ACLU Perv Pleads Guilty To Child Pornography

[mattskramer]

This is total bullshit. Most conservatives want to see Larry Craig disappear into oblivion as he is a total embarrassment.

He certainly does NOT represent conservative core beliefs nor moral ideology. However, the left - as represented by the ACLU - does support perversion.



Here's a pretty good rundown for you:

I was expecting a tiny bit more from you like also including a link to an article from the ACLU giving its position and explanation of its position on the issue. All that I got was a piece from an extremely anti-ACLU web site. Oh well.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I was expecting a tiny bit more from you like also including a link to an article from the ACLU giving its position and explanation of its position on the issue. All that I got was a piece from an extremely anti-ACLU web site. Oh well.

This petition should provide you with enough information. Some exerpts from the ACLU policy manual are included - among many other things that should indicate to you the position of the ACLU - which is quite a stealth organization and is not exactly forthcoming. However, their actions speak much louder than words.

INVESTIGATE THE ACLU!

To: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales & the U.S. Justice Dept.

Whereas Charles Rust-Tierney, former director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and recent ACLU board member, was recently convicted of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 8 years in prison,

Whereas Federal Judge Theresa Buchanan concluded in her sentence of Mr. Tierney that this was "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she had seen all her years on the bench,

Whereas, according to Judge Buchanan, the material Mr. Tierney obtained and viewed for his sadistic pleasure included a video containing the sexual torture of children,

Whereas the federal indictment on Mr. Tierney stated that he willfully and knowingly downloaded videos and photos showing young teens and preteens engaged in sexual activity,

Whereas there has been no mention of Mr. Tierney’s actions and prison sentence anywhere on both the ACLU of Virginia’s web site and the national ACLU’s site in New York, nor has there been any press release from either office to disavow its association with him or publicly apologize for his actions,

Whereas the ACLU has a long history and tradition of defending pornography, including child porn and advocated its use without any restrictions,

Whereas the policy manual of the ACLU, chapter 4, states that (excerpts below, thanks to ProtectKids.com making this available):

(a) "The ACLU opposes any restraint on the right to create, publish or distribute materials to adults . . . on the basis of obscenity . . ."
(b) "Laws which punish the distribution or exposure of such materials [i.e. including obscenity] to minors violate the First Amendment . . ."
(c) "The ACLU believes that . . . all limitations of expression on the ground of obscenity . . . are unconstitutional."
(d) "The ACLU opposes on First Amendment grounds laws that restrict the production and distribution of any . . . materials even when some of the producers of those materials are punishable under criminal law

Whereas the ACLU, according to the chapter “ACLU vs. Children” in the book ACLU vs. America, stated at a commission hearing in the Reagan Administration that while child porn should not be produced, it cannot be regulated once it is,

Whereas the ACLU opposes any and all restrictions of books, magazines and other library materials containing pornographic images and has regularly sued to ensure that none are ever put in place,

Whereas the ACLU opposes and has frequently litigated to block filtering at libraries and other public venues where citizens and public employees would have Internet access,

Whereas the ACLU has taken cities and counties to court for imposing restrictions on adult bookstores, adult video stores and adult entertainment clubs,

Whereas the ACLU defends unrestricted transmission of any form of pornography and opposes any and all regulations on such, be they transmitted on the Internet, thru the U.S. Postal Service, or by any other means,

Whereas the ACLU has and is currently defending the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in a case whereby a 10 year old Massachusetts boy was brutally murdered as a result of images and advocacy of child sex on its site,

Whereas the ACLU, in its defense of NAMBLA, chillingly describes NAMBLA’s depictions and displays on its web site as “robust free speech”,

Whereas the ACLU has sued cities, counties and states on behalf of pederasts, rapists and other sexual offenders to have unrestricted access to public parks, playgrounds and other facilities where children might congregate,

Whereas the ACLU’s timeless alliance with Planned Parenthood, America’s number one abortion provider, has resulted in habitually defending the abortion industry from releasing any information regarding possible sexual conduct between adults and minor teens, also known as jailbait,

Whereas statutes exist in all 50 states forbidding sexual activity between minors and adults,

Whereas the ACLU of Virginia, under Mr. Tierney’s watch, sued the state legislature in 2004 to block legislation prohibiting teen access to nudist clubs in the state without parental accompaniment,

Whereas Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and second in command only to executive director Anthony Romero, publicly states her love and support for unrestricted pornography and wrote a book titled Defending Pornography, proudly touting her views without shame,

