Chuck Norris : The Abolishing Christian Legacy Union

I love Chuck Norris. I'll take Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent in a straght-up fight against any 50 commie liberals. Here's one of his recent columns:

The ACLU is not anti-religion, just anti-Christian. By definition, it's the American Civil Liberties Union. By action, it has become the Abolishing Christian Legacy Union.

The ACLU will assure Muslim clerics and imams the right to pray on planes, fight for an atheist's rights to remove a cross, stand beside pro-abortionists, help illegal aliens cross our borders, and establish rights for the sexual deviant by forming the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, but what is it doing for Christians and Christmas censorship?

While allegedly fighting against the tyranny of the majority, the ACLU itself rules religiously by litigation, lobbying, and supporting counter-culture Christian movements.

So who died and appointed the ACLU as America's religious constitutional watchdog?

Membership for the ACLU is only 500,000. America's population is 300 million. I think it's time that we helped them feel their size!

Posted by: Ragnar at 03:52 PM

Comments

1 Try and take down HIS Christmas tree!

Can I capture the moment on video? I'd appreciate it.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 29, 2006 06:59 PM

2 Ah, the usual lies about the ACLU not defending Christians.

For actual cases of the ACLU defending Christians, see http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

I would also like to point out the obvious; the ACLU never decides cases. Current laws and judges decide the outcome.

Posted by: Brian Westley at December 29, 2006 09:14 PM

3 I saw your website and I'll admit, I'm pleasantly surprised by that.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 29, 2006 11:03 PM

4 Normally I find myself in strong agreement with Jesusland Carlos, but this time I'm holding back a bit. Frankly, I think the ACLU tries to throw Christians a few crumbs, so the Marxist element isn't to obvious. Sorry Carlos :)

I find that the ACLU uses a definition of the 'establishment' concept, which is more oppressive than the one stated so simply in the First Amendment.

If Congress said "We just passed a law saying Americans must be Catholic", they would be in clear violation of the First Amendment. The same would hold true if they said we would change our laws to endorse Sharia law over the Bill Of Rights. That would be 'establishment' of religion.

Letting federal funds go to a faith based organization is not an 'establishment' issue. Not letting a student here, or a teacher there, use religious speech at a public school ceremony had nothing to do with any law passed by the US Congress.

In short, when the ACLU takes issue with any religious expression by a person or group, where no enforcement of specific dogma or practice is required of others in attendance, they are wrong.

If there is not a clear case where the US Congress is imposing, and enforceing by law, a single religious orthodoxy, and dogma which citizens are required to obey, then there is no 'establishment' issue.

That leaves 'free expression'. The ACLU comes down against 'free expression' in a way the US Congress wouldn't dare. Activist judges are sought out to hear these cases, and by clever arguement, a precedent for a law that never existed, finds its way into American legal institutions. Again, if the US Congress isn't making a law to impose, or restrict any form of religious expression over another, there IS NO CASE. Any such suit should be tossed out on its ear!

There is one great danger we DO face. The Islamic faith is also the Islamic state. The Ummah! Promoting Islam, with Sharia, automatically requires obedience to the Ummah! Therefore, when people like Greyrooster say 'Outlaw Islam' there may be a legitimate Constitutional arguement. I'll clarify.

The US Constitution says Congress may not pass a law prohbiting free expression of religion. This means theoretically we could allow child sacrifices to Molloch(I mean besides abortions). This obviously conficts with the inalienable rights of the child to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Clearly, free exercise can't be upheld in the face of obviously criminal, and inhuman behavior.

Speech yes! Ritual head hunting, no!

Islam is a nation, and a religion. This also flies in the face of everyones right to free exercise, and the non-establishement clause. Sharia tells non-Muslims what rights they will be allowed, not the US COnstitution. Sharia makes it clear that replacement of other kinds of government is seen as good, and inevitable.

Islam under Sharia is patently subversive to the US Constitution.

SO! We see there are cases where religious expression can be deemed a crime.

Decorations, and saying what you believe aren't crimes. Even if your doing it on the publics dime. No part of the US Constitution ever said you had to give up free expression of religion, just because your speaking in public, or paid by tax payers. The very idea flies in the face of free speech!

The ACLU pushes the 'Sharia' of radical secularism.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 30, 2006 01:06 AM

5 Lyin Westley:Ah, the usual lies about the ACLU defending Christianity.The American Communist Lawyers Union represents select Christians incosmetic cases in a calculated effort to appear impartial, all the while waging jihad on the free exercise of Christianity.I would also like to point out the obvious; the ACLUinitiates and arguescases. Current laws are distorted, and leftist judges are chosen to decide the outcomes.You left-wing cretins never stop lying, do you?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 30, 2006 02:10 AM

6 Carlos, don't let that bit of propaganda away you, because that's just
what it is - nothing more, nothing less. The ACLU learned that trick
from their masters in Moscow years ago, and if you look at all the
lefturd movements in the world, you'll see a common thread of such acts
where they do just a little bit to earn credibility, then are free to
perform their real mission, just the same way that the dhimmicraps, who
fought the Civil Rights movement for so long, infiltrated and subverted
it, and are actually using it to keep minorities outside the
mainstream. As went Saddam, so should go every sonofabitch with an ACLU
card.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 30, 2006 09:24 AM

7 Doesn't mean I agree with their definition of the Establishment clause. If it wasn't unconstitutional in the past to erect a religious symbol on government land to honor the fallen dead, then it's not unconstitutional that it should remain there today. The ACLU's retroactive interpretation of the Establishment clause that gives them the right to re-write our country's history is radical secularism of the worst kind, and is exactldy what forced me out of the Democrat party. They are no better than the Taliban who destroyed the ancient giant Buddha statues because they didn't conform to the current religious order.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 30, 2006 10:49 AM

8 And now the usual retort that the ACLU is somehow not really defending Christians by defending Christians, they're just for show. People can't even make up new lies about the ACLU. And some of you are actually resurrecting the hoary old "communist" boogyman!? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

As for what the first amendment means, I suggest you read some of the writings of James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the first amendment.

Posted by: Brian Westley at December 30, 2006 02:01 PM

9 Brian:

Read "Origional Intent" by David Barton. Particularly pages 205-206.

Let me help ...
"Although Madison had oppossed a Bill Of Rights, he understood the grim reality that without one, it was unlikely the new Constitution would recieve widespread public acceptance. Consquently, he withdrew his opposition, and in in the federal House of Representatives he introduced his own versions of the amendments offered by his state.

Very little of Madison's proposed religious wording made it into the final version of the First Amendment, and even a cursory examination of the Annals of Congress surrounding the formation of that Amendment quickly reveals the influence of Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carrol, and Charles Carrol of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and others on that Amendment.

By utilizing Jefferson and Madison as the principal spokesmen for the First Amendment, the contemporary courts have chosen one who was out of the country at the time of the formation of the First Amendment and another who felt it unnecessary."

Brian, it doesn't matter who was holding the pen! What matters is that what we ended up with was the best that all participants could agree on. We have a right to 'free exercise'. Sorry.

Also, the ACLU is like a lot of the so called 'right' groups. they will call in five trucks to put out your candle, while ignoring the burning forest all around them. And they are hypocrits. They only defend some rights held by the people, not all of them.

Yes the ACLU uses little cases that help Christians for political cover, but the big cases affecting millions are where they show their true anti-Christian biases. If they were so good to Christians, then why will a simple effort on any search engine, find all these cases where the ACLU has oppossed free expression? I hope your not a dupe?

Maybe you are a dupe. Anyone with a working brain knows that Marxism is alive and well in certain elements of American culture. The ACLU has its connections. Denying it only makes you look decietful. I'm hoping your just ill informed.

We can do this all week, and you will end up calling me names. I'm used to it, but it doesn't change much. Why not end this while we are still barely polite?


USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 30, 2006 04:31 PM

10 Well yes, we all have free exerise of religion, including imams on airplanes, right? Or do they not have rights?

And you seem to want ME to find cases where the ACLU has opposed free exercise, instead of producing some examples yourself. I'm expected to do the work of refuting myself? Sorry, that's your job.

It's alse very amusing that you would start the namecalling by calling me a "dupe", and then say I'll end up calling YOU names. Look in a mirror lately?

Perhaps some actual examples of what the ACLU has done would help. So far, I see little more than exaggerated rhetoric, with no specifics. Post some real world examples if you want a debate, or you can stick with meaningless slogans if you prefer.

