Leftist ACLU wackos at it AGAIN

[rpm]

Those wacky ALCU commies!

"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

[Frogm4n]

I damn any group that defends peoples constitutional rights. DAMN PINKO COMMIE BASTARDS!

[Ripsnort]

I don't believe they were asked to.

"But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe.

Prosecutors have not filed charges against Limbaugh and their investigation will be delayed until the court decides whether to keep the records sealed past the new deadline. "


Gotta give it to the ACLU, its an excellent tactic to draw attention to ones group politically speaking.

Wonder if it makes a hoot of difference to Mrs. Curley?

10-year-old Jeffrey Curley was raped and murdered by two men, one of whom says that the North American Man Boy Love Association influenced his violence against the boy.  So the Curley family has sued NAMBLA in federal court, and the ACLU is representing that terrible organization free of charge.

Perhaps you didn't know this, but children have a "right" to view pornographic materials on computers in school libraries according to the ACLU.

[lazs2]

wow... the aclu making life easier on druggies.... whoda thunk?  

Rush?   guess they weren't getting enough attention lately.

lazs

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by lazs2
wow... the aclu making life easier on druggies.... whoda thunk?  

Rush?   guess they weren't getting enough attention lately.

lazs

I don't know what to do now...Who will tell me what to think?

Is it ok to listen to Rush or not?
I mean... he's using drugs... he's in court with the ACLU...

Those dirty liberals! They tricked him!

Next thing, we know we'll find out Rush has been cohorting with prostitutes!

[Frogm4n]

anyone that can be against the aclu is truely ignorant. All they do is challenge court decisions that may be unconstitutional. Who cares if noone asked them. They are not asking for your money.

[lazs2]

hakhui... I see your dillema... like most liberals.. without a support group and people to tell you what to do... you are lost..

you could stop visiting the lefty sites and talking to women about how to run your life and... think.

just a suggestion tho.

lazs

[Rude]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
anyone that can be against the aclu is truely ignorant. All they do is challenge court decisions that may be unconstitutional. Who cares if noone asked them. They are not asking for your money.

The aclu WAS a viable advocate in their early years....now they are a political entity biased towards the left.

Of course, reviewing their case histories wouldn't yield what you would want to see.

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by lazs2
hakhui... I see your dillema... like most liberals.. without a support group and people to tell you what to do... you are lost..

you could stop visiting the lefty sites and talking to women about how to run your life and... think.

just a suggestion tho.

lazs

What you're saying I shouldn't listen to what my mother told me?

But I don't want to be a liberal - That's why I listen to Rush!

I only read FauxNews and Pat Robertson's 700 club site because they are conservative!

The rest of the internet is run by SATAN and his evil menions.

[rpm]

"We have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon.

How dare they support that Communist, Anti-American piece of jibberish! Deeth to the Bill of Rights and all that it stands for!

[midnight Target]

Ripsnortified.

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

[FUNKED1]

If they had the balls to stand up for the 2nd Amendment, we wouldn't need the NRA.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
If they had the balls to stand up for the 2nd Amendment, we wouldn't need the NRA.

Circular argument. The ACLU has limited resources and doesn't see the need to stand up for the 2nd Amendment as long as the NRA is there to do so. If the NRA went away tomorrow, you might see a different position from the ACLU. Both organizations share a common goal of definding the Constitution. They are not adversaries.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Circular argument. The ACLU has limited resources and doesn't see the need to stand up for the 2nd Amendment as long as the NRA is there to do so. If the NRA went away tomorrow, you might see a different position from the ACLU. Both organizations share a common goal of definding the Constitution. They are not adversaries.

Sure, they have limited resources.  But it wouldn't kill them to put something on their webpage or literature saying "we support the 2nd amendment."  Ink can't be that expensive.  

From their website, an "Issues" list:
Criminal Justice
Death Penalty
Disability Rights
Drug Policy
Free Speech
HIV/AIDS
Immigrants Rights
Int'l Civil Liberties
Lesbian & Gay Rights
National Security
Police Practices  
Prisons
Privacy & Technology
Racial Equality
Religious Liberty
Reproductive Rights
Rights of the Poor
Students Rights
Voting Rights
Women's Rights
Safe and Free

They seem to have forgotten the 2nd Amendment.  Convenient.

[Tarmac]

Ok, found an ACLU statement on gun rights, although they freely admit that they're ignoring the issue by remaining neutral.  It's listed under "police practices."

To quote them:

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

Pick and choose your amendments.  

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25