The Anti-American Counter-Liberty Union
Posted on July 30, 2005
I’m gonna be lazy today, and reprint an excellent article written by the eldest son of the great President Reagan, Michael Reagan
This was originally published at Front Page Magazine
If you are wondering where the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is standing in the War on Terror, one need only consult its record. This pillar of the Legal Left wants to humiliate U.S. troops, inflame anti-American Muslims, and oppose Homeland Security.
The ACLU even wants U.S. courts to allow the Quran to be used instead of the Bible when administering the oath to Muslims in court. According to the Associated Press, denying the use of other religious texts would violate the Constitution by favoring Christianity over other religions, the ACLU of North Carolina said in a lawsuit. State law currently allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath either by laying a hand over a “Holy Scripture,” by saying “so help me God” without the use of a religious book, or by using no religious symbols.
“We hope that the court will issue a ruling that the phrase ‘Holy Scripture’ includes the Quran, Old Testament, and Bhagavad-Gita in addition to the Christian Bible,” said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina.
That, however, is small stuff when it comes to the ACLU’s activities in connection with the war on terrorism. Take for example their demand that the Pentagon release more photos of the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
In this case the ACLU thinks that all the pictures of Abu Ghraib should be made public. The only possible purpose for that would be nothing less than to inflame Middle Easterners even more. It can have nothing at all to do with punishing the prisoner abusers — that’s already been done. They are being prosecuted, are being found guilty, and are being put in jail. The ACLU seems hell-bent to inflame the radical Islamists and present them with more video, more film, more pictures that they can use to go out and recruit more terrorists and suicide bombers to kill more and more Americans.
I can’t reach any other conclusion but that the ACLU feels the only way for this war in Iraq to end is to have more Americans die so that the backbones of the American people will weaken, as happened in Vietnam, and will finally demand that Washington stop fighting the terrorists there and pull out. I’m convinced that the ACLU has reached the conclusion that the only way they can accomplish this is to pour more fuel on the fire and allow the enemy to recruit more terrorists to kill more Americans.
I firmly believe that the ACLU wants more Americans to die so that the war will end.
Those who served in Vietnam wondered why they were spat upon, ridiculed and treated with no respect when they came back. They can now see firsthand what the Left was doing while they were serving their country in Vietnam and risking their lives. We simply cannot allow them to get away with it this time around.
Just remember what happened when we left Vietnam. Remember what happened to the South Vietnamese people, many of whom were killed or thrown into brutal concentration camps. Remember also what Pol Pot did in Cambodia. With the U.S. out of Southeast Asia he butchered more than a million of his own people. My makeup artist Jennie’s entire family was murdered by Pol Pot.
If we walk away from Iraq the way we walked away from Vietnam, what will happen there and in the Middle East will make what Pol Pot did look like a Sunday picnic.
I don’t know how much longer the American people are going to put up with this sorry ACLU bunch. They are the ones who caused prayer to be banned in our schools, and they are the ones who have led the attack on the Boy Scouts of America. It seems that they are dead set against anything that is American, and anything that is foundational to the nation. They go out and find the fool who is unhappy with some praiseworthy traditional American value, and with the help of liberal judges’ use that fool as a legal tool to beak down some tradition that has helped America to be great.
Thank you Mudville Gazette
» Filed Under War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
13 Responses to “The Anti-American Counter-Liberty Union”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
That’s a great and relevant post. Lazy? I wouldn’t call finding good material lazy…anyhooos! have a great day!
great post, you don’t have to write them all, this is a great way to pass on info.
Agree…great post. The use of the word ‘fool’ takes me back a few years. It still applies but doesn’t seem to have the same punch it used to.
I always like to hear what Michael has to say. I’m kind of having some trouble with the war thing today. Saint Joseph, Missouri lost its first this past Wednesday, I posted an article in his memory. I think reading it is causing me to think of old friends that didn’t make it home from Vietnam. I’ve also posted my Question Of The Week, I hope you will stop by to answer it.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Geewhiz . . . Don’t these people have better things to do than attack every single cell in the common sense gene? Really, how do they sleep at night?
