Help expose ACLU

[KB1GXM]

Click here to sign petition:
http://www.cfra.info/33/petition.asp

HELP US EXPOSE THE ACLU'S RADICAL AGENDA AGAINST AMERICA!

A Covert Mission

A look at the ACLU website is both misleading and disturbing—“To Keep America Safe and Free”. But take a closer look … and becomes frighteningly clear that the ACLU is to be feared. Instead of keeping America safe, they are aggressively working to strip all vestiges of our religious foundation, law and liberty from our nation.

And how are they achieving their goal?

By twisting the First Amendment into something it was never meant to be, and seeking out vulnerable targets—in small towns, cities and states across America.

Just look at what is happening with the Ten Commandments. In dozens of cases the ACLU has succeeded in stripping the Ten Commandments from public view. In Alabama, the ACLU attacked Chief Justice Roy Moore, one of the most respected justices in the nation, who had erected a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse. He not only lost, but now is being sued by the ACLU for legal fees!

Click here to read more about the real agenda of the ACLU.

On virtually every issue that has to do with morality and spiritual heritage, from issues such as the Ten Commandments, School Prayer, Faith-based initiatives, The Rights of the Unborn, and protecting our children from the onslaught of pornography, the ACLU has stood against us—proving that their interests are only in keeping God from America.

[wa1m]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB1GXM @ May 18 2004,21<!--emo&amp;http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Alabama, the ACLU attacked Chief Justice Roy Moore, one of the most respected justices in the nation, who had erected a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse. He not only lost, but now is being sued by the ACLU for legal fees!
[...]
On virtually every issue that has to do with morality and spiritual heritage, from issues such as the Ten Commandments, School Prayer, Faith-based initiatives, The Rights of the Unborn, and protecting our children from the onslaught of pornography, the ACLU has stood against us—proving that their interests are only in keeping God from America.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Whoa. That's a real wake-up call. Your post was just what I needed to finally take action. I've just been to https://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm, (https://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm) where I instantly joined the ACLU. Now I'm a card-carrying member.

Thanks for the reminder.

[N1XHF]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB1GXM @ May 18 2004,18:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">HELP US EXPOSE THE ACLU'S RADICAL AGENDA AGAINST AMERICA![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't think that anyone needs help to expose the ACLU. The ACLU does a good enough job of that on their own. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif





73

[N0PU]

GXM:

Thanks for the reminder...
I gotta send in my dues...

One boss I had was a member of both the ACLU and the NRA. I thought it strange at first...

[wa1m]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w7com @ May 18 2004,22:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One boss I had was a member of both the ACLU and the NRA. I thought it strange at first...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Not so strange; the NRA is known the the oldest civil rights organization in America.

[wd0ct]

gxm:

Thanks from me too. I gotta join now.

The ACLU sucks.... I can live better without them..... We all can (actually) but some of us just don't realize it yet....

[n0xu]

Yep. That does it. I have to join, post-haste. The ACLU is the only organization doing anything to protect the country from a bunch of right-wing neocon religious bigots.

[kn6z]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB1GXM @ May 18 2004,18:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...protecting our children from the onslaught of pornography...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
&quot;There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.&quot; -- Ezekiel 23:20-21

[W3MIV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kn6z @ May 19 2004,00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... Ezekiel 23:20-21[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm not quite sure I understand the thrust of this post.

Pornography is defined as graphic material designed to incite sexual arousal. vide WNWD: &quot;writings, pictures, etc. intended primarily to arouse sexual desire...&quot;

The Bible contains many &quot;sexually&quot; explicit passages, including the oft-cited Song of Solomon, but it is a very great stretch to try to cite any Biblical text as pornographic.