Posted by: brian Westley at December 30, 2006 06:06 PM

11 Lyin Westley:The ACLU is a Marxist organization that works incessantly to subvert the first amendment, particularly when it comes to Christianity. It tries to distort the freedom of religion into a freedom from religion through litigation--and you know it. It takes tiny cases representing individual Christians' right to be Christian in private, while never losing focus on the larger goal to keep Christianity out of the public sphere.It is very selective in it's attacks on religious expression in public. Only Christianity is singled out. Public displays of filthy cults like islame are not only excused, they are defended pro bono, like the "right" for mosques to blare phony calls to prayer from loudspeakers, or for schools to indoctrinate students with whitewashed versions of the cult. Oh yeah. And terrorists on a plane.Not a single case on the ridiculous propaganda site you tried to link to contradicts anything I've written.Ignoring reality is de rigueur for the left, but fortunately for the rest of us, wishing it doesn't make it so.You actually tried to pass off the stale old canard that the ACLU isn't a Marxist organization? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Tell that to it's founder, shit for brains! You know, the geek who wanted to abolish personal property and disband our military. No doubt it's just a coincidence that every casethe socialistastakeaffecting U.S. policyadvances thecommunist agenda.You're so fucking stupid, you didn't even read the Chuck Norris story, did you? You actually think you can bamboozle people with your plagiarized lies. Mike Weaver was wrong to call you a dupe. You're a lying sack of shit. You know damn well what the communist lawyers are trying to enforce on the majority, and you are a willing participant.Weaver already made sure your ignorance about Madison was exposed. Do you fact check any of the propaganda you swallow? Of course not. You're a leftist,so facts don't matter. Only the agenda matters.The imams were expressing their religion on a plane? Since when is mimicking the actions of the 911 terrorists an exercise of religion? Since little Muhammad made terrorism an integral part of his religion, that's when. Unfortunately for islamopithecines and leftist traitors like you, terrorism is illegal in this country. It is against the law to terrorize passengers by deliberately leading them to believe you are going to hijack the plane."And you seem to want ME to find cases where the ACLU has opposed free exercise, instead of producing some examples yourself. I'm expected to do the work of refuting myself? Sorry, that's your job." Actually, you're the stupid asshole who denied that the ACLUopposes the Constitutional free exercise of Christianity.It's your job to prove your statements are correct. Good luck with that.Go to stoptheaclu.com or do a fucking Google search for more examples of ACLU perfidy than you can shake a dead fetus at.As if you didn't know already. I have to hand it to you lefties. You're predictably consitent. You're all too stupid and deceitful to debate properly. Marxism only murdered 300+ million people in the last century, and consigned countless more to untold misery. By all means, let's give it another chance. The world could use more North Koreas and Cubas. Cretin.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 31, 2006 01:44 AM

12 Brian, I left your 'dupishness' open to the possibility I was misjudgeing you, or didn't you notice. Besides "dupe" is a descriptive term if it is accurate, so it wasn't necessarily personal. I also said we were still barely polite, which of course means we are about to 'not be'.

You show me one site that has the ACLU doing some 'good' deeds for Christians. (precious few, but its still nice to see something) You provide a link. GREAT!

I suggest that you could take a minute maybe, to look up on any search engine, the ACLU's anti-Christian bias, and that's to hard for you. Golly, its only slightly longer than it took you to provide your link, and way less time than it is taking me to respond to you now.

If you want me to type out ALL of the ACLU's hypocracies for you, I'm going to be here till the '08 elections. IF ANY ONE HERE ISN'T TO DAMN LAZY ... TYPE "ACLU" AND "CHRISTIAN" INTO ANY SEARCH ENGINE! That is where all the evidence I will ever need is located. That is my answer to your precious little link, you lazy socialist hypocrite. (Those were descriptive terms. For name calling I offer you this example! "Brian, you DORK! Pull your finger out of your ass, and use it to type 'aclu' and 'Christian' into a search engine!" See the difference?)

Now I know a lot of other people reading this aren't as lazy as Brian, and are willing to take a few minutes to do a little of their own research. Obviously if you DIDN'T want to know anything, you would skip checking out the Jawa Report. You would be watching the mainstream media instead.

What you will find if you do a search, is that while the ACLU has been praised, it has also been condemned. One reason for condemnation, is that the ACLU routinely positions itself in such a way as to restrict Christian free exercise. That is, Christians are stopped from talking about Christ. Lots of places.

Hypocritically, the ACLU will uphold actions which cross the line of individual free exercise if the one exercising happens to be a minority. You could get tossed off a plane for shouting 'Death to America', while pouring shampoo into your mouthwash, and nobody would be upset except you, and the ACLU! They would claim you were punished for mixing personal hygiene products while being Muslim, AND THAT'S WRONG! Oh! Here comes the f*cking cavalry!

In other words, the typical marxist tactic of forming grievance groups is aided, and abetted. The purpose of the grievance groups is to frame the government as the enemy of its suppossedly disenfranchised citizens. I'm disenfranchised because the government won't let me execise my right to punch Brian in the nose. His right not to get punched is interfereing with my freedom of expression, and my freedom of movement. What about my right to get drunk and piss on Brians begonias?

But guess what, we all are disenfranchised, so get over it. It's called compromise. With that compromise comes an opportunity to rise on our own merits, and become less disenfranchised by our own sweat. Its sometimes called the 'Protestant Work Ethic', but if that's to religious for you, just call it the 'Pursuit of Happiness'.

As it works out, I'm not interested in debating such an obvious truth. So obvious that a nine year old could discover it for themselves. Most nine year olds can handle typing 'aclu' and 'Christian' into a search bar. Maybe you went to the wrong school? UCLA? I hear they have a lot of commies over there.

I'm sick of this.

I am interested in more difficult topics like where we should draw the line with so called moderate Muslims? There is some uncertainty there, and a chance to have a discussion with real benefits. I'd like to help save the innocent from persecution, if possible.

Talking about the ACLU, is like talking about food poisoning. You educate people about the danger, and then you move on. There is no real question about whether food poisoning is bad or not. The only question is do you know how to avoid it?

Your link about the ACLU helping Christians makes me think of someone trying to heap sugar on top of a heaping dish of salmonella culture, and trying to call it yogurt. Nice try!

As someone who once believed in the ACLU I will tell you what changed my mind. I did my own research. I wasn't lazy. I looked past the simple minded praise, and saw at that the ACLU was corroding away more genuine freedoms than they were protecting.

In at least one huge example, they endorse the total disenfranchisement of an entire catagory of human beings. The unborn. The Supreme Court flew into the face of traditional American justice, by taking away the benefit of the doubt, for millions of unborn human beings. That is what makes abortion 'legal'. The Supreme Court couldn't say when human life, was legally human life, so they ruled against the unborn.

So Brian, that's like saying your guilty till proven innocent. Your not human till your proven to be, so if I shoot at your shadow in the dark, its not murder, even if I throw a few hand grenades afterwards. Because I don't know if your human, so its OK to kill you. That is what a pro-abortion ruling is about. The ACLU supports abortion. What is the deal?

The claim that it is the woman's body, dismisses as unimportant, the man's genetic property, and parental rights. It dismisses the reality that the unborn, in fact, has a body, that though trapped inside the larger body of another, is no less genuine. It dismisses as unworthy of consideration, the fact that a possible human life contained in that small trapped body, is being executed without benefit of doubt, or due process of law. No person who has an interest in protecting that life, may take any actions to save it if the mother won't let them. The ACLU thinks that is protecting rights, and freedoms.

But the ACLU always protects the underdog, isn't that right Brian? Like Human Rights Watch always has its eye on the worst violators, but ignores the ACLU! Makes perfect sense to me.

So how about it Brian? Want to participate in some old Nordic religious rituals at a peat bog on private land? No Federal funds are involved. Its even a minority religion. Don't worry about bringing anything but yourself. We already have some rope, and some spears. Its nice and secluded, and there will be a moment of silence at the end. Its also good for the enviroment. Don't worry about transportation, we can have you picked up. Unless something about all of this makes you worry? I hope your not accusing us of making jokes while being 'northern European'? Brian, have I called you a 'Dork' yet?

And if it good for Imams, its good for us. The ACLU should be happy to take our case. Especially if it promotes a grievance group.

Happy New Year (to you also Brian, you won't be a dork tommorrow, it will be a new day)
USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 06:13 AM

13 Michael Weaver:Great observations. I especially liked the bit about the Protestant work ethic being the pursuit of happiness, and the neglected rights of fathers regarding infanticide (abortion.) Few people consider the rights of fathers--maybe because we don't have any.It never ceases to irritate mehowegregiouslyMarxists deny their agenda. Sure, the majority of Marxists are subconscious Marxists, spouting commie propaganda unawares, but Lyin Worstley is a bullshit artist. He knows what the American Communist Lawyers Union is all about. That's why he tried to deflect attention from it's mission to subvert the Constitution.The propaganda site he referred to was designed specifically to gull people into believing the ACLU isn't waging jihad on Christianity. Pouring sugar on salmonella indeed.I don't think Americawon its battle withthe Soviet Union. We won like Hamlet won his last duel. Sure, we killed the villain, but it poisoned us with Marxist ideology. Mostlefties spout Multy-culty, class warfare, politically correct claptrap without even being aware that they're promoting communism. They have no idea of the origins of their ideology and tactics.Even worse, most of the left's mantra is derived from base communist subversion techniques, rather than the core theory itself. (Philosophy, my ass.) Marx's crackpot economic theories were ridiculous, but he probably believed in them. The subversion teqhniques used to foment civil discord and cast the government as the enemy were never more thandevious ploys designed to seize power from the government.I doubt even Lyin Worstly knows how thoroughly indoctrinated he is. Leftists remind me a lot of zombies. Most of them arenothing but living automatons, programmed by voodoo masters long dead. The only diference between them and movie zombies is that they eat their own brains instead of other peoples' brains.Zonbies. They creep me out, man.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 31, 2006 12:13 PM

14 As I expected, none of you have yet to come up with any specific examples of what the ACLU has done that limits the religious liberty of Christians. All you can come up with is more namecalling. I guess that's why the ACLU wins in court so often - their opponents can't put together a coherent argument.

