The ACLU Exposed

[-Cp]

The ACLU exposed: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

Last night, we reported that the Supreme Court of Oregon had ruled 5 to 1 that live sex shows are permitted in that state under the freedom of expression banner. The ACLU and The Oregonian newspaper both filed briefs in favor of that ruling. But why would the ACLU do that? What's in it for them?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states and local communities have the right to limit expression. This is the U.S. Supreme court, in a time, place, and manner, application of standards. That is, you can't have sex on your front lawn, even if it's a personal expression on private property. The Supreme Court realizes the Constitution requires boundaries for what Americans do. If you don't have boundaries, you have chaos. Thus, community standards and public safety trump personal expression.

But the ACLU doesn't believe that. The organization has moved so far left, that now anything goes.

• Item: The ACLU is defending the North American Man Boy Love Association, saying that although the organization champions the criminal rape of children, it has a right to do that under free expression.

• Item: The ACLU endorses virtual child pornography and has defended the right of people to obtain real child porn.

• Item: the ACLU opposed the Minutemen protests at the border, obviously, a legitimate form of expression.

So it seems the ACLU cherry picks its cases. The Minutemen certainly have a right to protest the porous border situation, but the ACLU opposes that expression. — Off the chart hypocritical.

So let's apply the no spin concept to this. The ACLU simply wants a different country, a nation where conduct it approves of, public sexual displays, child molestation literature is allowed. But the ACLU wants to inhibit conduct it disagrees with, like protesting the border and celebrating the birth of Jesus. That's what's going on.

Now my next comments are directed at our liberal viewers. How can you support a group as nakedly, pardon the pun, radical as the ACLU? This isn't about freedom. This is about imposing a radical secular progressive agenda on a country that has traditionally voted on public policy issues. If the live sex act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it'd be voted down big. Remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage.

So once again, the ACLU is using an activist court to undermine what the folks want. This isn't democracy. This is judicial fascism.

It's also a joke. The founding fathers didn't write the First Amendment with live sex shows in mind, OK? Everybody understand that? You can easily pervert the Constitution by saying every kind of expression is protected, but again, that would lead to chaos and conflict.

"Talking Points" believes the 400,000 members of the ACLU should wake up and smell the totalitarianism. This organization is bent on undermining freedom, not fighting for it. And everybody should understand that.

And that's "The Memo."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Good memo. Unfortunately there are those on the left who wish for "freedom" in all of its forms of excess, at any cost. They don't realize that the ultimate cost is freedom itself.

Freedom comes with responsibility if it is to survive.

 

[Abbey Normal]

The only thing I disagree with in this Memo is that the ALCU is moving to the far left. The ACLU started there.

Re: founder Roger Baldwin, et al:

"His first Board of Directors were Elizabeth Gurly Flynn and William Z. Foster, both of whom would later head the Communist Party in America... at the age of fifty he [Baldwin] said, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument for 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."

And:
"Of the ACLU Board members elected during its first sixty years, almost eighty percent had Communist affiliations. Ninety percent of its cases involved defending Communists..."

And one more interesting tidbit:
"In 1981, Jimmy Carter awarded Roger Baldwin the Medal of Freedom-the nation's highest civilian honor."

http://www.imakenews.com/caoilfhionn/e_article000386400.cfm?x=b11,0,w

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The only thing I disagree with in this Memo is that the ALCU is moving to the far left. The ACLU started there.

Re: founder Roger Baldwin, et al:

"His first Board of Directors were Elizabeth Gurly Flynn and William Z. Foster, both of whom would later head the Communist Party in America... at the age of fifty he [Baldwin] said, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument for 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."

And:
"Of the ACLU Board members elected during its first sixty years, almost eighty percent had Communist affiliations. Ninety percent of its cases involved defending Communists..."

And one more interesting tidbit:
"In 1981, Jimmy Carter awarded Roger Baldwin the Medal of Freedom-the nation's highest civilian honor."

http://www.imakenews.com/caoilfhionn/e_article000386400.cfm?x=b11,0,w

That is a great article. If anybody has any doubt about the ACLU not being Communist, please read again.

Today it seems a great deal of their cases are either anti-religious or pro-pornography - two goals of the Communist Party are to squelch religion and destroy the moral fabric of our country.

 

[Bullypulpit]

And let's not forget their support of Rush Limbaugh in keeping his medical records confidential in the face of his legal problems with Oxycontin. Nor should their sucessful advocacy on behalf of a church in using the lake at a public park for baptisms.

The twits on the right-wing of the political spectrum seem to "cherry-pick" their examples of ACLU wrongdoing. And as for the NAMBLA case, you should <i><b>actually read</b></i> the case summary instead of the right-wing talking points. It's not about what you believe it's about.

 

[Abbey Normal]

And let's not forget their support of Rush Limbaugh in keeping his medical records confidential in the face of his legal problems with Oxycontin. Nor should their sucessful advocacy on behalf of a church in using the lake at a public park for baptisms.

The twits on the right-wing of the political spectrum seem to "cherry-pick" their examples of ACLU wrongdoing. And as for the NAMBLA case, you should <i><b>actually read</b></i> the case summary instead of the right-wing talking points. It's not about what you believe it's about.

On the contrary, it's the ACLU Lib zealots (mass redundancy, there) who try to defend the ACLU by cherry picking the miniscule number of cases, like Limbaugh's, that the ACLU takes on for window dressing. It's a feeble attempt to not look hypocritically inconsistent. Intelligent people are not fooled, and are well aware of their true agenda.

 

[Avatar4321]

What the Left seems to fail to understand is that without the rule of law we have no freedom in this country. It's a paradox in theory but its a fact of life.

A good example of this is a kite. When we fly a kite we hold it down with a thread. Think of the kite as our freedom and the thread as the rule of law. It looks to some as though if we cut the thread the kite would be free to fly higher and not be restricted. But if we do cut the thread the only thing that would happen is the kite would come crashing down. If we destroy the power the law has to govern people, we cut the line supporting our freedom.

That is the beauty of the United States. Our founders, based on thousands of years of philosophical, scientific, and theological understanding developed a system of government that would maximize freedom while limiting the two great problems in government: Tyranny and Anarchy.