[KC5SAS]

Thanks for the reminder. My membership had lapsed. As a Bisexual Atheist Libertarian, I have long supported the ACLU. A quick call to their phone number was all it took to resubscribe. I don't know how I forgot to renew but I won't let it happen again.
73
Steve

[n3ijw]

I used to support the ACLU, until I realized they were pretty friggin selective in what (and whose) rights they so staunchly defended. Either defend them all or stop pretending to be operating without an agenda.

I concur with the original poster. I am agnostic myself but it's absolutely pathetic how the ACLU operates at times. Consider it a love/hate relationship.

[K7KBN]

Since they now thoughtfully provide a SASE in their membership drive mailings, it doesn't even cost me the price of a stamp to tell them to go to hell.

[K0YNE]

The ACLU is a Subversive organization and if you don't realize that then you should start watching the news and reading the paper. There has never been an organization bent on distroying religious freedom in America. Their agenda is to remove all religious symbols from public view. Wait until they start working on some religious activities that you recognize now. There is No more religious speeches made at our college. Nor at my home town High School. The pledge of allegiance may be removed. They are now trying to get words removed from that. How about IN GOD WE TRUST? Some one will attempt to remove those words. The prayer that is given in the Senate and the House each day? Will it to be in jeopardy? I conclude that those who wish to be part of the ACLU is likened to a socialist order. Once they whittle away your freedoms, the articles to the constitution will start being altered. Like Bush wants to amend the constitution to limit marriage between a man and a woman. I believe that also, but would not alter the constitution.

[KB9YCO]

What a giant, steaming load; and that website has got to be some of the most non-factual, purely opinion based pieces of garbage I've ever seen. I'm not even saying I always agree with the ACLU, but saying that protecting the obvious clear wording of The First Amendment from the current neo-conservative idiots in office is twisting it is just a joke. The people twisting The First Amendment are the people that seek to change it's wording and intent, covertly or overtly. Those morons at that website need to do something constructive with their lives and quit trying to control everyone else's life. What a bunch of losers.
That was fun, now I feel better.

[W3MIV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n3ijw @ May 19 2004,09:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I used to support the ACLU, until I realized they were pretty friggin selective in what (and whose) rights they so staunchly defended. ...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Seems the ACLU supports every amendment (their interpretation only, of course) except the Second, which Mr Justice Storey called the &quot;palladium&quot; of our constitutional government.

[ad5td]

Wait till you have children of your own. #You will understand. #If you already have children and you don't understand, you are part of this nations downfall to the pit. #We put up with so much filth in our dat to day lives that we have become numb to a lot of it.

KN6Z, you left out the context of your biblical quote:

EZEKIEL 23: 1 The Word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
2. Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:
3. And they committed whoredoms in there youth
8. Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured there whoredom on her.
9. Wherefore I have delivered her unto the the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted.
10. These discovered her nakedness: THEY TOOK HER SONS AND DAUGHTERS, AND SLEW HER WITH THE SWORD: and she became famous among women; for they had EXECUTED JUDGEMENT UPON HER

[n3ijw]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ May 19 2004,09:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Seems the ACLU supports every amendment (their interpretation only, of course) except the Second, which Mr Justice Storey called the &quot;palladium&quot; of our constitutional government.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Precisely. It is this sort of hypocrisy that permeates the &quot;help, I'm being oppressed!&quot; crowd to the core.

Here we have an organization that claims to defend the Bill of Rights and individual liberties, and at the same time insists the state be the sole entity that decides whom is to be granted their Second Amendment rights?

Give me a friggin' break. My $20 goes to Spirit of America (http://www.spiritofamerica.net).

[KB9YCO]

&quot;If you already have children and you don't understand, you are part of this nations downfall to the pit.&quot;

No, the downfall of this country is religious extremists that want to make their narrow concepts law in opposition to The Bill Of Rights. Keep church out of government and government out of church.

[KC5SAS]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Their agenda is to remove all religious symbols from public view. Wait until they start working on some religious activities that you recognize now. There is No more religious speeches made at our college. Nor at my home town High School. The pledge of allegiance may be removed. They are now trying to get words removed from that. How about IN GOD WE TRUST? Some one will attempt to remove those words. The prayer that is given in the Senate and the House each day? Will it to be in jeopardy? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> Sounds like a good start.