Sorry to interrupt the love-fest, but I gotta dissent at least in part.
Anyone remember the trial scene in “Fried Green Tomatoes” when a pastor is called to give an alibi to the (guilty) women accused of killing her husband? The pastor informs the bailiff that he had brought his own Bible to swear to. He then proceeds to lie. It is later revealed that he had brought the dictionary (or something) rather than the Bible to court that day. The suggestion was that he would have felt uncomfortable lying after taking an oath on the book that was so pivotal to his faith.
Of course, if a Hindu take an oath based on the Bible, is that any different to him than swearing on a dictionary? Wouldn’t we rather a Hindu swear to tell the truth based on something that was meaningful to a Hindu?
This is not a freedom of religion issue; it’s an administration of justice issue. An oath is not administered for the benefit of the person taking it; it is not an occasion for personal expression or evangelism. It’s administered for the benefit of people who need to know what the witness knows, even if the witness doesn’t want to disclose it. It is given in an effort to increase the stakes the witness will feel for lying. Consequently, I want a witness to swear according to whatever authority is most meaningful to the witness, not to me.
If I’m ever in a Saudi courtroom and they ask me to swear to tell the truth, they’d be wise to offer me a Bible to swear on rather than a Koran (although I hope I’d tell the truth in any event). And if I felt compelled to lie, I certainly would hope that they would offer me the Koran rather than the Bible.
Similarly, if a Muslim is on the stand here, I’d want to offer him a Koran rather than a Bible. I have never witness a religious conversion on the witness stand, I a really don’t expect to.
Put aside the whole ACLU issue for a moment: What are we trying to accomplish by having people to swear to things that are meaningless to them?
nobody…
“Put aside the whole ACLU issue for a moment: What are we trying to accomplish by having people to swear to things that are meaningless to them?”
If I swear, I swear by One greater than myself. If I lie, I’m accountable to the One by Whom I swore.
It doesn’t matter if I swore using a Bible, koran or any other Holy book. It only matters to me and to Whom I swore to. My oath would be to One greater than myself.
If the testimony will save you from death-row, do you want me to swear by my God or someone else to testify and swear, who’s god instructs them to lie and kill?
By all means, you should swear by your (our?) God. But someone else should swear by his God. Hopefully his God encourages people to be truthful. But even if his God doesn’t believe in truthfulness, I can’t see the point in having him swear by our God if he doesn’t believe in our God. It would be like asking him to swear on the grave of his great aunt Millie when he doesn’t believe he had a great aunt Millie. He may be wrong, but if he really doesn’t believe in Millie, then his oath isn’t gonna mean anything to him anyway.
On the other hand, we might know for a fact that someone’s beliefs are wrong, but the oath might be valid nonetheless. A judge might say to a child on the witness stand, “You know about Santa Claus, don’t you? Well, then, you know he’s watching. And you’re gonna be a good little girl and tell us the truth, even when it’s hard, right?” I don’t support this practice, but I have to admit that our society makes Santa’s presence very real to kids. A kid who believed in Santa might find this talk a strong encouragement to tell the truth. And if the judge needs the kid to talk about stuff that the kid really doesn’t wanna discuss - witnessing a murder, or sex abuse - a judge may be grasping for ways to encourage cooperation. Eternal damnation in 70 years may be a hard thing for a kid to fathom; coal in the stocking next December may be easier to grasp.
O.K!! So now you are telling me there is no Santa Clause??? Next thing you know you’ll be trying to tell me there is no Easter Bunny! Plueeeze! Get real!
nobody…
For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end to every dispute.
Hebrews 6:16
For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself
Hebrews 6:13
What is the significance of God swearing and having to swear by Himself?
Very nice blog. It is very helpful. http://www.bignews.com
Depression Glass
Cartoon Drawing