Posted by: Brian Westley at December 31, 2006 01:44 PM

15 I'm not doing any more serious typing for you Lazy Leftists like Brian. I struggle to type at all because of dyslexia. I work hard at it, and I hate to waste it on idiots who aren't here to learn anything. Having said that, let the cut and pastes begin! Editied for space and time, people on the right have lives to Brian (You are apparently still a DORK!)

LIFE DIGEST: ACLU endorses bill limiting pregnancy center rights; even some abortion doctors question use of RU 486
Apr 4, 2006
By Tom Strode
Baptist Press
WASHINGTON (BP)--A new congressional effort to police advertising by crisis pregnancy centers is unnecessary, pro-life advocates said, and unconstitutional, free-speech defenders charged.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has long promoted itself as the leading defender of freedom of speech and civil rights, is right in the middle of the controversy, promoting the new legislation to the surprise of some.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, introduced March 30 the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act (SDAWS), which calls on the Federal Trade Commission to bar organizations from advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not. Just 12 House of Representatives members have cosponsored Maloney’s bill, but leading abortion rights organizations, including NARAL Pro-choice America and the National Abortion Federation, are behind it.

The ACLU also endorsed it, and that stunned some who have defended the organization’s work in the past.

“[W]hat about the First Amendment?” asked Nat Hentoff, a syndicated columnist and a former ACLU board member, according to The New York Sun. “When you have the state, with its power, deciding what is deceptive on something as thoroughly controversial as this, it goes against the very core, it seems to me, of the First Amendment.”

Hentoff called the ACLU endorsement “a really extraordinary mistake.” The ACLU advocacy for abortion rights has eclipsed its support for free speech, he told The Sun. “It’s the problem the ACLU has had for years,” Hentoff said.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, said some sections of the bill would probably be declared unconstitutional. One problem is the legislation seeks to control speech that might be misleading but not necessarily untrue, he told The Sun.

“The same logic would justify regulating a broad range of political or historical statements,” Volokh said, according to The Sun. “I think that’s a pretty dangerous policy.”

The proposal is unneeded, representatives of crisis pregnancy centers said.

“This legislation is unnecessary, as it aims to cure an ill that doesn’t exist,” Care Net President Kurt Entsminger said in a written release. Care Net is a nationwide network of about 900 evangelical Christian, pregnancy help centers. “This is nothing more than a routine attack on pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition. We find it particularly curious that in her announcement Rep. Maloney did not cite one example of a pregnancy center that is engaging in deceptive advertising.”

Tom Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family Life Advocates (NIFLA), said in a written statement that crisis pregnancy centers “are providing accurate, truthful and complete information to empower women to choose life. The only fraudulent activity in this area comes from those in the abortion industry who want to withhold truthful information from abortion-vulnerable women.”

In announcing the introduction of her bill, Maloney said in a written release that some crisis pregnancy centers “should be called ‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have the right to exist, but they shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their particular beliefs.”

Maloney’s bill is H.R. 5052. There is not a companion bill in the Senate.


USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 03:02 PM

16 I'll quote the important part of your article:
...
"which calls on the Federal Trade Commission to bar organizations from advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not"
...

So, the ACLU is against organizations defrauding the public by falsely advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not.

Sorry, your cut & paste is not an example of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians. You know, like what you've been whining about, with no real examples -- this bill is not even about religion. Like I said, you seem to have a problem putting together a coherent argument.

Posted by: Brian Westley at December 31, 2006 03:30 PM

17 It hurt to edit this one because it had a lot of good stuff, sorry.

This shows how the ACLU aids activism that yndercuts a parents rights to protect their children, and control the enviroments that their children are being placed in. It also shows the ACLU support for placing one value system (GBLT) over another.

And before you say anything, I am a fan of Tammy Bruce, we had a 'Gay' person at the small wedding, and the following reception, when my wife and I were married. I have a 'gay' relative, and some 'bi' friends. F*ck you if you think I'm trying to bash the GBLT community outright. I just disagree with some of the individuals, and their tactics.

((How homosexual school clubs offer sex to students))

By Linda Harvey
The mainstream media is sure to spend time this next week on the subject of homosexuality and youth, precipitated by the observance in hundreds of high schools of the so-called "Day of Silence" on Wednesday, April 26. This is the day that students who are "GLBT" – that's "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered" – pledge to remain silent all day to draw attention to what they believe is discrimination.

On Thursday, April 27, some schools will be blessed with a Christian response, the "Day of Truth," started several years ago by the Alliance Defense Fund. "Day of Truth" participants will explain the reality of homosexuality along with the light of Christ's truth and the hope therein.

The "Day of Silence" in most schools is organized by the homosexual club or "gay-straight alliance" as it is often called. Both GSAs and the Day of Silence are projects of a group called GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. But GSAs are too often disruptive activism – training groups that prop up the homosexual identities of vulnerable kids by fomenting bias against traditional morality, while concealing the grave risks of homosexuality.

Yet many times when a school tries to prevent a "GSA" from starting on campus, the American Civil Liberties Union or a similar legal group steps in. They will claim that students who prefer homosexuality have the right to this "viewpoint." Misapplying the federal "Equal Access Act," they will maintain that if other non-curricular clubs exist, then this type of club should exist, too. This, of course, ignores the prerogative of all schools to ban any activities that are per se harmful to kids and homosexuality is exactly that. But through framing it as a "viewpoint" and not a behavior, the ACLU manages to suppress the health risks – or get the school officials to do so. And in most cases, the schools and their boards will concede and cave.

After all, the ACLU usually contends, these clubs don't discuss or encourage "sex," but only talk about prejudice and "homophobia." Officials who might be tempted to eliminate them based on keeping students safe from HIV and the other fruits of high-risk homosexual behaviors are in a bind, because it's hard to prove these clubs do encourage homosexual activity.

But there's one connection surfacing that schools and communities should watch: the strong link between the school "GSAs" and community-based "GLBT" youth groups. With little accountability except to the adult "gay" community, there's no doubt that these offsite youth groups do offer students opportunities to learn about graphic sex and socialize with peers and adults who are active participants in the homosexual lifestyle. And the target age starts as early as middle school.

At most of these off-campus clubs, your sixth grader would be welcomed by adult homosexual volunteers and staff, and allowed to socialize with high school and college age "queer" or gender variant youth, without your permission or knowledge. All he or she has to do is show up, and many are located conveniently on bus lines to accommodate kids under driving age.

"No parents" plus homosexual approval is the reason these centers call themselves "safe" places. There is a homosexual youth center now in virtually every medium or large city in the United States. Many are funded by private foundations or connected to a local adult center for "GLBT" people. Some are even funded by United Way. And the kids who attend are given graphic "safe-sex" lectures, the option of free HIV testing without parental permission, group "counseling" and other serious, adult-level situations that few schools would allow on site.

Some of these groups target youth by an upper and lower age limit, like 13 to 24. Others have an even lower age limit of 11 or 12. Some simply say they are for youth "age 22 and under." How far under? And who checks? Thirteen-year-olds don't have driver's licenses or usually any form of legal ID.

The activities at these centers range from help with homework, to games, playing pool, cookouts, parties, proms and lots of "hanging out." More training in "gay" activism may be a focus, infusing impressionable youth with hardcore attitudes. The kids also get recruited for local demonstrations, and are often encouraged to attend the citywide "gay" pride parade, as well as accompanying adult social events.

Some of the repeat visitors are likely neglected kids with not much to go home to. However, homosexuality is not the answer for what may be amiss in their lives. And kids at these centers will be exposed to frequent misleading "safer sex" messages and encouragement to use condoms, rather than a realistic and compassionate recommendation to employ the one sure method: abstinence.

Staff and adult volunteers sometimes teach workshops with dangerous enticements. BAGLY, the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth, features ongoing courses called "Queer College." One of these courses is called "HIV." Conducted by a male staff member and "peer leaders," the course content is described on the BAGLY website as follows:


SEX! Yeah, we know you're doing it. But how safe are you? We could all use info on sexy new ways to use condoms and barriers. We'll have open, honest, judgment-free conversations about sex toys, oral sex, bare-backing, mixing sex and drugs, how to keep it safe and advocate for yourself during group sex, anonymous sex, and sex on the go! We'll have something for everyone.


This course was held early in April at the BAGLY meeting site, which is St. John the Evangelist Church in Boston.

Most of these youth centers extend open arms to area GSAs. The non-school locale provides a venue for activities that might not be allowed at school. Frequently, all area GSA members will be invited to youth center events, where no parents, no school boards, no teachers are there to supervise what might take place.

The Cleveland, Ohio, "GLBT" Center youth program hosts numerous area GSA meetings and conducts "activism training" for high-school GSA's. At Kaleidoscope Youth Center in Columbus, Ohio, a "GSA Summit" was held on April 1. A news release announced it was open to all "LGBTQ youth and their allies, age 20 and under." (LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning.) The summit was to "provide assistance to all youth who are working as advocates in their schools, whether they have a formal GSA or not." According to Lindsay, a volunteer I spoke with at the center, the summit had participation by 13 Columbus-area high-school GSAs.