[n0ov]

Hope all the good folks who are supporting the activities of the ACLU are around to enjoy the fruits of their laybor.

Think some of you need to watch a few hours of Maybury RFD and ask yourself the question -- was these ideas really that bad.

Good original post. Hey, what do you think -- if I post a web site spewing that much garbage do you think people will pay dues to join my club?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[w6ez]

I thought everyone knew the ACLU was founded to protect the rights of communists.

Is it really that big of a shock?

[KB1GXM]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0xu @ May 18 2004,21:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep. That does it. I have to join, post-haste. The ACLU is the only organization doing anything to protect the country from a bunch of right-wing neocon religious bigots.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I find that a really.....stupid.....comment.

I don't recall ever reading anything about the Founding Fathers ever professing any affinity towards Islam....

or Mormonism....

or Buddhism....

or Shintoism....

or Santeria....

or any other religious dogma except the Judeo-Christian one.

And anybody that finds it &quot;unfair&quot; that their religion-du-jour isn't prominently mentioned, displayed or otherwise given any credence in America's history is an idiot.

You're free to practice whatever religion you feel like. Just don't try rewriting our American history just to make you feel more &quot;at one&quot; with us.

[n0ov]

Absolutely

&quot;Wake up America!!!&quot;, Earl Pitts

[KG4CGC]

Don't know where I stand but I know I'm guilty of biblical whoredoms.

---humor---
KG4CGC

[ad5td]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote #
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Their agenda is to remove all religious symbols from public view. Wait until they #start working on some religious activities that you recognize now. There is No more religious speeches made at our college. #Nor at my home town High School. The pledge of allegiance may be removed. They are now trying to get words removed from that. How about IN GOD WE TRUST? Some one will attempt to remove those words. The prayer that is given in the Senate and the House each day? Will it to be in jeopardy?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> #
Sounds like a good start.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You only need to make one decision for your afterlife; Do you want Smoking or Non-smoking #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Some people will be so suprized... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[wa1m]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6ez @ May 19 2004,11:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought everyone knew the ACLU was founded to protect the rights of communists.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I thought everyone knew that if the rights of Communists aren't protected, then nobody's rights are safe.

[kc0ebm]

ACLU

The Atheist Communist Liberal's Union

All Communist Atheists send in your dues TODAY!

Let's free this nation from religious freedom

Lets rewrite history

Lets wipe out everything that's black and white and paint everything GREY.

If ya cain't be wid da one ya luv, luv da one you wid.

Illicit gratuitous uncensored sex, violence, crime, debachery, lesciviousness, and depravity 24/7/365

We shall exhalt our throne above the Most High.

Who shall stand in judgement of US?

Let us cast away the bonds of restraint, responsibility, and accountability.

Let us erase the name of God from the face of our Earth.

Let's hear it for the Man Boy Love Association.

After all, sodomites and pedophiles have rights too.

Don't they?

[kc0ebm]

What!!!

You don't want that nasty old sodomite next door doin the nasty with YOUR little boy?

Who are YOU to judge?

Now, bring out your little sons and daughters, that we may KNOW them.

God is gone now, remember?

That's the way YOU wanted it.

Now, cough up your little kiddies.

We are free to do as we please, and we want to DO your little Johnny and little Suzzy.

[kc0ebm]

Best be careful for what you ask!

God may just give it to you.

Damn the ACLU

[n0ov]

Hey, here's an idea.

If the ACLU is really serious about protecting our rights -- how about they defend our rights to see the 10 commandments in public!

[K9STH]

What is &quot;funny&quot; is that the ACLU is siding with Rush Limbaugh in his fight with the State's Attorney of Dade County, Florida! The battle having to do with &quot;fishing&quot; by getting Limbaugh's medical records and then releasing them to the general public.

