the head with religion, by anyone. It is a personal choice. Fully understand that Islam is a disingenuous fraud based on non inclusive hatred.
I love that response! I am going to borrow that next time someone shoves a clipboard into my face.
As a 24 year AF Veteran I am appaled as to how far we have fallen when our own President Hussein Obama does not say a word about the ACLU actions. I hope you ACLU lovers are happy when the alleged torture pictures are shown in the Mideast ans our soldiers are killed in retaliation. You will have blood on your hands, but you do not care. It's not your brother or son. You would never defend this country. You have your leftist agenda. Why don't you go to Iraq or Afghanistan and defend the rights of Al Quida and the Taliban. If you have the gonads. Maybe you will get to know personally what real torture is. Maybe we will even see you squeel like a pig on the internet when your freinds who you are supporting. are cutting your head off as you scream that you are defending their rights.
Someone may have already responded to this, but the 14th Amendment would close that loophole.
Very easy to state, impossible to prove. Please name an instance where the ACLU has championed Judaeo/Christian rights vs. SocMarxComm. No talking points and be specific.
Bravo Burt! You've stated just about everything that I have felt about the ACLU for a LONG time. A bunch of bullies when it suits their best interests. If it doesn't give them tons of publicity then they wont have anything to do with it. Kind of like PETA. I'm always amazed at the lefts backwards thinking, ie. PETA will go out of its way to save some dump dwelling rat but there's no one on the left who cares two whits about an unborn child. Strange folks those lefties.
You must be logged in to post a comment.