The GSA Network in California is a network of several hundred GSAs and has ongoing interaction with groups such as the San Francisco Bay area LYRIC, Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center. A LYRIC event for girls was publicized in 2003 by the GSA Network to encourage attendance by school "gay" club members. The event, "Make Your Own Sex Toy Night," encouraged girls to "Let your imagination go wild and create a sex toy you can be proud of!"

Some of the youth centers in more liberal areas of the country have been around a long time. BAGLY was established in 1980, and for years has sponsored the annual Boston Youth "Gay" Pride parade. Many area GSA's marching proudly in the parade have been captured on film by numerous observers.

The Columbus, Ohio, youth center, Kaleidoscope, advertises that it is a center for kids from ages 12 to 20. It's in a rundown storefront across the street from a new shopping center. It's also a few steps from a bus stop, and two blocks from the campus of Ohio State University, which makes it convenient for college-age "gay" youth. The center offers support groups with peer-mentoring and no parental knowledge or permission is needed.

On March 15, representatives from the Ohio AIDS Coalition, the Columbus AIDS Task Force and Planned Parenthood spoke on STDs and HIV and "positive decision-making," to the Kaleidoscope youth in a program called K.I.S.S., Keep It Smart and Safe. Local AIDS groups have ongoing relationships with these youth centers which brings up potentially compromising dilemmas regarding interaction with minors.

For instance, on April 25, the second annual "Hope's Voice" tour is planning a stop at Kaleidoscope in Columbus on its cross-country tour. "Hope's Voice" features HIV-positive young adults who give speeches in what is termed "peer-to-peer education," even though few adults would see a 12- or 14-year-old as the "peer" of a 22-year-old.

The stop is co-sponsored by the Ohio AIDS Coalition and the program includes free confidential HIV testing for youth, using oral swabs which provide a response in around 20 minutes with over 90 percent accuracy.

The misleading, risky messages are subtle, but powerful. The young adults involved in Hope's Voice are articulate and healthy-looking. Some talk openly about being homosexual. How would a naive teen digest the Hope's Voice message? The adolescent takeaway may well be, "These cool older kids look all right and seem OK, so HIV isn't all that big a deal, as long as I use a condom." Few high schools are sponsoring stops by Hope's Voice, but the GSA members are sure to be invited to the presentation and free testing at the local "gay" youth center.

The Cleveland, Ohio, "GLBT " Center program offers ongoing "safe schools" and HIV-prevention education for youth including the GSA members who frequent its gatherings. On the center website, a quote is featured from a "gay" youth:


Most information about HIV isn't written for us. We're afraid to talk to our family doctor – he may tell our parents. So where can you go for help if you're young and gay?

– 16-year-old "gay" male


The Cleveland center website also states, regarding Ohio law:


A minor can consent to – or refuse – an HIV test for AIDS without parental permission.


Well, this may be the law, but it needs to be changed. Is it better to offer anonymous testing for minors – or to encourage better child-parent relationships? Which do we think has the longer-range potential of helping more kids, more of the time? The HIV rates aren't going down and kids are clearly being encouraged, even seduced into having high-risk sex. Something is clearly not working.

What in the world are we doing exposing kids to opportunities to get involved in practices that are spreading an epidemic disease? How can we let kids make such huge health-care decisions, interact with health professionals, receive "counseling" and figure out what all this means, without the guidance of a parent or guardian?

For instance, what if a young teen does get involved in a homosexual relationship, then is tested for HIV, and the test is positive? And his parents have no idea of any of this, but this young person has to evaluate all this, cope with what he will probably think is a death sentence, and have entered this world of corruption in secret, because of incessant, inaccurate propaganda convincing him he was born "gay"?

Even though this consent by minors is becoming very common and is even upheld by law, there's no excuse for putting kids in this position. It's certainly feeding the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and sexual activity among America's youth. Parents are, by and large, not a problem for kids, but the primary people in the world who care most about a kid's welfare, and the ones who can talk him/her out of foolish impulses. Don't we have public service ads now that urge parents to talk with teens about sex, about drugs? Don't we know that this works? But these clubs, and the assumptions they make about all parents, undermine the child's first, best hope. We are offering kids a way to act on misinformation, and opportunities to be exploited, by excluding parental knowledge. This is a recipe for an insane, unstable and disease-ridden culture.

Wait – we've already got that, don't we?

And we haven't even addressed one more big question: the potential for molestation.

What happens if one of these HIV testing sessions uncovers a 12-, 13- or 14-year-old who is having a relationship with a 25- or 30-year-old? Why isn't there required reporting of such relationships? If we are going to empower taxpayer-funded groups to act as health professionals, we have to require that they not corrupt, or aid and abet corruption of children – period. The reality is that adult-teen liaisons are not uncommon in the "gay" community, so some oversight and legal parameters are needed.

We have once thrown kids to the beasts of tolerance and acceptance. Well, few of us want to tolerate and accept increased homosexual activity, as well as limited and shortened lives of our precious children – all because of a 100 percent preventable problem.

Linda Harvey is president of Mission America, a pro-family organization which monitors homosexual activism, the occult and New Age influences on American youth.


USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 03:33 PM

18 Brian, youtr a DORK!
The anti religious motive concealed by false concern here:

(In announcing the introduction of her bill, Maloney said in a written release that some crisis pregnancy centers “should be called ‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have the right to exist, but they shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their particular beliefs.")


The truth aout Maloneys bullsh*t here:

(“This legislation is unnecessary, as it aims to cure an ill that doesn’t exist,” Care Net President Kurt Entsminger said in a written release. Care Net is a nationwide network of about 900 evangelical Christian, pregnancy help centers. “This is nothing more than a routine attack on pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition. We find it particularly curious that in her announcement Rep. Maloney did not cite one example of a pregnancy center that is engaging in deceptive advertising.”)

ACLU 's influence on the broade 'Free Speech issue:

(Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, said some sections of the bill would probably be declared unconstitutional. One problem is the legislation seeks to control speech that might be misleading but not necessarily untrue, he told The Sun.

“The same logic would justify regulating a broad range of political or historical statements,” Volokh said, according to The Sun. “I think that’s a pretty dangerous policy.”)

NANCY PELOSI ANTI CORRUPTION CLAIMS MISLEADING

Look at her friends in Congress.

"PRO-IMMIGRATION" ACTIVISTS MISLEADING

Apologism for law breaking illegals.

ACLU MISLEADING

You don't support everyone rights equally. I'm thinking 'Class Action Suit' based on such claims might be warranted. I'm sick of you.

ISLAM THE RELIGION OF PEACE MISLEADING

Even if it is possible to show examples where Islam might be a religion of peace, Should we suppress CAIR, or the MAS because they are misleading, and use 'taqiyya'?

Don't cherry pick my posts and pretend you read them DORK!

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 03:50 PM

19 Commentaries on the ACLU
Dennis Ingolfsland edited to keep this thread from exploding.

(First we have suppression of free exercise)
Friday, June 03, 2005
Tyranny and Freedom of Religion continued

It says the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (affiliated, of course, with the ACLU) is suing the Indiana legislature to stop the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer. According to the e-mail, the ICLU says that these prayers violate the "constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all."

such prayers have been going on since before the first Continental Congress met in 1774. Apparently those who ratified the Constitution and those who later added the bill of rights did not think such prayers violated the Constitution since they never made any effort to stop the practice.


(Next we have religious favoritism)
Thursday, June 09, 2005
ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State

Temple University putting on a play depicting Jesus and his disciples having sex with each other: I could be wrong, but I don’t recall reading anything about the ACLU, People for the American Way or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State complaining about Temple’s violation church/state separation by putting on a play about Jesus. After all, I’m sure Temple U. is a huge recipient of government funds.

Apparently the ACLU et al. are only concerned when the state, or state supported institutions even remotely acknowledge religion--like having a tiny cross on a flag. I guess it must be OK with the ACLU et al. when a state funded institution violates a Christian’s civil rights, suppresses religion or engages in Christo-phobic bigotry and hate speech. Is it really any wonder that many of us think the real agenda of organizations like these is not really the separation of church and state, but the suppression of all positive religious expression and influence.


(MORE religious favoritism)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
The Qur'an and Guantanamo

Last Saturday, June 19, the United States provided 1,600 copies of the Qur’an as well as prayer rugs and prayer beads for the prisoners at Guantanamo. Can you imagine if the government had provided Bibles? The ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State would have gone into convulsions over the use of government funds to promote religion! Are these groups really interested in keeping government and religion separate, or are they just out to suppress Christianity?

(Suppression of free expression, with hypocracy, following cases like the one brought by Michael Newdow)
Friday, October 14, 2005
Pledge of Allegiance and Declaration of Independence

If—as a California court decided—it is unconstitutional for public school students to recite "one nation under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, is it also unconstitutional for students to recite the Declaration of Independence? The Declaration of Independence speaks of "Nature’s God" and says that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…" It concludes by appealing to the "Supreme Judge of the world...."

If reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school is unconstitutional, then surely it must also be unconstitutional to recite the Declaration of Independence in a public school. On the other hand, can you imagine anything more absurd than thinking that the framers of the Constitution--men who founded this country--would think that it should be unconstitutional for children to recite their Declaration of Independence in schools?! It is just as absurd to think that they would have disapproved of Ten Commandments in courthouses, Christmas songs in schools, or nativity scenes in parks. But frankly, I doubt that the ACLU and Freedom from Religion Foundation really care what the founders of this great country wanted or intended.

(Suppression of parental rights, with favoritism shown to one value system over another)
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The ACLU and cross-dressing

In a California elementary school some time ago, children were required to attend a mandatory assembly by a homosexual theater troupe which included, among other things, a poem read by a young boy (excerpts below):

"In Mommy’s high heals the world is beautiful,
Let the peasants choke way down below.
I’m standing high above the crowds,
My head is breaking through the clouds…."

"When I grow up I’ll have the cash
To go out and buy a bag to match!
So let them say that I’m a girl!
What’s wrong with being like a girl?!
And let them jump and jeer and whirl—
They are swine, I am the pearl!
And let them laugh and let them scream!
They’ll be beheaded when I’m queen!"

When parents heard their children had been exposed to this presentation without their knowledge or consent, they were outraged and filed a lawsuit against the school. After two years, the parents had to give up the fight, being outgunned by the substantial resources of the ACLU! (Quotes from The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 55, 56).

Excuse me, but exactly whose civil liberties were the American Civil Liberties Union protecting? Certainly not those of the parents or children! Imagine if the case had been different. Imagine that the school board had, without parent’s consent, forced children to listen to a group that called pro-choice or gay rights advocates "swine" and threatening to behead them." (THIS FOLLOWING IS OPINION, BUT I AGREE) The ACLU is about forcing their ideological social agenda down the throats of unwilling Americans.


(What about a child's right to life?)
Thursday, December 15, 2005
The ACLU and infanticide

"But the ACLU’s anti-life agenda does not stop at abortion. It has progressively moved toward infanticide. Nat Hentoff realized this when he was involved in the infamous ‘Baby Doe’ cases. One of these cases involved a couple in Bloomington, Indiana, who gave birth to a Down’s syndrome infant with a defective digestive system that could have been corrected by routine surgery, but the baby died of starvation on order of the parents."

"In fact, these cases, and the ACLU’s position concerning them led to Hentoff’s splitting from the ACLU. As other similar stories occurred, Hentoff noticed the ACLU repeatedly stood on the side of protecting the ‘privacy’ rights of parents to kill their children."

"Hentoff also shared the following incident: ‘And then I heard the head of the Reproductive Freedom Rights unit of the ACLU saying…at a forum, ‘I don’t know what all this fuss is about. Dealing with these handicapped infants is really an extension of women’s reproductive right to control their own bodies" (Quotes from The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 109-110).
(STARVING AN INFANT IS AN EXTENSION OF A WOMANS RIGHT TO "CONTROL HER OWN BODY" ???)

(HYPOCRACY)
So while the ACLU is strongly against the right of a democratically elected government to execute sadistic murderers or even serial killers, it appears that they are willing to protect the privacy "rights" of parents to kill their innocent children?

(MAYBE WE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK TOGETHER???)
Monday, January 23, 2006
The ACLU and religion

In The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, the authors quote "Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute" who "summed up the ACLU’s goals":

"The sweet air of liberty must be replaced must be replaced with an invisible gas that detects, exterminates and suffocates any breath that would expel a religious word in public life. Publicly, religion must be totally repressed, so that soon only atheists will find the public atmosphere comfortable. The accommodation this nation long ago reached between believers and non-believes must be abandoned. Religion shall be banned from all public appearances under government auspices, until it is totally squeezed down into private life, underground. There, harmless, it can survive as long as it may. To save the world from intolerance, the ACLU must be rigorously intolerant. Public life in the United States must be religion-free." (Michael Novak, "The Atheist—Civil Liberty Union?" National Review online, July 12, 2002 as quoted in The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 126-127).


(Suppressing free expression)
ACLU fascism strikes again

In their fascist attempts to eliminate all vestiges of religion in public life (reminiscent of the old Soviet Union), the ACLU and Americans United have filed a lawsuit seeking to force the Bridgeport High School in West Virginia to remove a painting of Jesus which has been hanging in the halls for over 30 years. (Chron.com)

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can someone explain to me how a picture in a local high school violates this provision of the Constitution? It is absolutely absurd to think that the framers of the Constitution would have regarded this painting in the halls of a public high school as unconstitutional.


(Hypocracy, Corruption, Deciet, Treason)
Thursday, August 24, 2006
ACLU vs. NSA; a conflict of interest
Readers may recall that recently the ACLU brought suit against the National Security Agency for illegal wiretapping. Even some who were sympathetic to the outcome were critical of the judge’s reasoning in the decision. Judicial Watch, a “watchdog” organization in Washington DC has now charged that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor who presided over the case served as the secretary and trustee for a group that recently gave a grant of $45,000 to the ACLU. Some are suspecting that the NSA did not get a fair shake in this decision. This issue will surely come up in appeal (USA Today).


USE A SEARCH ENGINE YOU LAZY DORK!
It's all over the place ...

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 04:51 PM

20 Whole article intact because it isn't to long.

"""Governor Mark Warner of Virginia has vetoed a bill authorizing the state to issue a "Choose Life" license plate. The apparent reason was because "abortion rights" advocates had "complained about the message." story here.

There is more, and this part is especially troubling for those who value liberty. The so-called American Civil Liberties Union apparently believes only in the freedom of speech that is compatible with their left-wing outlook. In a statement that is disingenuous in the extreme, the ACLU in February 2003 urged Gov. Warner to veto the bill. The rationale was

"This is not about reproductive freedom but about free speech,'' ACLU of Virginia executive director Kent Willis said in a press release. "The legislature cannot issue a license plate advocating one viewpoint on reproductive freedom without giving the other viewpoint the same opportunity".
At this point the alarms should have gone off. Free speech is not about presenting all points of view at every juncture. It is about allowing all the opportunity to speak. The ACLU posture is a perversion of free speech, as it suppresses one group's freedom of speech in the very name of such freedom.

Pro-abortion advocates have the same right to apply, through established procedures, for message license plates. If pro-abortion advocates were forbidden from doing so, that would be a legitimate freedom of speech issue. There is no sign that this is the case.

Among other "special interest" license plates offered by Virginia is one celebrating the Washington Redskins Football team. Well, as a New York Giants fan, I find that offensive. I protest. And if I could find a sufficient number of like-minded Virginians, I would apply to get a New York Giants specialty plate. OK, I don't live in Virginia any more, but the point is universal. As long as I have the same opportunity to publicize my point of view, my freedom of speech is protected. Following the ACLU's anti-freedom of speech logic, the state would have to offer license plates for every single NFL team, or withdraw the Redskins' plate. What? That's not important? Try telling that to some diehard NFL fans.

I get the nagging sense that the ACLU brief, and the governor's veto are exactly about "reproductive freedom." They surely aren't about freedom, unless you agree with the ACLU's pro-death (oops) pro choice agenda. I trust the point is made. For almost every special interest, one may find those who are against that interest and who must be given the same opportunity to express their viewpoint. But freedom of expression, by definition, can not be a rationale to stifle an opposing view. Yet this is precisely what the ACLU in Virginia supports, and what Gov. Warner has shamefully caved on.

Well, another chip at the First Amendment. How many more will it take?

posted by Jack Rich at March 25, 2003 02:54 PM in the Liberty category """


USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 05:02 PM

21 JUST FOR FUN ... REALLY, JUST A JOKE

ACLU Attacks Christmas

CHICAGO - The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it was
bringing a lawsuit against Santa Claus for violations of the civil rights
of children.

An ACLU spokesman, Mr. E. Scrooge, stated that, "Mr. Claus has been violating
children's right to privacy and has been putting that information in a vast
database.
The information is then used by the law enforcement arm of Mr. Claus' organization
to determine which children are considered naughty or nice. It is obvious Mr. Claus
has violated the children's rights, as we have alleged in our suit, because of the
memos and other company information we have obtained. In addition, we believe
Mr. Claus has been engaging in mind control experiments designed to prevent the free
expression of beliefs."

Among the documents presented to the courts today was a memo which reads, in part:

You better watch out. You better not cry. You better not pout.
I'm telling you why: Santa Claus is coming to town.
He sees you when you are sleeping -- He knows when you're awake,
He knows when you've been bad or good, So be good for goodness' sake.

Mr. Scrooge claimed the document, was obtained from a worker in the distribution
department of Mr. Claus' organization, "clearly shows a concerted attempt to
restrict the rights of children to free expression and free thought."

In addition, there are concerns about the security of the information.

What would be the result of such a database being made available to other law
enforcement agencies around the world?