Glen, K9STH

[VE3HBD]

You want a great example of a lion in sheep's clothing? Try Jesse Jackson and his &quot;Rainbow Coalition&quot;....

Its professional, sanctioned and licensed racketeering.

Setting the cause of race relations back about 200 years.

[wa1m]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the ACLU is really serious about protecting our rights -- how about they defend our rights to see the 10 commandments in public![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Would you be suprised to find them defending religious freedom?
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159" target="_blank">
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries</a>

[kn6z]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ May 19 2004,05:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kn6z @ May 19 2004,00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... Ezekiel 23:20-21[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm not quite sure I understand the thrust of this post.

Pornography is defined as graphic material designed to incite sexual arousal. vide WNWD: &quot;writings, pictures, etc. intended primarily to arouse sexual desire...&quot;

The Bible contains many &quot;sexually&quot; explicit passages, including the oft-cited Song of Solomon, but it is a very great stretch to try to cite any Biblical text as pornographic.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thrust? That is very good. I never would have thought of it.

As for pornographic, I really have no idea who is going to find what, pornographic. Some people don't even want sex discussed clinically in school. I think some people might find Ezekiel 23:20-21 offensive. I acknowledge that the passage may not meet some formal definitions of pornographic.

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc0ebm @ May 19 2004,12:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, bring out your little sons and daughters, that we may KNOW them.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
As the townfolk said to Lot (well, almost) just before the place was destroyed!

[n0xu]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB1GXM @ May 18 2004,10:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0xu @ May 18 2004,21:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep. That does it. I have to join, post-haste. The ACLU is the only organization doing anything to protect the country from a bunch of right-wing neocon religious bigots.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I find that a really.....stupid.....comment.

I don't recall ever reading anything about the Founding Fathers ever professing any affinity towards Islam....

or Mormonism....

or Buddhism....

or Shintoism....

or Santeria....

or any other religious dogma except the Judeo-Christian one.

And anybody that finds it &quot;unfair&quot; that their religion-du-jour isn't prominently mentioned, displayed or otherwise given any credence in America's history is an idiot.

You're free to practice whatever religion you feel like. Just don't try rewriting our American history just to make you feel more &quot;at one&quot; with us.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I find your reply equally stupid, and patronizing, too. You're reading much more into that comment than is there.

Where did I say I wanted history rewritten? Where did I say that it was unfair that all religions aren't represented wherever?

What I did say was that I find that the ACLU is the only organization that is trying to keep one group from forcing a particular religion, via government, down the rest of our throats.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Also, if you promise not to call me an idiot, I promise I won't call you a condescending ass.

[N1XHF]

We can all bicker all night long but one thing is very clear that the ACLU is a very dangerous organization. They are nothing more than constitutional terrorist and are trying to destroy our way of living any chance they get, twisting, rewriting our own laws against us.

As NOXU pointed out, they maybe the only major organization fighting for peoples rights but that does not make what they are fighting for okay either.

For example they support NAMBLA (national association of man boy love). That's right, they support an organization who thinks its okay to molest young boys! I hope to god no one here supports that.

As STH pointed out they are also supporting Rush in his legal problems and the only reason why they are doing that i'm sure is to get publicity.

All I know is the people of this country better wake up and smell the coffee before these crazies are in charge!





http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[KA8NCR]

I worship my wife's pot roast. Am I going to hell?

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ May 19 2004,12:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey, here's an idea.

If the ACLU is really serious about protecting our rights -- how about they defend our rights to see the 10 commandments in public![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You can see them in public. It's just not right for the _government_ to pay for that display.

Go out and make yourself a display; have at it. It's just my tax dollars shouldn't be used to help religion (of any type).

[n3ijw]

If this is regarding Roy Moore's infamous ten commandments display, that was privately funded.

