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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

*

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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 empowered re-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.

And the NRA is the Gestapo of the Radical Right! your turn!

Excellent.

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.

From one atheist to another, agreed.

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.

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.

Loser pays would be good for our incredibly litigious society.

So you have qa problem with some of the rights that the constitution lists for citizens of the US?

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.

"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.

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...

Sarcasm doesn't become you.

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.

Can you produce an example? That's what I thought.

little advice simply posting as anonymous doesn't help your case. you pretty much are being dismissed as a troll

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...

I think the ACLU is far more interested in perpetuating their "NEWSPEAK ideology" than protecting civil liberties.

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.

"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.

Neither does coherent thought.

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...

Go away, Anthony Romero.

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.

You're the one re-writing it. "Congress shall make no law . . . " The Constitution is entirely silent about the states doing so.

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

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.

The ACLU was started by the American Communist Party in the 1930's. Things haven't changed

and "drunk" Dom, don't forget the drunk part!

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.

Anyone that defends NAMBLA should be considered a terrorist organization…..

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.

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.

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.

I'm not rewriting. Records of Constitutional Convention debates show that the peculiar language "respecting an establishment of religion" was intended to 1) prevent the establishment of a national church and 2) address concerns on the part of states that wanted to establish state churches of their own that Congress would never be able to prevent them from doing so.
As I said, three states did have established churches in the late 18th-early 19th centuries. Any substantial history of, say, Virginia will mention this.

Consider this. Perhaps ACLU is behind all of the mass shootings of our time.
Sounds crazy ?
This paves the way for firearm confiscation. With out the high profile mass shootings there wouldn't be the push or the leverage to ban guns because non-gun folks would simply be apathetic about gun ownership. Gun ownership really wasn't even talked about 40 years ago. Wasn't an issue.
Neither were mass shootings.
How else are the anti gun puppets going to be whipped up ?

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...

Lola, let the little twerp go. billypaintbrush took him down five for five.

I guess mama didn't love him; has to come here to be the big man for mama.

Moljnir…I posted that 14 hours ago……

The oint is that the ACLU always fights for the people's rights. You just have aproblem with the people that make up the group and use you generalisations to rally the brain dead right wing religious group that is destroying the Republican party.

So now you think you know me and what I believe in? You don't have a clue who I am or where I come from.

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. To sacrifice everyones rights and liberties for the sake of a select few is not right or even moral, it is selfish and self serving.

They also have a bit of hyprocracy. They champion themselves ad "defenders of the downtrodden" – taking up every cause from defending pedophiles to women wanting driver's licenses in Burkas, but I remember some years ago when it came time to defending American Nazis for some outrageous thing, most of the ACLU members wouldn't do it.

Pedophiles, radical Muslims but not Nazis apparently

Also I remember someone commenting on seeing their display of the Bill of Rights in an ACLU office and everything was there except for the 2nd Amendment.

Americas criminal's liberties union

Wow! Jake Gyllenhaal wants me to join the ACLU. Will that make me a good looking revolutionary? Idiot.

You bring up several cases where the ACLU has defended individual religious rights. Yet your posts ignore that they also push for the elimination of religious symbols on public and government buildings. They cite an interpretation of the 4th Amendment that the actual wording of the document does not support. Nor do the writings of those that wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights show it was the framers intent. All on the grounds it makes those who's religions are not represented uncomfortable. There is no right to mental comfort. If the community wants it there it should stay. Instead the ACLU comes into a community, disrupts it, and gives it a choice between an expensive lawsuit or taking orders from a disgruntled minority and/ or an outside source of drama. In these cases it is fighting against the people's right to run their community as they see fit within the bounds of the Constitution.

You think any of us are any happier with the government's lack of spine? Ha!

AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING, 12 OF THE 13 COLONIES HAD AN OFFICIAL RELIGION. THAT WAS A MAJOR INFLUENCE OF THE AMENDMENT. I dunno how the "free exercise thereof" got so completely ignored – except for peyote for Indians. Also the Five best words ( or something like that – Geo Will) in the Constitution: "Congress shall make NO law." A better interperetation of the Amendment would be NO laws about religion (per se) from the Federal Govt (& therefore Fed Courts).

The ACLU does not work to sacrifice the rights of the many for the sake of the few. They work to insure that the rights of the few are upheld. Before the ACLU was founded, there were many instances were the law was trampling the rights of people. The movie Tom Horn showed an example of this. Like I said, you seem to have a problem with the people involved and not their rights that need to be respected.

Well they did come unsolicited to the aid of the drug abuser Rush Limbaugh, so I guess you could say…..

So he was honest about his motives. And the Supreme Court where the ACLU fought and won many battles since it was founded is also un-American?

You know when To Horn was executed for murder, his lawyer made a legal argument that his words (that were taken down by a clerk while Horn talked to a law officer) could not be used against him because of the protection clause in the constitution. The judge refused the argument. Tom Horn was hanged. That is one of the reasons that the ACLU was created.

Many times the law just does not give a good damn about the rights of people as they are gaurranteed by the constitution. The Miranda card was the result of a poor man who argued that his rights were denied because he told the police that he had a right to a lawyer and they just ignored that constitutional right of his.

Who is more un-American?

As evidenced by the many governments around the world that have virtually outlawed Christianity and actively persecute Christians.

They fight in the courts of the US. Are you saying that the courts are wrong when the ACLU wins? Are you saying that the courts are evil secretive bastions where liberals can find an ally? Are you saying that the opposing lawyers are the doofusses that lose to the liberal ACLU and never throw the fact that the court is bias all up in the faces of the judges?