Whereas Ms. Strossen has traveled to college campuses across America, such as Yale and her alma mater, Harvard, to defend her support of pornography in the name of free speech and has appeared in the play, The Vagina Monologues, a tasteless performance depicting a lesbian rape among numerous sexual vulgarities,

Whereas Larry Flynt, hardcore pornographer and publisher of Hustler Magazine, is on the board of directors for the Southern California ACLU and represents the ACLU at colleges and other public forums in his defense of pornography,

Whereas the goals of the Communist Party are contained in the Congressional Record Appendix, pages A34-35, three of them being:

· Eliminating all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. (#24)

· Breaking down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. (#25)

· Presenting homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." (#26)

Whereas these three goals (among a total of 45 of record) are clearly identifiable as perversions and representative of the ACLU in the lawsuits it entertains and defends,

Whereas the ACLU’s support and fulfillment of these goals have had a demonstrative negative effect on the welfare of America’s children – in the home, in the school and in society overall,

Whereas ACLU lawsuits defending unrestricted pornography and judges ruling in favor of the ACLU have, by the nature of them, harmed and crippled marriages and families and caused great sorrow and pain to all involved,

Whereas pornography in itself is dangerous as it causes its viewers and supporters to seek out more and more sexually graphic and titillating images, resulting in addictions that parallel with alcoholism, drug use and gambling,

Whereas child pornography creates serious damage to all involved with it, but especially the children who are victims of such abuse, along with the rest of their families,

Whereas downloading and possession of child pornography is illegal in all 50 states,

Whereas the ACLU advocates and sues to ensure that the availability of porn in all 50 states, include child porn, is not restricted or limited in any way,

Whereas the love, gratification and possession of pornography is clearly carried out by the likes of Mr. Tierney, Ms. Strossen and perhaps many other ACLU directors and employees across America,

Whereas the U.S. Justice Dept. is specifically charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes of pornography, especially child pornography,

Whereas the ACLU presents itself as a stealthy organization, regularly concealing and quashing information the U.S. government seeks to obtain from them,

And whereas public access to the ACLU, be it by phone, mail, e-mail, fax and personal visits, is frequently stifled since many branches do not answer their correspondence and communications and because many offices do not identify themselves accordingly on their front doors,

We the American people respectfully urge Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the U.S. Justice Dept. ([email protected]), along with other related law enforcement organizations within the federal government that it may ask to assist, such as the FBI and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), to conduct a top to bottom investigation of the ACLU and all its offices around the country to assess whether, in part due to the conviction of Mr. Tierney and his extensive ties to illegal activities, this organization may be identified as a criminal enterprise in conjunction with any ties it may have to the porn industry, either at home or abroad, and that the Justice Dept. will report its findings to the public in a timely manner.


Sincerely,

The Undersigned
http://www.petitiononline.com/haltACLU/petition.html

 

[mattskramer]

This petition should provide you with enough information. Some exerpts from the ACLU policy manual are included - among many other things that should indicate to you the position of the ACLU - which is quite a stealth organization and is not exactly forthcoming. However, their actions speak much louder than words.

I like to get clear positions directly from the horse’s mouth rather than from biased web site that thinks that it is in a position to explain it to you.

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html
The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

 

[Larkinn]

This petition should provide you with enough information. Some exerpts from the ACLU policy manual are included - among many other things that should indicate to you the position of the ACLU - which is quite a stealth organization and is not exactly forthcoming. However, their actions speak much louder than words.

Are you seriously advocating pressing charges based on what the ACLU says? You goddamned fascist. Don't ever pretend that you respect the constitution or the freedom of speech again...you are looking to prosecute people for their speech, so fuck off.

 

[Edward]

dude. you are one silly bastard, do you know that? If you were the target of the same amount of stupidity found in your post you'd be screaming bloody hell and calling the person generalizing about you a fascist or some other equally trite buzz worthy word.

No I wouldn't because I stopped giving a shit what fuckers think. Let them say whatever the hell they want since what someone says about me is not as bad as how they would be voting. They can generalize all they want and do. They do not like my hatred for their filthy Constitution and I suspect that so long as I oppose tyranny they will generalize in order to feel all fuzzy inside about their acts of tyranny.

