ACLU Honors Islamofascists
Posted By John Moore on September 26, 2003
There are many reasons why I consider the ACLU one of the most dangerous organizations in the United States. The worst is their predilection to only protect the rights of the left and of enemies of America.
When have they protected an American’s rights under the second amendment? When was the last time you found the ACLU defending the free speech rights of a pro-life demonstrator? How about all the conservative foundations that were simultaneously audited by Clinton’s IRS. When will they protect a Japanese-American against institutionalized racism? Sure, they defend a Nazi every once in a while, just to establish their “balance” – but that is nothing other than a propaganda ploy.
But sometimes they just can’t help themselves from looking as crazy as they actually are. Now the ACLU has given a “Liberty Flame” award to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a front organization for the most radical sect of Islam( Wahhabiism), one which has fought necessary measures in the US war on terrorism, is funded by the Saudi Government, and is rabidly anti-semitic. A “liberty” award to an organization funded by the Saudi’s? Next they’ll give one to Saddam… oops… too late…
Well, what do you expect from the ACLU? Evenhandedness? Defense of your freedoms? Quite an expectation from an organization that is insane enough to give a civil liberties award to CAIR!
John:
Point well made, but I submit that the ACLU hasn’t done all bad. It began, if I have my history correct, as a very thinly disguised communist organization following Marx’s credo that the ends justified the means. They “only protect the rights of the left and of enemies of America” because, essentially that’s their (unwritten) charter.
Still, Klansmen do have a right to march, and the NAMBLA website isn’t responsible for making someone rape and kill a child. The list goes on. The ACLU has done more to check unconstitutional government action than any single group I’m aware of.
If the ACLU actually did what it purports to do, I’d be a member in a minute.
Well, I’m thrilled that Klansmen can do their thing and that NAMBLA can have their website (NOT). I recognize that indeed these activities may be constitutional, but if all the ACLU does is advocate for the left, child molesters, and racists, it seems a pretty worthless organization.
Also, I would suggest that the ACLU has also done more to check constitutional and reasonable government action (such as their attempts with the California recall, and their vicious, lying attacks on section 215 of the Patriot Act) than any other group except perhaps the entire collection of environmentalists put together, and I wonder how many times the ACLU has taken on the environmentalists in their quest to destroy private property rights.
Personally, I am not a fan of having the federal courts called in to every dispute where someone’s feelings are hurt (such as church/state separation extremism). Certainly that was not the intent when the country was founded. Furthermore, it would appear that certain rights have been significantly extended (such as the right of a child to have an abortion without even notifying the parents – a strongly anti-family “right”) while other rights continue to be restricted (such as property rights). The only reason we have any firearms rights left is that the congress, not the courts or ACLU, realized after 1994 that they would be voted out of office if they continued meddling.
As far as I can tell, the ACLU, on balance, is seriously damaging to the country. In fact, in the war on terrorism, they are close to a clear an present danger, except that there are judges who are wise enough to ignore them.
The Ohio Chapter of the ACLU gave CAIR an award… that incident, and the fact the ACLU only sue to supress ‘Christian’ symbolism pervasive in our society, while giving Islamics a pass or assistance, demonstrates the ACLU no longer cares about Constitutional protections… or rather, they aren’t protecting individual rights but instead are advancing the contradictory ideology of the leftists.
I believe leftists see the Constitutional protections as an impediment to imposition of their minority views of the Constitution as a ‘living document’. Which of course means that they see it as subject to their interpretive whims which is the opposite of the document’s purpose.
This agenda makes the ACLU’s claim to be defenders, of that which they attack, very hypocritical.
Quick Hits
Samples of presidential poetry can be found here. (We also learn that “Bush sometimes refers to his wife as a lump in the bed.”) Useful Fools found out that the ACLU Honors Islamofascists. Quote of the Day: In response to Calpundit saying that we are u…
I found your blog via A Little More To The Right, and I’ve enjoyed reading it! And I have to say, you’re dead-on right about the ACLU. I’ve been disgusted by them for a long time now. Wouldn’t it be nice if conservatives funded a similar organization, dedicated to fighting the ACLU whereever and whenever possible?
The disgusting ACLU
Useful Fools: ACLU Honors Islamofascists I found this blog today via A Little More To The Right and I highly recommend checking it out. This entry is a good example of what you’ll find there as the author picks apart…
This statement was taken from an ACLU website,
“First Amendment rights: These include freedom of speech, association and assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, including the strict separation between church and state which is the foundation of religious liberty.”