The ACLU has at times become allies of the NRA and feel that since the SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms was a right of the government and not the people – it was best that they stay neutral on that issue. With the SCOTUS ruling that it is the right of the people to possess arms, then maybe they will cease being neutral in the future if a case comes up.

I was agreeing with you. The reply was to Anonymous. You had it right. Writers like Anonymous do not understand that the "incorporation" doctrine applying the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment is another creation, out of whole cloth, of the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not apply the First Amendment to the states. Anonymous was re-writing it, not you.

It's unfortunate that nambla isn't the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alike association…

Those folks should be drug out into the street and shot, along with the hippie lawyers who defend them for promoting sex between very young boys and men.

Judges who legislate from the bench should be impeached for abuses of power. Any leftist judge who pushes things like Gay Marriage or other things that people voted against abuses his or her power…..Judge Ginsberg, Souter, John Paul Stephens etc. should be impeached. They interpret the law and judge what is or is not unconstitutional they do not CREATE LAW.

I wrote you a detailed response, and I just now discovered it disappeared like so many other comments on this site the past few days. So I'll do a shorter version of it, and hope it sticks.

Stephanie made the main points, so I don't have to belabor it. The Constitution does not prevent any state from forming its own state official religion. That's accomplished by the incorporation doctrine applying the Bill of Rights directly to the states via the 14th Amendment. It's part of what we conservatives argue is the out-of-control Supreme Court finding all kinds of things in the Constitution that simply aren't there and weren't intended. Incorporation started small nearly sixty years ago, and has grown like a weed. Now there is precedent heaped on precedent, and that is very hard to overcome.

Anonymous is also right. Many of us know that no state could ever get a vote through which would create a state religion, even if the Supreme Court suddenly abandoned the incorporation doctrine. Many of us would oppose it vigorously. As a Lutheran, I know the history of the Thirty Years War. I see the pitiful weakness of the Anglican Church in what is left of the British Empire. And most of us don't want our religion forced on other people by direct or indirect coercion. And we all know what happens in Islamic countries where Islam is the officially enforced religion.

I should also add that the 14th Amendment was one of the "Civil War Amendments" designed to keep the South from ever again treating former slaves as less than human and less than equal under the law. Religion wasn't even considered. The whole purpose was to guarantee equal protection of the laws, in each state, and forbidding any state from denying any person (read "former slaves" or "persons of African descent") within its jurisdiction(meaning specifically the state, not "the states") that said equal protection. A Baptist black man would have the same rights as any white Baptist man in, say, an officially Catholic South Carolina. It has taken years of questionable decision-making to take the clear meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment and expand it to the level it has reached today. Just another example of the national government, without actual Consitutional authority, stripping the states of their sovereign rights by twisted legal interpretations, umbras, penumbras and emanations.

Your reply disappeared, re-appeared, disappeared, and now has apparently re-appeared once again.

And you were right in the first place, even back forty-five minutes ago when I tried to find your post to reply to.This site is a bloody mess. I've taken to doing "copy" before I post, just in case the post disappears. Then, if it was important enough, I can re-post it without having to try to remember what I said in the first place.

Some of Obama's supporters may as well be reading teleprompters as well judging by how quick they are to parrot everything they hear and read on MSNBC. If they would but take the time to educate themselves rather than rely on main steam media for their information they might understand where we are coming from. Alas it seems they would rather trade their freedoms for a false sense of security generated by a government that is more consumed with it's own existence and power than the well-being of the people they are meant to be representing. Basically they would be willing to let others do the thinking for them if it meant they wouldn't starve. Personally I would rather be free and forced to forage than to live in servitude.

Indeed, liberals do tend to have a problem with history that's for sure. Jehovah's Witnesses were among the many, many groups that the Nazis had problems with.

The thing that got me though was his mom almost died because his dad said they were Jewish? Says a lot about the family right there if you ask me, aside from the implication that Jehovah's Witnesses would have problems with Jews. Now I don't know what they're like elsewhere, and I think I know a grand total of 10 of them including my 7th grade English teacher, but about 2 years ago a couple of them came to my door here, we had a nice chat, they found out I was Jewish and didn't 1) grab a stake and try to slam it through my heart or 2) try to convert me on the spot.

The Mormons come around now and then too, they also don't try to burn me at the stake or try to convert me. In fact a couple of them showed up a few weeks ago and we had a pretty interesting talk about Israel since one of them had been there a few years ago. He was a nice guy and reminded me a bit of my great-uncle so I gave him some tourist trap avoidance tips, hotel and restaurant recommendations, people to call if they want to hang out with some Americans while there, etc. for the next time he went.

do you think that would work? Thinking back to that anecdote… I'm not actually sure why something like that should work. I mean- don't Jehova's Witnesses want to convert Jews too?

actually I consider it a core weapon.

Being a troll is fun. its like Halloween + Politics.

awesome thanks for that.

so, you've been in a bomb shelter since 1953 huh?

I was just posting in a like manner. Sorry yu are so sensitive (dish out – can't take) . And do you really think that the ACLU would send someone to counter your posts. I am doing tyhis because you guys have no Idea how to respect the rights of Americans and other peoples.

Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, stated that socialism and ultimately communism were his goals. He visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty under the Soviets. The ACLU's own policies include legalization of child porn, underage girls' access to abortion without parental notification, you get the picture. They're bad news, as in camel's nose way under the tent. By the way, Jimmy Carter gave them an award.

point blank- you are wrong http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The ACLU: Self-Righteous Fools and Fascistic Bullies bighollywood.breitbart.com/bprelutsky/2009/04/28/the-aclu-the-most-obnoxious-group-in-america – view page – cached I 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. — From the page [...]