This, edward, is why your posts don't get read or taken seriously (unless someone wants to tease you a little and laugh at your reactions)

Again, you think I care but I don't. It is clear that tyrants never take what others say seriously but that does not change what needs to be said. If I had a weak character then I could simply fall silent as a result of the tyranny that has become an art form over the last two hundred years. Let people tease me all they want so its not as bad as their acts of tyranny in the ballot. I am sure they are laughing as they take their pencil and mark: I VOTE FOR JOHN DOE AND AGAINST JANE DOE BECAUSE I WANT THOSE WHO AGREE WITH ME TO HAVE A VOTE ON LAWS BEFORE CONGRESS AND JANE DOE AND THE REST CAN SHUT THE FUCK UP AND REALIZE THEY DON'T GET TO VOTE ON OUR LAWS.

walk a mile, dummy. republicans are no more inherently evil than dems, greens and whatever sliver of the political spectrum you fancy yourself a part of.

Actually, conservatives are inherently evil and have been for thousands of years, and they always support tyranny and that is why they met in 1789 in secret in Philadelphia. They were reactionaries and sought to undo the freedom we had obtained in 1776 and they prevailed. That there are Democrats, Greens and others who also possess this characteristics does not negate that the majority of Republicans because of their ideology are by nature evil people. Let's look back over the history of the Republican Party (through its name changes) to its fucking founder Alexander Hamilton and what he believed about British form of government being the greatest on earth. Knowing what he said, and knowing that he was one of a handful he pushed the Constitutional Convention, and then went against the express direction of Congress and the States in drafting a new Constitution and one that is clearly modeled after the British constitution should tell us something about our government. Why do you think this bastard wanted the President" to be appointed for life? Why do you think we have a Parliment, a House of Lords and a House of Commons? We were warned and we ignored those warnings because it was only 6 years after we had just fought for our independence. We just weren't in the mood to fight conservatives again. But we were willing to do so if they did not give us a Bill of Rights. They knew this and they knew that the armed men who were about to come on them and show them that the people would not take their shit would not give in until we had a Bill of Rights. Unforunately, they didn't realize that giving in at that stage was the greatest mistake they would make and that it doomed generations of Americans to living under the British form of government for generations. Ironically, those who are now called Founding Fathers (and who were very evil men who conspired against the people) decided that the people shouldn't be able to vote on the Constitution and when the people of Rhode Island voted on it and rejected it (as would every other state had the people been allowed to vote against the filthy document that restored the British form of government) and when these filthy people saw what happened they decided to hold a Ratifying Convention in Rhode Island and to ratify the Constitution notwithstanding what the people thought on the subject. Then these monarchists gave a little in order to get a lot. We now watch as this is happening today. The Hamiltonians of today are trying to consolidate more power to the executive branch and to take it from the people. We know the monarchists, tyrants and those who distrust the people seek to consolidate power into the hands of the executive and to take it from the legislature. Those who oppose this can claim to be fighting evil and to be doing good even if they are not perfect. This is why Republicans are more evil then Democrats. This doesn't mean all Republicans are evil and I have never said they were but it does mean that the party to which they belong has an evil ideology and that they are more inclined to be evil while Democrats are less inclined to be so.

In the words of Jefferson, "Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." He understood what happened and knew what Hamilton represented and to this day the party which traces its ancestry back to Hamilton is hard at work in behalf of his ideology. This fight against evil and against the present-day monarchists and supporters of the Constitution can not end until the people are once again free like they were before 1789. LIke de Tocqueville has said, saying this will put me in place of being ridicule and the enemies of freedom, and liberty will hate me for it and attempt to kill me socially, mentally and spiritually but I have more courage than that. So nice try Shogun but you can say whatever the hell you want because I base my opinion of myself on internal sources and not external sources.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

no. liberals are perfect in every way.

My problem is the hypocrisy as if only republicans commit crimes, and democrats are pristine, pure individuals.

I wish this hypocrisy would stop, but democrats have to step up and say, were against any of this crap, and wont use it for political gain.

NOt gonna happen

Yup...all over DU and other lib web sites. Just for fun, try finding a list of Democrats convicted of sex crimes! Of course, I am sure no lib or Dem would EVER commit a sex crime.

 

[Larkinn]

no. liberals are perfect in every way.

My problem is the hypocrisy as if only republicans commit crimes, and democrats are pristine, pure individuals.

I wish this hypocrisy would stop, but democrats have to step up and say, were against any of this crap, and wont use it for political gain.

NOt gonna happen

You have an over-active imagination. Nobody has said that Democrats are "pristine, pure individuals". Obviously crime and political affiliation have little to do with each other.

 

[Edward]

no. liberals are perfect in every way.

My problem is the hypocrisy as if only republicans commit crimes, and democrats are pristine, pure individuals.

