http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:24:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-33135 Cigar Intelligence Agency » Blog Archive » ACLU: a legacy of hypocrisy Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:14:03 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/#comment-33135 [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending “robust freedom of speech” in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America’s religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be erected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation ceremony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can’t convince the Senate to pass this as well. But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU’s disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members. Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous. “For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists.” [...] [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending “robust freedom of speech” in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America’s religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be erected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation ceremony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can’t convince the Senate to pass this as well. But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU’s disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members. Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous. “For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists.” [...]

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-33139 Right Wing Nation » Blog Archive » Stop The ACLU Blogburst Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:05:20 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/#comment-33139 [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending "robust freedom of speech" in the ACLU's book, but defending people's right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. [...] [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending “robust freedom of speech” in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. [...]

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-33129 Y.A.C.R.W.B» Blog Archive » ACLU: A Legacy Of Hypocrisy Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:40:22 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/#comment-33129 [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending “robust freedom of speech” in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America’s religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be errected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can’t convince the Senate to pass this as well. But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU’s disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members. Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous. ?For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members ? I can?t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists.? [...] [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending “robust freedom of speech” in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America’s religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be errected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can’t convince the Senate to pass this as well. But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU’s disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members. Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous. ?For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members ? I can?t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists.? [...]

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-33130 Revealing The ACLU - Standing Up Against the Greatest Overt Attack in American History » ACLU: A Legacy Of Hypocrisy Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:38:12 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/#comment-33130 [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending “robust freedom of speech” in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America’s religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be errected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can’t convince the Senate to pass this as well. But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU’s disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members. Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous. ?For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members ? I can?t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists.? [...] [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending “robust freedom of speech” in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America’s religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be errected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can’t convince the Senate to pass this as well. But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU’s disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members. Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous. ?For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members ? I can?t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists.? [...]

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-33136 Conservative Culture » Blogburst - ACLU’s Hypocricy Legacy Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:16:03 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/#comment-33136 [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending “robust freedom of speech” in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. [...] [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending “robust freedom of speech” in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. [...]

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-33137 Conservative Thinking Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:49:45 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/#comment-33137 <strong>ACLU Hypocrisy Files</strong> Crossposted from Stop The ACLU: In case you haven't heard, a group of dissenters from the ACLU are rebelling and calling for a change in the current leadership of the main organization. The summary of things this new group is... ACLU Hypocrisy Files
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU: In case you haven’t heard, a group of dissenters from the ACLU are rebelling and calling for a change in the current leadership of the main organization. The summary of things this new group is…

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-33138 Xtreme Right Wing. Scratching the Rash of Liberalism! Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:42:11 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/#comment-33138 [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending &#8220;robust freedom of speech&#8221; in the ACLU&#8217;s book, but defending people&#8217;s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. [...] [...] Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending &#38;#8220;robust freedom of speech&#38;#8221; in the ACLU&#38;#8217;s book, but defending people&#38;#8217;s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list. [...]

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-33140 Xtreme Right Wing. Scratching the Rash of Liberalism! Tue, 12 Sep 2006 03:49:27 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/#comment-33140 [...] The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: “What is right and Constitutional is not always popular.” Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU&#8217;s pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So&#8230;the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right&#8230;does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can&#8217;t we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself. [...] [...] The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: “What is right and Constitutional is not always popular.” Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU&#38;#8217;s pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So&#38;#8230;the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right&#38;#8230;does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can&#38;#8217;t we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself. [...]

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-33131 FullosseousFlap&#38;#8217;s Dental Blog &#38;#187; Stop the ACLU Blogburst Watch: The ACLU vs. America — The Numbers Don’t Lie Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:32:24 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/#comment-33131 [...] The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: “What is right and Constitutional is not always popular.” Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU’s pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So…the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right…does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can’t we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself. [...] [...] The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: “What is right and Constitutional is not always popular.” Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU’s pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So…the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right…does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can’t we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself. [...]

]]> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-33132 California Conservative &#38;#187; ACLU Vs. America Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:04:45 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/06/17/aclu-and-nambla-a-match-made-in-hell/#comment-33132 [...] The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: “What is right and Constitutional is not always popular.” Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU&#8217;s pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So&#8230;the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right&#8230;does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can&#8217;t we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself. [...] [...] The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: “What is right and Constitutional is not always popular.” Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU&#38;#8217;s pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So&#38;#8230;the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right&#38;#8230;does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can&#38;#8217;t we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself. [...]

]]>