[N0PU]

Ya know, I got nothing against a display of the Ten Commandments, or much of anything else...

But, I want those wanting it displayed to pay for it... Make a sign like that and put it in your front yard... Rent a billboard... If you own a store, put it in the window, or on a sign above your store...

You buy it, you maintain it.. no problem...

But DON'T make ME pay for it or maintain it with my taxes...

And don't you DARE complain when someone puts something about buddha or any other religion in THEIR yards or businesses...

[wa1m]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For example they support NAMBLA (national association of man boy love). That's right, they support an organization who thinks its okay to molest young boys! I hope to god no one here supports that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

They defend NAMBLA's free speech rights, not NAMBLA's agenda. Noncontroversial speech has little need of protection. Controversial speech, reprehensible messages and messengers are what the First Amendment protects.

[ad5td]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote
For example they support NAMBLA (national association of man boy love). That's right, they support an organization who thinks its okay to molest young boys! I hope to god no one here supports that.


They defend NAMBLA's free speech rights, not NAMBLA's agenda. Noncontroversial speech has little need of protection. Controversial speech, reprehensible messages and messengers are what the First Amendment protects.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

When you support there &quot;free speech&quot; espousing their &quot;right&quot; to molest young boys (an illegal activity BTW), you support THEM.

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5UJX @ May 19 2004,19:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote
For example they support NAMBLA (national association of man boy love). That's right, they support an organization who thinks its okay to molest young boys! I hope to god no one here supports that.


They defend NAMBLA's free speech rights, not NAMBLA's agenda. Noncontroversial speech has little need of protection. Controversial speech, reprehensible messages and messengers are what the First Amendment protects.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

When you support there &quot;free speech&quot; espousing their &quot;right&quot; to molest young boys (an illegal activity BTW), you support THEM.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It's not a matter of supporting a &quot;right&quot; to molest young boys. Supporting someone's right to do something doesn't implicitly support all their other rights. And your argument is further riddled with bullet holes because there _is_ no right to molest young boys.

I don't agree with many things in this world. I think rap music sucks, but I would hate to see the day when that type of music is supressed because middle aged white guys thought the world would be a better place without it. It very well may be, but one of the dangers of having rights like free speech is that someone is going to say something you don't like.

And I think we can both agree that what NAMBLA spouts is utter rubbish. But having dirty thoughts and talking about them isn't against the law (yet).

[wa1m]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you support there &quot;free speech&quot; espousing their &quot;right&quot; to molest young boys (an illegal activity BTW), you support THEM.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

OK, let me see if I understand: If I support a person's free speech rights, you say that I am in support of that person. Therefore, if I do not support a person, I should not support his right to free speech; in fact, it seems that you are saying that I should oppose his right to speak at all.

Now, since I do not agree with your views on this matter, I do not support you. Should I therefore oppose your right to speak?

[w6ez]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa1m @ May 19 2004,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For example they support NAMBLA (national association of man boy love). That's right, they support an organization who thinks its okay to molest young boys! I hope to god no one here supports that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

They defend NAMBLA's free speech rights, not NAMBLA's agenda. Noncontroversial speech has little need of protection. Controversial speech, reprehensible messages and messengers are what the First Amendment protects.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Excuse me, but the ACLU was instrumental is getting phedophillia defined as a sexual preferance rather than a sexual deviance in several legal decisions in the past years.

[AB8RU]

I can say I 'll stick to professonal orgs, and Ham Radio Orgs.

[k6ncx]

My friend Gary writes political satire. He does it for a living, of sorts. Fora moment I thought maybe this thread was his work.

[k6ncx]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5UJX @ May 19 2004,19:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you support there &quot;free speech&quot; espousing their &quot;right&quot; to molest young boys (an illegal activity BTW), you support THEM.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wow, that was [irony on] cogent, coherent, and literate. [irony off]

[k6ncx]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6ez @ May 19 2004,22:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Excuse me, but the ACLU was instrumental is getting phedophillia defined as a sexual preferance rather than a sexual deviance in several legal decisions in the past years.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And of course you have citations for that. No? So maybe you we just blowing smoke?