I wish this hypocrisy would stop, but democrats have to step up and say, were against any of this crap, and wont use it for political gain.

NOt gonna happen

I don't remember anyone saying that "liberals are perfect in every way" or that "Democrats are pristine, pure individuals." In fact, I recall stating that Democrats are almost as bad as Republicans in terms of their support for an immoral Constitution and that their only saving grace is their willingness to focus more on the Bill of Rights and less on the Constitution itself. What you have to understand about conservatism is that it is a reactionary ideology and it looks to "preserve" the status of the monarchists, aristocrats, etc and in order to do that they seek to have a strong executive, a weak legislature and are by virtue nationalists as opposed to federalists. The only time conservatives support state rights is when it advances their interests to do so. This is also true of Democrats but most Democrats tend to oppose the very ideology that Republicans support. This is why the Republicans are more immoral and evil than Democrats. This isn't true of all Republicans anymore than all Democrats are against tryanny. In fact, one look at the bitch Hillary Clinton and her bastard husband Bill Clinton shows that they aren't all against tryanny. Somehow we have lost our way as a society and it can be traced back to 1789 when conservatives met in secret in Philadelphia to conspire against the people of the united States. We should all be grateful that we were able to force a Bill of Rights into the Constitution or we would be in even more trouble as a result of that filthy document.

You are correct in saying "democrats have to step up and say, were against any of this crap, and wont use it for political gain." Democrats haven't done this instead they have followed the example of the Republican Party in this respect and as a result have demonstrated that they too can be tyrants. I hope that Democrats will wake the hell up and oppose the Constitution for what it is and do what needs to be done to create a government that will be both democratic and representative but I doubt they are willing to fight the conservatives because I suspect many of them are conservatives and that the two political parties are one and the same party with different names. It is my hope that Democrats will get a backbone.

 

[Edward]

You have an over-active imagination. Nobody has said that Democrats are "pristine, pure individuals". Obviously crime and political affiliation have little to do with each other.

I agree completely. Crime and political affiliation have nothing to do with each other. Yet this thread shouldn't just focus on criminality instead it should focus on morality and when we do so we can begin to see that the Republican Party is more immoral. Defining morality based solely on the individual acts of individuals isn't appropriate but defining the morality of a political party on its ideology is appropriate. The question then is rather the Republican Party ideology is moral. The answer to that question is no. Therefore, Republicans are immoral by virtue of this. I am sure that this offends many Republicans because they believe they are good people but they are not because they support the antithesis of freedom, liberty, democracy and representation instead preferring a system of government modeled solely after the one we revolted against in 1776. I do not doubt that every conservative is a tyrant and that the majority of Republicans are tyrants. I also suspect that a few Democrats are tyrants and conservatives but forunately for us the majority of Democrats are liberals which mean that they tend to be opposed to some of the principles of tyranny espoused by Republicans yet like Republicans they tend to support the Constitution because they do not see any way to oppose it and to help us become what we can be.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I like to get clear positions directly from the horse’s mouth rather than from biased web site that thinks that it is in a position to explain it to you.

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html
The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

Yep, right from the horse's mouth… the weasely ACLU claims that they "oppose child pornography that uses real children in its depictions". Does that mean they oppose child pornography? Hardly. They turn right around and support virtual child pornography.

So what're you gonna believe matts? That the ACLU is defending the "free speech" of pedophiles? How virtuous of them. Obviously they think that is more important then the protection of our children. Virtual depictions are created by computer or some other way in which real children are not used in the making. How is one supposed to tell the difference in the end product? You can't. But the actual end results of child porn (children being harmed) remain the same.

The Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act, H.R. 4623, was legislation created in direct response to the decision in the Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition case. The Ashcroft decision made virtual porn possible and the outcome would have been a huge proliferation of child porn across the country because under that ruling prosecutors would have to prove that the child porn was real as opposed to virtual. This would have made prosecuting child porn users "virtually impossible".

That is why H.R.4623 was created - because it would prevent virtual child porn. H.R.4623 was passed 413 to 8. This legislation is a big step in helping prosecutors to protect our children.

As former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said (and he should know), the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act "is a pedophiles worst nightmare."

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Are you seriously advocating pressing charges based on what the ACLU says? You goddamned fascist. Don't ever pretend that you respect the constitution or the freedom of speech again...you are looking to prosecute people for their speech, so fuck off.