Lawyers at the Justice also confirmed today that they were investigating the
possibility that Mr. Claus was at the core of a vast conspiracy against children.
Anonymous sources from inside the Justice Department stated that, "We believe a
large number of parents, ministers, and teachers are involved in this business,
and we expect several of them will testify for the State in return for a lighter
sentence." In addition, the same sources indicated a parallel investigation by the
Department and the FBI on possible charges of smuggling on the part of Mr. Claus,
"our records do not show Mr. Claus, or any one else, paying any import duties or
taxes on any items he has delivered."

Since Mr. Claus has representatives in all of the States of the Union, we believe
he should have to pay state and local taxes on all of the goods he delivers."

Lawyers for Mr. Claus stated, "The charges of the ACLU are absurd. Mr. Claus is a
well-known and highly-respected figure."
His supporters are from around the world and his message of love and respect can,
in no way, be taken as a for of "mind control" or a violation of the "civil rights
of children."

The lawsuit is complicated by the fact that Mr. Claus is not a resident of the United
States or any country with which the United States currently has an extradition treaty.
It is unknown where Mr. Claus is at the moment, but it is believed he is hiding out at
his North Pole estate.

In a brief statement, read by his lawyer, Mr. Claus said, "I find the charges of the
ACLU absurd and am confident they will be rejected by the courts. As for any criminal
charges, I believe the Justice Department will discover they have no basis."

Experts are uncertain what possible effect the suit or possible pending charges might
have on Mr. Claus' Christmas travels this year.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
OK jokes over ...


USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 05:15 PM

22 That is it for now. I don't want to abuse the bandwidth here.

Usa a search engine, and you will find many anti-ACLU complaints which are fully justified. Argueing about it here is useless. My advice to any honestly interested reader is to do your own research, and find out for yourself.

Everyone should be free to express themselves. the First Amendment already makes that clear. Suppression of speech or expression must only be curtailed under the most severe of emergencies, or in the case of obvious sedition, lies, and slander.

"Loose lips sink ships" is a valid reason to suppress the NYT in wartime.

Promoting "Death to America" on an American street is seditious.

Saying the Bush administration arranged for the WTC to be destrioyed is libelous, and unless the conspiracy theorists want to take it to court, and prove it, they should be charged for that libel.

F*ck the ACLU!

Happy New Year!
USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 05:25 PM

23 I actually have to come back to this one:

"But the ACLU’s anti-life agenda does not stop at abortion. It has progressively moved toward infanticide. Nat Hentoff realized this when he was involved in the infamous ‘Baby Doe’ cases. One of these cases involved a couple in Bloomington, Indiana, who gave birth to a Down’s syndrome infant with a defective digestive system that could have been corrected by routine surgery, but the baby died of starvation on order of the parents."

"In fact, these cases, and the ACLU’s position concerning them led to Hentoff’s splitting from the ACLU. As other similar stories occurred, Hentoff noticed the ACLU repeatedly stood on the side of protecting the ‘privacy’ rights of parents to kill their children."

One of my very best friends was just like that baby once. "Down’s syndrome infant with a defective digestive system". He still has both problems. He is a great Husband to his wife, and an awesome Dad for his little ones, and it makes me crazy to think the ACLU would have endorsed pulling his tubes!

He personally helped me through some tough times. He was there when I needed a good friend because his parents were loving, and decent, and the ACLU was nowhere around.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 31, 2006 05:39 PM

24 Lyin Worstley:"As I expected, none of you have yet to come up with any specific examples of what the ACLU has done that limits the religious liberty of Christians. All you can come up with is more namecalling. I guess that's why the ACLU wins in court so often - their opponents can't put together a coherent argument."As I expected, you resort to petty evasions and pettifoggery rather than attempt to refute the irrefutable. I guess that's why leftists lose every argument they engage in--they cant put together a coherent argument.Although Weaver listed more ACLU crimes than a sub-literate cretin like you could address in a lifetime of trying, I'm not going to bother. We both know you aren't interested in the truth. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth," right lowlife? You've been provided with the address of a site that is dedicated to chronicling the ACLU's campaign against the Constitution. Either read it and refute it, or shut the fuck up.Workers of the world unite! Thought I'd throw that in there to make you feel better about your thrashing. Stupid shit-licker. You're a lying buffoon, and so beneath debate. You couldn't win an argument with a 4 year old mongoloid.Fuck you very much.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 31, 2006 06:37 PM

25 P.S., Weaver wrote that the ACLU was a hypocritical organization bent on perverting the Constitution (in so many words,) and went on to prove it. You disingenuously and chimpishly demand that he list every ACLUsuit against Christianity it has everpressed.You are completely unable to prove your ridiculous assertion that the ACLUisn't waging jihad against Christianity.Typical leftist.Your bark is worse than your bite. stoptheaclu.com, asshole. stoptheaclu.com

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 31, 2006 06:51 PM

26 Well, it seems at least one of you has finally come up with something approaching what I've been asking for (that is, examples of the ACLU infringing on the religious rights of Christians).

First, Michael Weaver's long article on gays is not an example of the religious rights of Christians being infringed. You have to at least TRY to show what actions of Christians are being limited by your examples. Plus, I'm not "cherry picking" your articles, your articles simply aren't examples of the religious rights of Christians being infringed.

Now, your cribbed notes on the ACLU finally attempts to tie into something to do with religious rights. However, prayers in the Indiana legislature are only an issue of "free exercise" if everyone, of any religious view, is allowed the same exercise. And in your case, it isn't, because it isn't a case of free exercise. The Indiana legislature, being a government body, does not have "rights", it has "powers" (granted to them by the people). Nobody's rights are being infringed because every single member of the Indiana legislature has their rights to free exercise, and they can practice them as they like, just like any other private citizen.

As for Temple University allowing students to put on the Broadway play "Corpus Christi", I can't find anything on the ACLU's position (since this happened about 8 years ago), so unless you can come up with something the ACLU has said about it, it's irrelevant.

Same with the Qur'an and Guantanamo - I can't find any comment by the ACLU about it.

Now, Michael Newdow's cases I know a lot more about, since I'm a volunteer with his www.restorethepledge.com website. This is still irrelevant to the ACLU's position, since Dr. Newdow is doing this, not the ACLU. But you obviously know nothing of the issues involved, since the article you quote says 'If—as a California court decided—it is unconstitutional for public school students to recite "one nation under God," ', which is completely wrong. What the court ruled was that's it's unconstitutional for THE SCHOOL to inculcate religion into its students by having them recite a religious pledge. It could never be unconstitutional for the students to say the pledge, refuse to say the pledge, say it with or without 'under god', etc. That's a simple matter of the student's first amendment rights.

Now, the CA school situation:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/11874prs20030904.html?s_src=RSS
...
"Teaching tolerance for lesbian and gay students has nothing to do sex education or religious freedom," said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
...
Well, I'll give you half credit for this one; parents do have the right to teach their children to hate gays, but public schools still have the authority to teach tolerance.

As to abortion, again you haven't shown how the ACLU's position on abortion limits the religious rights of Christians, unless you think we live in a theocracy where religious teachings take precident over laws. If you want theocracy, try Iran.

Your quoting of a polemic against the ACLU again provides no details of a specific position of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians.

Hanging a picture of Jesus in a public school is not limiting the religious rights of Christians, unless it happens to be a public forum where everyone can hang pictures of religious icons, which is not the case here. A public school does not have the right to promote Christianity (or any other religion) to its students. Public schools don't have rights, they have powers granted to them by the people, as is the case with all government entities.

And your last example, even if it proves true (which I'm not granting), again, is not an example of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians.

Now, it's very amusing how you keep calling me names while you accused me of GOING TO call you names in the future. Apparently, you can't even think up your own arguments, because all of them are cut & paste jobs. You seem incapable of understand the arguments yourself. You should at least be able to tell if the case has SOMETHING to do with the religious rights of Christians, but even that's expecting too much.

Happy new year; I'm sure the coming year will bring a lot of court decisions that you cannot fathom, because you don't have a good grasp of the laws involved. For example, you apparently think that public schools ought to have the power to hang pictures of Jesus (or Mohammad, for that matter) to promote whatever religion the local school authorities want to promote. That's antithetical to the first amendment.

Posted by: Brian Westley at January 01, 2007 12:46 AM

27 Brian:

"First, Michael Weaver's long article on gays is not an example of the religious rights of Christians being infringed. You have to at least TRY to show what actions of Christians are being limited by your examples."

Infringment of Parental rights regarding the moral upbringing of their children is relevent. You cannot rationally argue otherwise. Promotion of a morally, and physically unsafe enviroment at the expense of the parents religious, and moral obligations to their children is oppression against the associated rights.

"However, prayers in the Indiana legislature are only an issue of "free exercise" if everyone, of any religious view, is allowed the same exercise. And in your case, it isn't, because it isn't a case of free exercise."

Why yes, it is. No one is forced to participate, and those who do, do so freely, and for reasons having to do with faith, and tradition. To say this is not free exercise is simply, and obviously untrue. Besides which, no law was passed by Congress to enforce, or to block this tradition. It is only an issue because the ICLU wants it to be.

"The Indiana legislature, being a government body, does not have "rights", it has "powers" (granted to them by the people)."

The individuals who make it up are the ones who are choosing to pray, or not. No act of Congress is involved with their choice to follow a tradition, and nobody goes to jail if they choose not to participate. This body has not attempted to force compliance. The only infringment of rights here is being brought about by the ICLU.