[wa1m]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Excuse me, but the ACLU was instrumental is getting phedophillia defined as a sexual preferance rather than a sexual deviance in several legal decisions in the past years.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not aware of any such legal decisions, whether involving the ACLU or not. It unlikely to be true, because it's medical matter, not a legal matter. I think you may be thinking of the gradual removal of homosexuality as a disorder defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. That revision wasn't accomplished by lawyers or judges, but the American Psychiatric Association.

Do you have information which supports your claim?

[n0ov]

Let's cut to the quick.

What is the key purpose of the ACLU?

Not to protect American Civil Liberties.

It's to get has much publicity as they can so someone can still see they are &quot;valuable&quot; and send money in the form of donations.

They are not interested in what is good for America, just what is good for them!

[k6pme]

LNU, I think you just discribed Club Sierra.

(Sorry, just couldn't resist...)

[n0ov]

That's ok -- actually that was a good one

[N1XHF]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa1m @ May 19 2004,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They defend NAMBLA's free speech rights, not NAMBLA's agenda. #Noncontroversial speech has little need of protection. #Controversial speech, reprehensible messages and messengers are what the First Amendment protects.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
When an organization comes out and states they are going to break the law with criminal intent it is a different story. The governments problem with NAMBLA is not free speech but their illegal advertising of molestation of young boys, now that is against the law. Any time you make a statement, speech, stating that you are going to violate someone else's rights you are not protected by the first amendment. Your rights end when you violate the rights of others.



73

[n0ov]

Watch out XFH.

That freedom of speech stuff (which you are 100% on the mark) will really get some people fired up.

Some folks feel that freedom is the right to do what ever they want, no matter who they hurt or impact.

They ACLU simply takes the position that as long as they can wrap themselves around the outter edges of the Contitution, they can defend these bozos and get some more donations from the foolish!

Hitler would have loved the ACLU!

[n3ijw]

Godwins law has been invoked, the discussion is over, yay!

[ad5td]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> #
When you support there &quot;free speech&quot; espousing their &quot;right&quot; to molest young boys (an illegal activity BTW), you support THEM.


OK, let me see if I understand: If I support a person's free speech rights, you say that I am in support of that person. #Therefore, if I do not support a person, I should not support his right to free speech; in fact, it seems that you are saying that I should oppose his right to speak at all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Now, since I do not agree with your views on this matter, I do not support you. #Should I therefore oppose your right to speak?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

OK, lets get this straight, I will NOT defend the right of someone espousing an ILLEGAL activity. #These guys are advocating sex with boys under the age of consent. #They think it should be legal. #The want to have sex with MY little son. #WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT This is just wrong.

However, as the founding fathers intended Political speech MUST be protected. #What NaMBLA is is advocating is NOT political, but, moral. #Sure you can site many moral laws that have been change by the political process, but most were changed for the worse. #

As pointed out in a previous post here, the ACLU is VERY selective in what they support. #Most are cases that give them lots of &quot;face time&quot; on TV. #This gets other liberal idiots to send them money. #

In my 50 years on this earth, I have seen this Nation swirl towards the sewer, we are not in the pipe yet, just circling round the drain hole. #There are a few of us left still paddling to stay out of the hole.

Let's just agree to disagree on this.

[KI4BOO]

I think people need to stand up and actively fight for their rights, instead of relying on Special Intrest Groups to do it for them.

[k6pme]

Now here's an interesting one considering the nature of this thread.