I'd say there is more than enough justification to warrant an investigation "to assess whether, in part due to the conviction of Mr. Tierney and his extensive ties to illegal activities, this organization may be identified as a criminal enterprise in conjunction with any ties it may have to the porn industry, either at home or abroad"

 

[Larkinn]

I'd say there is more than enough justification to warrant an investigation "to assess whether, in part due to the conviction of Mr. Tierney and his extensive ties to illegal activities, this organization may be identified as a criminal enterprise in conjunction with any ties it may have to the porn industry, either at home or abroad"

Based on their political views and speech. As I said before, your a fucking fascist.

 

[Edward]

Yep, right from the horse's mouth… the weasely ACLU claims that they "oppose child pornography that uses real children in its depictions". Does that mean they oppose child pornography? Hardly. They turn right around and support virtual child pornography.

Let us look at one of the banner carriers for the Republican Party, Mark Foley, on the so-called fight against child pornography, and pedophilism. There is no doubt in my mind that this man was a pedophile before, during and after his so-called crusade against child sexual abuse. It is these men who hide in the Republican Party (i.e., Larry Craig) that pose a serious risk to our children because they wish to lull us into a false sense of security so they can more easily prey upon children (i.e., they support filters at public libraries because they want us to believe our children are safe there without us to protect them).

So what're you gonna believe matts? That the ACLU is defending the "free speech" of pedophiles? How virtuous of them. Obviously they think that is more important then the protection of our children. Virtual depictions are created by computer or some other way in which real children are not used in the making. How is one supposed to tell the difference in the end product? You can't. But the actual end results of child porn (children being harmed) remain the same.

The actual end results of internet filters, and so-called laws to protect our children from sexual predators has done more harm than good because the end "result of these laws (children being harmed) remain the same." The ACLUT understands this and understands that fighting this requires us to fight a social illness and to do that we need to shed light upon all those who do this. You cannot do that by driving them underground and into public parks, schools, libraries, and offer them the protection of an apparent ability of the government to protect our children. This is what these pedophiles want and that is why they sponsor these kinds of laws (i.e., Mark Foley). I for one am going to believe the ACLU on this one because they understand the nature of free speech, and how to balance it so that our children are protected without creating more of a problem. The reason the Republican Party is a home for a lot of pedophiles, rapists and generally perverts is that they feel that it is a safe place to launch from.

The Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act, H.R. 4623, was legislation created in direct response to the decision in the Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition case. The Ashcroft decision made virtual porn possible and the outcome would have been a huge proliferation of child porn across the country because under that ruling prosecutors would have to prove that the child porn was real as opposed to virtual. This would have made prosecuting child porn users "virtually impossible".

Do you not wonder why Mark Foley co-sponsored this piece of legislation? Why would a pedophile like Foley want to see this piece of legislation pass. What would make him support it? The answer to that is quite obvious. It is that Republicans support these kinds of laws because they know it makes our children easier prey. If we are going to protect our children we need to realize that Republicans sponsor these kinds of laws in order to lull us into a false sense of security especially those Republicans who prey upon children. I am not saying that there aren't Democrats or others who do not prey on children but I am saying that unlike Republicans Democrats and others do not use the party they are a part of to advance their predatory behavior. You can attempt to make this a matter of virtual child porn but it isn't about child pornography instead it is about predators and what they do and the ACLU unlike the Republican Party opposes child pornography instead the Republican Party supports it and attempts to pass laws that make the Republican Party look like it opposes it when in reality these laws are intended to make it easier for pedophiles to target our children from the safety of the Republican Party.

That is why H.R.4623 was created - because it would prevent virtual child porn. H.R.4623 was passed 413 to 8. This legislation is a big step in helping prosecutors to protect our children.

It does the exact opposite, and you said it well "this legislation is a big step in helping prosecutors to protect our children" instead of "helping us protect our children." The reason Mark Foley (and I am sure many other pedophile Republicans supported this bill) is because they know that people will think their children are safe as a result of the ability of prosecutors to go after those who traffic in child pornography and virtual child porn.

As former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said (and he should know), the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act "is a pedophiles worst nightmare."

No, the "Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act" is "a pedophiles dream come true." Pedophiles intend to break the law anyways and prey upon people regardless of what the law is but when such a law as this one exists they know it becomes easier for parents to think their children is safe and that is why Mark Foley, a pedophile, said what he did. He wants parents to think that this act was his "worst nightmare" when in reality it was his dream come true.