I would like to comment on the latter part of the above statement. This is what the 1st amendment really states,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
It’s important to see that it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which really means we shall not become a country run under the scrutiny of a single religion, although I am prone to believe if we were truly governed by Christian values this would be a much better way of life, but what do I know I’m just a God fearing Christian man.
Secondly it also states, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” I think we can say that for the most part we have the luxury of exercising our religious rights freely, except at school, work, any government office, need I say more?
I am still looking to find the words, “strict separation between church and state” which we hear quoted all of the time when these issues arise. I’ve got a news flash, they aren’t in the constitution.
It is a sad commentary for America when the minority wins because they got their feelings hurt. If you do not like this country and what it stands for then stay away, or else come and embrace what made it great in the first place. A majority of the framers of the constitution were all God fearing Christian men and are surely tossing and turning in their graves.
I wish the ACLU stood for the oppressed in this country but what I have really seen is a direct attack on Christianity from a lost group of souls. My advice for them would be to open the bible and heed this warning from Job 8:13, “Such is the fate of all who forget God. The hope of the godless comes to nothing.”
This idiocy involving the ACLU trying to save Los Angeles from the Giant Mutant Cross has given me a great idea. At least it seems great to me; I do not know much about the law and how to make it work. But I am spreading this idea around and I hope that someone will take it and use it.
This is what I’ve heard:
1. The law that “requires” the separation of church and state technically applies to ALL religions, regardless of how many or how few are in that religion today.
2. Secular humanism has been admitted, by the government, to be a form of religion—even though it has no deity (much like Buddhism).
3. If you want to challenge a religious image that is connected to the public sphere, you don’t have to be in the same state as the “offensive” thing. You just have to find a sympathetic judge, and pay the legal fees. Or put up a notice, something like that.
4. The ACLU has consistently shown that the only religions it feels threatened by are Christianity and Judaism. Yet it has apparently ignored all the rest—Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Neo-Paganism, even Satanism.
5. You don’t have to prove that the “offensive” thing caused any real harm to you, just that it OFFENDED you.
If all of this is true, I propose the following:
A. Christians and Jews from all over the country go on a scavenger hunt. Their goal
is to find anything connected to “the state” that comes from a religious system, including secular humanism. This would include witchcraft being referenced in public school curriculum, Greek/Roman deities in public buildings such as courthouses, Native American myths being studied in history classes, pagodas in public parks, etc. This will require that Judeo-Christians do their homework, researching where certain things started. Basically, any argument the atheists have used against us, we can use against everyone else.
B. We get a bunch of “offended” Judeo-Christians to file lawsuits around the same day. They can file them in the state where they were horribly traumatized, or more likely in states that are favorable to religious people. The money to pay for the legal fees can come from conservative organizations, doing fundraisers for that purpose, or from the donated legal services of conservative legal organizations. (If we can get others besides Judeo-Christians to help us file and pay, I think that would be a good idea.)
C. This legal defensive will put the judicial system in a dilemma. If they love to separate church and state so much, they will look blatantly hypocritical if they do not also separate temple from state, or mosque from state. Yet if they DO enforce the law fairly, they will be blasted by all these other religions, which had been blissfully untouched by the phony clause.
Maybe it will do nothing to shake the activist judges. But I believe it will make everyone else sit up and take notice. They can offend others too, simply by acknowledging their faith or philosophy. In turn, all these people will suddenly realize what a danger these activist judges are to them, too.
Of course the Left will paint us as evil monsters, on a crusade to take away everybody’s fun. But what are they painting us as right now?? What difference would it really make?
Too many people today want the whole world to approve of their beliefs, and they think that being nicer than God will win that approval. These people want to destroy us; that is what they do when they get their hands on a government. Look at China, and Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia! If we are “nice” (doormats), they want to destroy us. If we are “nasty” (brave), they want to destroy us. But at least if we are “nasty”, we won’t be stepped on so easily.
This is why atheists tend to leave Muslims alone, but attack Christians and Jews. Most atheists are cowards who have no reason to stand up for their belief system. Since they believe that death is all there is, they don’t want to face an enemy that might threaten their lives. And most atheists are so paranoid, they think a Christian or a Jew taking them to court is a threat to their lives. So I think they will wise up and treat us a little more carefully.
And even if the ACLU doesn’t want to listen, the message will be clear: we can fight just as much as you can. If we can’t show our faith in public, neither can you.
If this works in America, maybe we can get like-minded people in other countries to follow suit, if they can still defend themselves legally. Maybe it can be the beginning of a second independence movement!