"Nobody's rights are being infringed"

So when they are prevented from praying by the courts as a result of the ICLU, their rights are not being infringed? That is so obviously a lie it needs no refutation.

"because every single member of the Indiana legislature has their rights to free exercise,"

Yes! But they are being interfered with by your pals the ICLU!

"and they can practice them as they like, just like any other private citizen."

No! Your ICLU fascists are preventing them from doing so. Your basis for suppressing them is based on exclusion, not inclusion. In this case you choose to restrict rights as a default position, because these people are predominantly Christian.

There is no portion of the Constitution that denies them the right to choose when and where they will express their religious belief. If they choose to express this belief from a legislative podium, there is no law against it. None! It is not for the ICLU to decide. It is not for Congress to decide. Any judge favoring the ICLU position, is an 'activist judge' and is abusing his position.

"As for Temple University allowing students to put on the Broadway play "Corpus Christi", I can't find anything on the ACLU's position (since this happened about 8 years ago), so unless you can come up with something the ACLU has said about it, it's irrelevant."

No it isn't. It is because the ACLU targets only POSITIVE expressions of Christianity. Since that is irrelevant to you personally, you miss the hypocracy. This NEGATIVE mentioning of Christ was perfectly alright with the ACLU or else they would jump down the schools throat. They surely would have if the mentioning had been positive.

Further, it was offensive to the beliefs of Christians, yet again, the ACLU jumped down nobodys throat. If they had put on a show offensive to the beliefs of Wiccans, or Muslims, the ACLU would have been all over it. We both know that is the typical pattern of ACLU behavior. You may deny it, but others will read this, and go find out for themselves if I'm right. Simply saying 'it ain't so' will only fool the ones who are already stupid.

"Same with the Qur'an and Guantanamo - I can't find any comment by the ACLU about it."

Because the ACLU has a pattern that shows religious bigotry which only targets positive treatment of Chritian religion. Because it was Qurans, the ACLU did nothing. Your inability to find any 'comment' is because the ACLU could have cared less.

"Now, Michael Newdow's cases I know a lot more about, since I'm a volunteer with his www.restorethepledge.com website."

That shows your indoctrinated into the ACLU style of attacking religious expression. Your concept is that any positive expression of Christian faith in public is wrong, and only negative expressions will be ignored/allowed.

"This is still irrelevant to the ACLU's position, since Dr. Newdow is doing this, not the ACLU."

Actually I said "following cases like the one brought by Michael Newdow". To clarify, 'In a pattern similar to' cases brought by Michael Newdow. The ACLU has involved itself in supressing the pledge being lead by an instructor, this having nothing to do with non-participating students.

In the case where a student was disciplined for not standing for the pledge, the ACLU was walking a fine line. It is within the province of teaching civics to promote appreciation for its obvious value. Civics is part of the cement that holds a nation together, and part of civic behavior is loyalty to the nation. Standing for the pledge is a minimum sign of respect for the republic. I agree that forcing loyalty is improper, but expecting it is not. Especially considering the other countries you have to choose from.

In any case the enviroment in schools across the country is chilled towards free expression of Christian faith because of ACLU and other lawsuits, so there is oppression as a result of the ACLU's actions.

"It could never be unconstitutional for the students to say the pledge, refuse to say the pledge, say it with or without 'under god', etc. That's a simple matter of the student's first amendment rights."

Partly true. The ACLU is still adversly impacting free exercise, seemingly on purpose.

""
"Teaching tolerance for lesbian and gay students has nothing to do sex education or religious freedom," said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
...
Well, I'll give you half credit for this one; parents do have the right to teach their children to hate gays, but public schools still have the authority to teach tolerance. ""

I'll claim a full point because your ignoring the anti-hetero hate speech, as well as the arguement made that the ACLU would not tolerate it going the other way! Besides which, morals are a religious, as well as a civic issue. parents should know what is being taught to their children, even absent the hate speech, and ACLU hypocracy.

"As to abortion, again you haven't shown how the ACLU's position on abortion limits the religious rights of Christians, unless you think we live in a theocracy where religious teachings take precident over laws. If you want theocracy, try Iran."

OH CUTE! Iran kills its children nearly as much as we do! If I want a theocracy I'll just let the ACLU turn America into a country governed by Atheism. Which IS a religion! Don't try to pull that kind of stupid sh*t! If taking a helpless human life is a secular evil, abortion surely qualifies. The ACLU seems to have little guilt when denying the most helpless of us, their most critical right, which is to life. As in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

To a Christian, the child is a child whether unborn, or not. The ACLU represses both the childs rights, and the rights of a male parent. Especially so if the male parent is Christian. Christian defense of the unborn childs rights are scoffed at by the ACLU types. The rights of the child ARE INALIENABLE as expressed by our Founding Fathers and exist even though the Supreme Court ruled against giving the unborn proper recognition.

Disgusting! you soak are flag in the blood of the most helpless among us, and flaunt it! Favoring your Atheism over Chritianity.

"A public school does not have the right to promote Christianity (or any other religion) to its students."

No law exists which denies the school, or any of its staff, or its students free expression religion. Neither is there a law stating how a school may or may not display art. Nor is their any reason to assume the school would reject without good cause, a picture of some other historical, or religious figure. Your claim is biased, and an opinion not supported by honest facts.

"Public schools don't have rights, they have powers granted to them by the people, as is the case with all government entities."

Which you somehow think is important. All it means is that the school system is used in accordance with a public design. Congress didn't make a law saying they had to have one religion, and Congress didn't pass a law saying they couldn't have a certian religion. Congress WAS SILENT! What pictures the school has on the wall are the business of that school, and its providers, not yours or mine or the ACLU's! By coming in to attack the picture of Jesus, the ACLU is showing its anti Chritian bias.

"And your last example, even if it proves true (which I'm not granting), again, is not an example of the ACLU limiting the religious rights of Christians."

Of course it is! Who do you think got permision to put the picture up, if it wasn't a Christian? Who do you think wanted to leave the picture up, if it wasn't Christians? Why would Christians want to put a picture of Jesus up? To inspire them to be better Christians is why! The ACLU just goes in trampling people who have broken no law, and done nothing anyone else couldn't do. These were Christians. Not Muslims or pagans.

"Now, it's very amusing how you keep calling me names while you accused me of GOING TO call you names in the future."

I should have said "probably" and you ARE trying hard not to, but you still have a hostile voice in text, and I anticiptaed lots worse. I described you as possibly being a dupe, which is a reasonable descriptive term, and you should look up the noun in Websters. I was trying to make up my mind about you when I mentioned the possibility. Calling you a 'Dork' was also a choice I followed through on after I had warned you that I considered things to be 'barely polite'. In other words, I was hoping I would just go away feeling sorry for you, but now I pretty much hope you get hit by a train. Sorry, but I don't like the ACLU, and I don't like people who make me spend so much time correcting my own typing when I KNOW THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN REALLY LEARNING ANYTHING! I'm currently only here to encourge people to go search and get their own information.

"Apparently, you can't even think up your own arguments, because all of them are cut & paste jobs."

I told you before I have a hard time typing, and I don't think you are worth the time I've already wasted on you. I spent plenty of time typing my own words before hand, and you didn't care for that. Your just a big hypocrit.

"You should at least be able to tell if the case has SOMETHING to do with the religious rights of Christians, but even that's expecting too much."

Pretty much any morals issue has something in it that affects Christians. If you were one, or had any morals, you might understand. Since your with the ACLU even if only in spirit, that's expecting to much.

Actually I'm willing to show the duplicity of the ACLU in any area they are active, whether it is supressing Christians, or aiding and abetting the murder of babies (after they are already born, or did you forget that part of the article you fascist!? They starved babies after they were born! Your ACLU supported that!!!)

"Happy new year;"

Thanks! I wish you meant it. I meant it earlier.

"you apparently think that public schools ought to have the power to hang pictures of Jesus (or Mohammad, for that matter)"

Actually the people in those schools can do anything they like as long as nobody is unfairly shut out of the process.

"to promote whatever religion the local school authorities want to promote. That's antithetical to the first amendment."

And really, that is a big mistake on your part. The so called 'Establishment clause' only mentions "Congress" specifically. My local city council can pass any religious ordinance they want, if you are going strictly off of the wording used in the First Amendment, which I remind you is the final draft of what our collected Founding Fathers agreed to put into print. So chew that!

If I wanted to ban Christian displays from my town as a matter of law, all I would have to do would be to convince the necessary people locally to vote it into place. Congress again, would have nothing to do with it. Based on the Bill of Rights, in its pure written form. Re-read it. I'm absolutely correct on that point. They can also build a 'Jesus Museum' into the county courhouse, if they like.

To understand 'Free expression' you have to go straight to the heart of the matter, and that is Free Speech itself. The first Amendment was put into place to safeguard free Speech, and the religious wording is actually an enhancement to protect religious speech. Not to restrict it.

HERE:
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a re dress of grievances.

Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

AS WE CAN SEE, the wording is heavily weighted to encourage the people to speak out, and to express everything, even their religion, and there is no mention of a restriction based on location, or time of day, whether on the tax payers time, or on their own, it doesn't make a difference. If the people want to peaceably assemble, it doesn't say where, or when, or which buildings they can use, or what they can say or do when they assemble.