 

[Edward]

I'd say there is more than enough justification to warrant an investigation "to assess whether, in part due to the conviction of Mr. Tierney and his extensive ties to illegal activities, this organization may be identified as a criminal enterprise in conjunction with any ties it may have to the porn industry, either at home or abroad"

Let's not forget that Mark Foley was the leader on issues of the Republicans so-called fight against pedophiles and lets not forget that he himself was a pedophile. Because of this we must ask ourselves why the Republican Party, including Mark Foley support these kinds of laws. The ACLU supports laws against child molestation and child pornography but they draw the line where pedophiles do not want them too. These pedophiles, knowing that they intend to break the law, want these laws in place because it creates a false sense of security so they gravitate towards the Republican Party where they can feel secure in their predatory activities. I am far more inclined to believe the Republican Party is a criminal organization and is similar to a mafia type organization than I am to believe this of the ACLU which fights tyranny, and pedophiles at every opportunity it has and to support the Bill of Rights. This makes the ACLU an easy target for tyrants, facists, and even pedophiles who see them as a threat. The less laws there are to lull people into a false sense of security the better off a pedophile is so the ACLU is the pedophiles "worst nightmare" for opposing more such laws.

 

[Edward]

Based on their political views and speech. As I said before, your a fucking fascist.

You have to understand the character of a conservative which causes them to do this sort of thing. They want to go after the ACLU because it is a threat to tyranny, facism, and to criminals in general and pedophiles specifically. Calling him a "fucking fascist" is a step in the right direction but it isn't enough. It will take a lot of courage for us to do something about these kind of people and to address the problems they create. Ironically, you don't hear conservatives complaining when the ACLU is defending the rights of people of faith or calling for limits on laws against those of faith because they want to create this image that they are people of faith when in reality their so-called religion is nothing more than a dressing for their true natures. I doubt that there is a single Republican who truly believes in and follows Christ because they are "fucking assholes." Did I just say that? Yes, so I can't be Republican who pretends to be what I am not so that I can prey on others.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Based on their political views and speech. As I said before, your a fucking fascist.

Hey, if anybody is making war on free speech, it's you fascist liberals with your hate crime legislation.

This investigation would be made in the interest of the children...and ye protest?

Or is it that pervs trump kids in your fascistic liberal world?

 

[Larkinn]

Hey, if anybody is making war on free speech, it's you fascist liberals with your hate crime legislation.

No, actually its you with advocating investigating people cause of their political views.

This investigation would be made in the interest of the children...and ye protest?

Or is it that pervs trump kids in your fascistic liberal world?

Emotional bullshit to attempt to infringe on freedom of speech. "think of the children...what you don't want to suspend the constitution?...than you must hate children". You fascistic moron.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, actually its you with advocating investigating people cause of their political views.

I believe they have an anti-religious agenda. I also believe they have an anti-American agenda. I'd like to know why the ACLU organization has been involved in so many Supreme Court cases. It's like their modus operandi to rip up our Constitution. They defend some extremely radical positions that are against the principles of most Americans. They also fight every government effort for national defense. They may even be terrorist supporters. They certainly have internal problems regarding privacy issues and shady document shredding. Why is the ACLU afraid of an investigation? An investigation would expose the ACLU and make their agenda known to the American public.

Emotional bullshit to attempt to infringe on freedom of speech. "think of the children...what you don't want to suspend the constitution?...than you must hate children". You fascistic moron.

I'd say you're the moronic one as the joke's on you.

 

[Edward]

I believe they have an anti-religious agenda. I also believe they have an anti-American agenda.

That's bullshit and you know it. The ACLU has sued on behalf of Churches and religions. Here is an example, "The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today announced the favorable settlement of its lawsuit on behalf of a Christian prisoner who has been barred since 2003 from preaching during Christian religious services at the state prison....The ACLU had argued that the preaching ban violated a federal law designed to protect the religious freedom of institutionalized persons. That law, known by its acronym RLUIPA, bars states from imposing any substantial burden on an inmate's exercise of religion unless it furthers a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means available. " Why did they do this if they are "anti-religious?" The answer is that they are not anti-religious. What they are against is the fake religion that people like you profess to impose your tyranny upon others. The freedom to worship as one sees fit has been one of the primary purposes of the ACLU. The one consistent position of the ACLU is one of "freedom and liberty" and protecting the rights of everyone and that is why you call them anti-American and anti-religious. It is your hatred of those who refuse to go along with your tyranny that causes you to go after them as if they are anti-religious and anti-American when in fact it is because they oppose your anti-freedom of religion and anti-American positions that you hate them so much.

Let us look at the position of the ACLU on religion instead of your narrow-minded, tyrannical hatred of them for opposing your evil actions and ideology.

