Login

Shocker: the ACLU Supporting the Abridgment of Civil Liberties Again

At what point is it fair to stop considering the ACLU a civil liberties organization, & start acknowledging what it is?

It was a little less than a year ago when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) exposed itself (again) as little more than a left-wing legal firm as opposed to an organization even remotely concerned with preserving civil liberties for all. Last summer the group wrote a glowing tribute to Islamic sharia activist Linda Sarsour – because nothing says civil liberties quite like female genital mutilation and honor killings, am I right?

Now, just about nine months later, the ACLU has focused on a different subject of praise: Parkland High School students lobbying to limit or repeal the 2nd Amendment. After one of the more prominent student activists commented about his support of the pretend civil liberties group, the ACLU responded:

“Thank you for your work. We’re proud to stand up for students exercising their rights.”

Now, don’t be confused, the ACLU was referring to what they perceive as high school students’ right to walk out of school to protest without punishment from administration. That said, any real champion of civil liberties – that is, the laundry list of personal freedoms and rights either implied or enumerated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights – would be at least supremely cautious about applauding groups dedicated to the restriction or abridgement of those very liberties.

Put bluntly, “civil liberties” as defined in the Constitution includes the right to “keep and bear arms.” The American Civil Liberties Union is thanking a group determined to eliminate that right for “their work.”

So, to recap where we now stand, the ACLU:

  • Supports the abridgement of the civil liberty to keep and bear arms.
  • Supports the abridgement of the civil liberties of women by championing sharia.
  • Supports the abridgement of the civil liberty of religious conscience through LGBT activism.

At what point is it fair to stop considering the ACLU an organization interested in civil liberties, and start acknowledging it for what it is: a legal team of leftist attorneys intent on adjudicating a progressive agenda through the courts?

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" But Heck is completely okay with restricting the right to marry...

What mindless, bigoted delusion & nonsense, today's chronological snobs pretending they can overthrow millennia of civilization without disastrous consequences and ruin, not the least of which is infantile, manifestly mentally ill, sick "adults" caring only for themselves, not giving a rip about the children whose lives they destroy, like the sick, degeberatervert judges, especially Kennedy, so deluded as to lie about sodomite "marriage" being constitutional. You don't have just a plank in your eye; you have at least a whole tree! For the deceitful liars who pretend Jesus said nothing about sodomy, note that the same Jesus that said the bit about the speck and plank also condemned sodomy since, being eternal God, he gave Leviticus 20 to Moses, and then again gave Paul 1 Corinthians 6:9, showing he hadn't changed his mind about sodomy in millennia. There's no such thing as "gay marriage," a literally fruitless delusion of lawless, fascist, bigoted perverts and their useful idiot fools. There's also no such thing as the "homosex-/gay" invention linguistic and moral error, ably exposed and refuted by "The gay invention" at touchstonemag.com. It's just a propaganda ploy of perverts showing how easy it is to use lies and fraud to brainwash a gullible world of illiterate useful idiot fools, just like the Nazis and Soviets did.

Oops. Accidentally hit return above before I was done. What mindless, bigoted delusion & nonsense, today's chronological snobs pretending just because living in a later, manifestly more illiterate and ignorant age, they can pretend to overthrow millennia of civilization without disastrous consequences and ruin, not the least of which is infantile, manifestly mentally ill, sick "adults" caring only for themselves, not giving a rip about the children whose lives they destroy, like the sick judges, especially Kennedy, with their delusions of godhood lying about the sodomite "marriage" fraud being constitutional when for the Founders it was a capital crime, and you can be sure the vastly more educated Founders would have put those obviously deranged lunatics in a padded cell, not let them sit on a court! You don't have just a plank in your eye; you have at least a whole tree! For the deceitful liars who pretend Jesus said nothing about sodomy, note that the same Jesus that said the bit about the speck and plank also condemned sodomy since, being eternal God, he gave Leviticus 18 & 20 to Moses, and then again gave THE SAME to Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9, showing he hadn't changed his mind about sodomy in millennia. There's no such thing as "gay marriage," a literally fruitless delusion of lawless, fascist, bigoted perverts and their useful idiot fools. There've been plenty of folk with same sex attraction that said no to it for the sake of loving their families, unlike today's selfish bigotry that cares nothing for others, only self, like a two-year old. There's also no such thing as the "homosex-/gay" invention linguistic and moral error, ably exposed and refuted by "The gay invention" at touchstonemag.com. It's just a propaganda ploy of perverts showing how easy it is to use lies and fraud to brainwash a gullible world of illiterate useful idiot fools, just like the Nazis and Soviets did. God save us.

It is only a restriction of marriage if you redefine it first. Under the historical definintion of marriage no one was being denied the right to marry. No rights were denied, every person had equal access to the law with the exception of minors and incest. The Supreme Court legally redefined marriage which is not constitutionally binding. A legal redefinition of marriage could only be constitutionally legit if it was done by an elected legislature at the state level and only for that state. The constitution says nothing about marriage and is therefore left to the states to decide according to the 10th amendment. Whether one agrees or disagrees with redefining marriage, it makes no difference. When we disregard the rule of law we imperal the whole system. Besides, marriage is a private/religious institution and two parties can enter in to a private agreement to be "married" without any restrictions. Sodomy laws are gone. Legal recognition is not necessary, it only serves to divide our society.

Geez, have either of you guys ever heard of just minding your own business.

While I prefer delegislating marriage entirely, I think you got the mote and beam backward. Gay marriage is most definitely the smaller issue.

I can't speack for "you guys" but I would be happy to mind my own business. But when activists in the LGBT community try to use the force of federal law (unconstitionally) to tell me what I have to think and believe it becomes my business. If we would have followed the rule of law we would all still be minding our own business. Those who support the the redefinition of marriage could live in a state that has legislatively done this and those who do not could live in a state that holds to a traditional definition of marriage. This is how federalism was supposed to work. Besides, you are the one who accused Heck of denying rights and by implication those of us who agree with his article. How is that minding your own business?

1

A more correct definition of ACLU would be American Communist Lawyers Union.

1

That's a good idea. Why don't you mind your own business

1

When Alan Dershowitz complains about the ACLU, there are serious problems with them. when the ACLU makes statements about things, like Parkland, Linda Sarsour, they are the problem.

Stories