And the Ninth Amendment makes it pretty clear that just cause the Bill Of Rights doesn't say you can do a thing, your right to do it isn't automatically denied. Nor is your right to use religious speech on, or in public spaces automatically denied. Any restriction of Religious Speech is in conflict with the First Amendment AND the Ninth!!! Also the tenth!

The Tenth Amendment comes in to put the frosting on. if the Federal Government wasn't given the authority, and the States werent barred from having the authority, then the states and the people have that authority BY DEFAULT!

The States, and the People can carve the face of Jesus into a mountain on state park land if they decide to, and the ACLU shoudn't be able to stop it by invoking the 'Establishment clause', if we obeyed the law instead of twisting it.

The US Constitution is really a very simple doocument, and it grants far more freedom then neo-marxists, and their frends would like us to know about.

Brian, you might really be a swell guy in first person contact, and maybe we would make more sense to each other in that enviroment. I have a lot of friends who I disagree with about stuff you and I have been argueing about here, but listen, I'm just dyslexic enough to make my typing a real chore. I do it because I want to make the world a better place, and because I feel this country is in deep peril. Right now I pretty much hate your guts because I got home over seven hours ago, and with my fatigue, and dyslexia, it has taken me this long to respond. I've been typing and correcting the whole time, so I'd like to kill you right now. All I asked you to do was go look around on the internet yourself, because it is very easy, and I wouldn't have to kill myself trying to tell you things I suspected you would just ignore. So I hate you for making me do what you wouldn't, and I hate you not seeing what I was talking about and I hate you for giving the apearance of a dupe.

When I get done hating you, I may be willing to do this again, but I expect you to not be a snit. If you would do as I suggest, with an open mind, I promise you will see the anti-Christian bias. I can only make the suggestion, and if you would even spend one hour doing that honestly, I'd take back 92% of what I have called you, and I might even stop hating you :)

Give me some credit for my opinion. My default used to be that the ACLU was a good thing. Why not ask what would make me feel differenly about it? Why not assume I had a good reason? Why not?

I remember how I used to look to the ACLU decades ago. I really used to believe.

I also trusted Nixon. and Clinton (the first time) I trusted the FBI before Ruby Ridge and Waco. I trusted that Islam was a religion of peace hijacked by extremeists. I trusted my first fiance till her 'friend' almost wrecked my eyes.

If you lose my trust it is hard to get it back.

The ACLU lost my trust.

Have a good one Brian, and consider my suggestion. Or I'll call you some more names. right now I'm to tired for even that, so you get a reprieve. Forgive any typing errors I missed, or I will hunt you down and eat your liver.

Happy new year. For real ... just accept it OK?
USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 01, 2007 10:57 AM

28 Sounds like losing your "trust" is no loss at all. You certainly have no grasp of religious freedom, or of what the constitution means, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach you.

Posted by: Brian Westley at January 01, 2007 11:29 AM

29 Well that works for me :)



Happy New Year, and USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 01, 2007 06:22 PM

30 I would like to see some ACLU lawyer try and take away his christmas tree becuase it offends some ultraliberal eco-freak tree hugging gaia worshipping green nut i would like to see the green nut pick busck-shot out of their backside

Posted by: sandpiper at January 01, 2007 09:36 PM

31 Clarification:

For those who really do care.
I was trying to say a lot of things here earlier, but I was pretty exhausted. Short and sweet, here is my position.

The First Amendment by itself, says that 'Congress shall make no law' etc. Meaning the the Federal Government via Congress will not establish a federal church, or religious framework, or require obedience to any single faith, or religion. Also, that the Federal Government will take no actions via Congress to prevent anyone from expressing their religion, as it suits them. The reverse of a federal church! No exclusions of religion, or churches, or religious frameworks. They are all free, and equal, and outside Federal CONTROL via Congress.

That the Founders had the European religious wars in mind is a no-brainer. Those were the kind of violent differences, and persecutions they were trying to prevent. Still, the moral substance they brought to US law was based on Christian morality. That is the morality that these men were raised with. Again a no brainer.

The Christian heritage of US morality doesn't change the wording of the First Amendment though. Congress shall make no laws for or against any religion. Clear.

I think anyone who wasn't into obfuscation would agree that.

Now if you want to try to take pro/con religious action at lower levels of Government, the first Amendment wouldn't seem to affect you. Technically that is true. Except ...

The Ninth Amendment says just because you aren't expressly told you have a right, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Get it? You have rights, and freedoms that aren't 'enumerated'! You have them even if they are not explicitly explained.

In a sense I would have to disagree with some things said by Scalia, and I like him so that comes with some pain. He once explained that court cases were being used to promote all of these extra rights, and they don't really exist. He is half right. You have a right to own a pit bull, unless it conflicts with a higher right, such as the right of your neighbor to let his child walk to school in safety. You dog isn't as important as the safety of a child. Or is it?

Making these kinds of distinctions is an important byproduct of the Christian influence on US law, and morality. To some people, the right of the dog owner is simply equal to the right of the endangered child, or her parent. What people vote to allow determines whether the child indeed is to be kept safe from the dog, or if the dog can eat all the children he can catch!

Christians will know the correct stance. The child, how ever old, is a human being. You do not let dogs eat them, and you do not starve them to death. Nor do you assume a right to kill them in the womb for mere convenience.

What an ammoral society would allow through pure, ammoral democratic vote is not in our best interests in AMERICA. Our Founders never showed any indication that they thought simple, ammoral democracy was the highest form of free society.

This above point is used by Muslims against democracy, with some validity. We have allowed ammoral laws to be passed. Abortion laws are just the worst one example.

The Tenth Amendment says if the Federal Government wasn't given the authority, and the States werent barred form having the authority, then the states and the people have the unassigned aurthoirty. The short phrase is 'States Rights'!

Unfortunatly that phrase was abused to justify slavery.

That one selfish choice by Southern Democrats has tarnished the phrase with the misery of minorities that should have had rights, even if not enumerated in the Constitution. After all "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And men are men whatever their color. We enforced that finally, with much bloodshed. We also added language enumerating a right to "equal protection of the laws" via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Recap, Cold Hard Fact: Congress has no authority to promote or restrict any religion, or restrict any free expression at all pretty much. But you have rights even if they haven't been enumerated. Even weird and silly rights like the right to wear tinfoil on your head. Equal protection of law is one that was enumerated. In the final measure, if authority isn't expressly reserved for the Federal Government, or forbidden to the states, it lies with the states, and YOU AND ME, the people!

You have a right to free expression. Others have a right not to be forced to join you, but that dos not carry over into a right to silence you, if they don't agree with you. When your talking, what you say belongs to you, it is yours, and nobody can rightly take that from you unless your working ill will upon them. For example, making false accusations.

The ACLU does not recognize your unenmuerated rights, unless it likes them. Since it doesn't recognize them, they don't matter. Since they don't matter, they are suppressed whenever it suits the ACLU, or their friends.

The right of Christians to express thir religion was not enumerted in such a way as to make clear that praying in public was not retricted, but that in no way negates that right fotr Christians to do so. the rights of states, or the people, working together, or individually, to place religious decorations, is not clearly enumerated, but it still exists.

Any group that wishes "to petition the government for a re dress of grievances" may, whether they are Christian, or not do so. If they have been denied equal protection, say, being persecuted for having a certain religion, then they can pursue that.

Now even though I have rested enough to do this, I need to go rest some more, and I hope at least someone has gained some insight into why the ACLU loses friends.

I would like to thank Ragnar for the original post, Jeff for sticking by me on this thread, and Jesusland Carlos for using so few words to say so much. I can never do that :)

To all, Happy New Year.
USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 01, 2007 11:02 PM

32 lesbian adult comic http://adultcomics17jul.tripod.com/lesbian_adult_comic.html [URL=http://adultcomics17jul.tripod.com/lesbian_adult_comic.html]lesbian adult comic[/URL] lesbian adult comic
adult comic sample http://adultcomics17jul.tripod.com/adult_comic_sample.html [URL=http://adultcomics17jul.tripod.com/adult_comic_sample.html]adult comic sample[/URL] adult comic sample
adult big comic lesbian tit http://adultcomics17jul.tripod.com/adult_big_comic_lesbian_tit.html [URL=http://adultcomics17jul.tripod.com/adult_big_comic_lesbian_tit.html]adult big comic lesbian tit[/URL] adult big comic lesbian tit
free adult comics http://adultcomics17jul.tripod.com/free_adult_comics.html [URL=http://adultcomics17jul.tripod.com/free_adult_comics.html]free adult comics[/URL] free adult comics
adult comic erotic extreme submissive http://adultcomics17jul.tripod.com/adult_comic_erotic_extreme_submissive.html [URL=http://adultcomics17jul.tripod.com/adult_comic_erotic_extreme_submissive.html]adult comic erotic extreme submissive[/URL] adult comic erotic extreme submissive

Posted by: Oleg at July 18, 2007 03:27 AM






Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0102 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0049 seconds, 40 records returned.
Page size 104 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.