The ACLU states, "Religion is pervasive in the public square in the United States - and it is constitutionally protected. The ACLU has long defended individuals, families, and religious communities who wish to manifest their religion in public." What? The position of the ACLU is that religion in the public square is a protected right under the Contitution? Shame on them for that anti-religious position. They go on to state, "The ACLU has actively supported the right of people to preach their religion in public places and to go door-to-door to spread their religious messages. The Constitution properly protects the right of religious figures to preach their messages over the public airwaves. Religious books, magazines, and newspapers are freely published and delivered through the U.S. Postal System. No other industrialized democracy has as much religion in the public square as does the United States." That's wonderful to hear but according to you all the cases they have taken which protect the right of Christians and non-Christians alike to preach religion and to speak publically about it including the right to go door to door is anti-religious.

They then say, "Some people, however, mistakenly use the word "public" when they really mean "governmental." This can be seen, for example, with Ten Commandments monuments. The right of churches and families to erect such monuments on their own property is constitutionally protected, regardless of whether it is public or private and regardless of whether someone is offended or not. A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution. The issue is not "religion in the public square" - as the rhetoric misleadingly suggests - but whether the government should be making decisions about whose sacred texts and symbols should be placed on government property and whose should be rejected." What this means is that the ACLU's position is that religion is protected and they continue to sue in behalf of religions, churches and people of faith. What the ACLU opposes is the government endorsing a religion or Church and giving preference to one over the other. It is when these actions take place that they cease being a matter of the free exercise of religion and become a violation of the rights of everyone to worship freely. This isn't anti-religious instead it is pro-religious position. In fact, they are simply trying to protect our right to worship as we see fit from those who would have us accept their form of worship. We do not need to leave our faith at home or in the Church when we step into the public square. This is the real principle of freedom of religion.

I am more than happy to stand with the ACLU on this one as a person of faith and I am pleased with the amount of lawsuits they have filed on behalf of people of faith against shitheads like you who would violate our rights and the rights of people not of your specific faith. As a Christian I can say that you are a hateful, narrow-minded, evil man and that your Pastor is most likely the same kind of person based on how sick and twisted you are.

I'd like to know why the ACLU organization has been involved in so many Supreme Court cases. It's like their modus operandi to rip up our Constitution. They defend some extremely radical positions that are against the principles of most Americans. They also fight every government effort for national defense. They may even be terrorist supporters. They certainly have internal problems regarding privacy issues and shady document shredding. Why is the ACLU afraid of an investigation? An investigation would expose the ACLU and make their agenda known to the American public.

The one thing you fail to mention is that the ACLU protects everyone's rights equally and that is what you hate. You would have no problem with them if they advanced your interests 100% of the time just like you have no problem with the fuckers who you vote for who are willing to advance your evil cause 100% of the time. The reason you don't like the ACLU is that they aren't willing to take your anti-American and anti-freedom position. They are not anti-religious instead you are the one who is anti-religious. As a person of faith I am now going to tell you to go to fucking hell. Did I just say that? Oh my! This must mean that I am anti-religious. Who would tell someone to got to "fucking hell." Wait!!! It's those who love freedom, and their right to worship God as they see fit who will tell the fucking bastards who pretend to be religious only as a means to violate our rights who would tell them to go to hell.

I'd say you're the moronic one as the joke's on you.

And I would say you are fucking evil just like the idiots you vote for. How dare you enter the ballot with the intent to act as every damn King has done alone with other individuals who are of the same mind as you. Your faction is an evil one and has been since the world was formed. It's the faction of Satan himself and those who fight for the right must not let you hijack our religion or our faith like the reactionary conservatives Muslims hijacked the Islamic faith to advance their conservative ideology. The one thing al-Qaeda and the Republican Party have in common is that they are both the pawns of Satan.

 

[mattskramer]

That's bullshit and you know it. The ACLU has sued on behalf of Churches and religions. Here is an example, "The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today announced the favorable settlement of its lawsuit on behalf of a Christian prisoner who has been barred since 2003 from preaching during Christian religious services at the state prison....The ACLU had argued that the preaching ban violated a federal law designed to protect the religious freedom of institutionalized persons. That law, known by its acronym RLUIPA, bars states from imposing any substantial burden on an inmate's exercise of religion unless it furthers a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means available. " Why did they do this if they are "anti-religious?" The answer is that they are not anti-religious. What they are against is the fake religion that people like you profess to impose your tyranny upon others. The freedom to worship as one sees fit has been one of the primary purposes of the ACLU. The one consistent position of the ACLU is one of "freedom and liberty" and protecting the rights of everyone and that is why you call them anti-American and anti-religious. It is your hatred of those who refuse to go along with your tyranny that causes you to go after them as if they are anti-religious and anti-American when in fact it is because they oppose your anti-freedom of religion and anti-American positions that you hate them so much.