Patriot Act/Civil Libertarians/Pedophiles/Internet

**Note Paragraph 5

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/crime/story/9358093p-10282573c.html

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1XHF @ May 20 2004,07:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa1m @ May 19 2004,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They defend NAMBLA's free speech rights, not NAMBLA's agenda. Noncontroversial speech has little need of protection. Controversial speech, reprehensible messages and messengers are what the First Amendment protects.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
When an organization comes out and states they are going to break the law with criminal intent it is a different story. The governments problem with NAMBLA is not free speech but their illegal advertising of molestation of young boys, now that is against the law. Any time you make a statement, speech, stating that you are going to violate someone else's rights you are not protected by the first amendment. Your rights end when you violate the rights of others.



73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
As opposed to Hollywood which has portrayed in movies the rape of women and children. Are we to ban Nabakov's Lolita now?

Where's the difference in the speech?

[KG4CGC]

North American Marlin Brando Look Alikes?

Can't take credit for that, wish I could.

[w6ez]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa1m @ May 20 2004,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Excuse me, but the ACLU was instrumental is getting phedophillia defined as a sexual preferance rather than a sexual deviance in several legal decisions in the past years.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not aware of any such legal decisions, whether involving the ACLU or not. It unlikely to be true, because it's medical matter, not a legal matter. I think you may be thinking of the gradual removal of homosexuality as a disorder defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. That revision wasn't accomplished by lawyers or judges, but the American Psychiatric Association.

Do you have information which supports your claim?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I know that phedophillia is considerd a mental condition and is only a crime when acted upon. I forget what the term is for it.

But I do remember reading that the aclu was acting as the legal advison or maybe was acting as legal defense in a case where the said pedophilla was like a freedom of speech or fredoom of assocation.

I found this, but I don't think itis the article I orgionally read.

&gt;&gt; Liberal ACLU to Defend NAMBLA Child Molesters
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Associated Press
&gt;&gt; Aug. 31, 2000
&gt;&gt; Liberal ACLU to Defend NAMBLA Child Molesters
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union will represent a liberal
&gt;&gt; group that advocates sex between men and boys in a lawsuit brought by
&gt;&gt; the family of a slain 10-year-old.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge said the North American
&gt;&gt; Man/Boy Love Association and its web site which is now off-line
&gt;&gt; incited the attempted molestation and murder of the boy on Oct. 1,
&gt;&gt; 1997.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; One of two men convicted in the killing, Charles Jaynes, 25,
&gt;&gt; reportedly viewed the group's web site shortly before the killing, and
&gt;&gt; also had in his possession some of NAMBLA's publications. Also
&gt;&gt; convicted in the killing was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari.
&gt;&gt;
&gt; Advocating that a criminal act be made legal is perfectly legal. The
&gt;family of a victim of a murder or wrongful death does not have standing to
&gt;sue those who advocated commission of the crime or tort. If it were
&gt;otherwise, free speech could not exist.
&gt;&gt; The ACLU said the case, filed in federal court in mid-May, involves
&gt;&gt; issues of freedom of speech and association and sexual preferences
.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case,&quot; John Roberts,
&gt;&gt; executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told
&gt;&gt; Boston Globe Wednesday. &quot;It has to do with communications on a web
&gt;&gt; site, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior
&gt;&gt; whatsoever.&quot;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; ACLU officials said NAMBLA members deny encouraging coercion, rape or
&gt;&gt; violence.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Attorney Lawrence Frisoli, who represents the Curleys, said he is glad
&gt;&gt; the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble locating the
&gt;&gt; group's members.
&gt;&gt;
&gt; Fortunately, NAMBLA probably doesn't have that many members. Very few
&gt;people would want it to be legal for pedophiles to act on their urges. (I
&gt;know I wouldn't want it to be legal.) Of the few who do want sex between men
&gt;and boys legal, most would be afraid to associate themselves with a group
&gt;like NAMBLA for fear of being suspected of being pedophiles. Pedophiles and
&gt;gays have another reason not to get involved with NAMBLA: They'd out
&gt;themselves.
&gt;

[ad5td]

I rest my case...