Let us look at the position of the ACLU on religion instead of your narrow-minded, tyrannical hatred of them for opposing your evil actions and ideology.

The ACLU states, "Religion is pervasive in the public square in the United States - and it is constitutionally protected. The ACLU has long defended individuals, families, and religious communities who wish to manifest their religion in public." What? The position of the ACLU is that religion in the public square is a protected right under the Contitution? Shame on them for that anti-religious position. They go on to state, "The ACLU has actively supported the right of people to preach their religion in public places and to go door-to-door to spread their religious messages. The Constitution properly protects the right of religious figures to preach their messages over the public airwaves. Religious books, magazines, and newspapers are freely published and delivered through the U.S. Postal System. No other industrialized democracy has as much religion in the public square as does the United States." That's wonderful to hear but according to you all the cases they have taken which protect the right of Christians and non-Christians alike to preach religion and to speak publically about it including the right to go door to door is anti-religious.

They then say, "Some people, however, mistakenly use the word "public" when they really mean "governmental." This can be seen, for example, with Ten Commandments monuments. The right of churches and families to erect such monuments on their own property is constitutionally protected, regardless of whether it is public or private and regardless of whether someone is offended or not. A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution. The issue is not "religion in the public square" - as the rhetoric misleadingly suggests - but whether the government should be making decisions about whose sacred texts and symbols should be placed on government property and whose should be rejected." What this means is that the ACLU's position is that religion is protected and they continue to sue in behalf of religions, churches and people of faith. What the ACLU opposes is the government endorsing a religion or Church and giving preference to one over the other. It is when these actions take place that they cease being a matter of the free exercise of religion and become a violation of the rights of everyone to worship freely. This isn't anti-religious instead it is pro-religious position. In fact, they are simply trying to protect our right to worship as we see fit from those who would have us accept their form of worship. We do not need to leave our faith at home or in the Church when we step into the public square. This is the real principle of freedom of religion.

I am more than happy to stand with the ACLU on this one as a person of faith and I am pleased with the amount of lawsuits they have filed on behalf of people of faith against shitheads like you who would violate our rights and the rights of people not of your specific faith. As a Christian I can say that you are a hateful, narrow-minded, evil man and that your Pastor is most likely the same kind of person based on how sick and twisted you are.



The one thing you fail to mention is that the ACLU protects everyone's rights equally and that is what you hate. You would have no problem with them if they advanced your interests 100% of the time just like you have no problem with the fuckers who you vote for who are willing to advance your evil cause 100% of the time. The reason you don't like the ACLU is that they aren't willing to take your anti-American and anti-freedom position. They are not anti-religious instead you are the one who is anti-religious. As a person of faith I am now going to tell you to go to fucking hell. Did I just say that? Oh my! This must mean that I am anti-religious. Who would tell someone to got to "fucking hell." Wait!!! It's those who love freedom, and their right to worship God as they see fit who will tell the fucking bastards who pretend to be religious only as a means to violate our rights who would tell them to go to hell.



And I would say you are fucking evil just like the idiots you vote for. How dare you enter the ballot with the intent to act as every damn King has done alone with other individuals who are of the same mind as you. Your faction is an evil one and has been since the world was formed. It's the faction of Satan himself and those who fight for the right must not let you hijack our religion or our faith like the reactionary conservatives Muslims hijacked the Islamic faith to advance their conservative ideology. The one thing al-Qaeda and the Republican Party have in common is that they are both the pawns of Satan.

I read what you say and I basically agree with you. Screaming Eagle and I have debated it before. I even pulled the same quotes from the ACLU web site that you posted. As I understand Eagle’s opinion, it is just that the number of instances in which the ACLU defended Christians is not enough to satisfy Screaming Eagle. Also, these Christians that the ACLU did support were not real Christians or true Christians or typical Christians or something like that. Those Christians don’t count. We disagree. I think that there is a sufficient number to show that the ACLU is not pro-Christian or anti-Christian. Also, those Christians that were helped by the ACLU qualify as Christians just as any Christian. It is pro-civil-liberty no matter who has a legitimate issue.