Columnist Calls Malkin O’Reilly in Drag

Posted on October 21, 2005

CHATHAM, N.Y. — Michelle Malkin, who strikes me as Bill O’Reilly in drag, opened one of her recent syndicated rants with this question: “Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Civil-liberties activists, anti-war organizers, eco-militants and animal-rights operatives are in a fright over news that the nefarious FBI is watching them. Why on earth would the government be worried about harmless liberal grannies, innocent vegetarians, unassuming rainforest lovers and other ‘peaceful groups’ simply exercising their First Amendment rights?”

Ms. Malkin was referring to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, charging that the FBI had amassed hundreds of pages of secret files on that organization and similar groups.

Well, let me suggest that this cute-looking new darling of the salivating right is asking the wrong question. What she should want to know is why the FBI is snooping on the ACLU. After all, the rights the ACLU defends include those that allow Ms. Malkin to write exactly what she wants to write, no matter how misinformed.

Ms. Malkin is too young to remember, and obviously hasn’t read much American history, but if she wants an answer to that question, there are lots of answers.source

They go on to talk about how the FBI has wiretapped innocent Americans, blah, blah, blah. The typical and frequent defense of the ACLU is that they protect the free speech of those that criticize it. This arguement does not hold water. What protects our freedom of speech is the Constitution, and the American military. The ACLU defends free speech that furthers its agenda, and are selective in who they defend. As a matter of fact they are often America’s number one censor of free speech.

California has been fighting to save their seal, its history and heritage from the clutches of the ACLU’s secular cleansing with everything they’ve got. The people voted to keep the seal, but the ACLU is not interested in democracy. There are countless other examples, when it comes to censoring Christian free speech.

When it comes to pro-life protesters, they are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60’s, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom. The ACLU are not only absent in defending pro-life demonstrators, but have actively participated in trying to shut them up.
In defense of Malkin, this person’s fantasy of O’Reilly in drag is not only disturbing, but completely unfounded. O’Reilly and Michelle are simply speaking the truth. Neither are mouthpieces for the administration. Both have consistently criticized the government’s lack of protecting the borders, another issue the ACLU is on the wrong side of. But to call her, in essence, a female O’Reilly is nothing more than a feeble attempt at a smear.

But I think the main criticism of the columnist is in her response to the FBI having papers on liberal activist groups including 1,173 pages related to the ACLU and 2,383 pages about Greenpeace. Well there are plenty of reasons such groups should be investigated. What ever happened with that whole document shredding fiasco at the ACLU? Or we could start with their history of defending terrorists, and America’s enemies. Or how about their refusal not to use donations directly or indirectly to engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.Still not enough for an investigation? How about their direct involvement to organizations with known terrorist ties. Still not enough for an investigation? I think thats enough probably cause for one day, but theres more where that came from.

» Filed Under ACLU

Trackback URL

Comments

7 Responses to “Columnist Calls Malkin O’Reilly in Drag”

DelRay-O on October 21st, 2005 11:52 am

“pro-life protesters, they are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60’s..”

Now why would that be?

http://www.armyofgod.com/JamesKopp.html

- You’re against domestic terrorism, right?
Jay on October 21st, 2005 11:54 am

Absolutely, why don’t you follow that link and read the whole story on it.
Laurence on October 21st, 2005 7:24 pm

Wait, it’s the military and the constitution that protects our freedom of speech, movement and expression?

Good to see that the military giveth and taketh away . . . and that a flimsy piece of paper that clearly everyone respects with the utmost reverence will stop the gov’t from trampling my rights. I’m surprised that it doesn’t work in other places with a constitution and a military.
Don Surber on October 21st, 2005 11:47 pm

I’ve seen O’Reilly in drag. He looks nothing like Malkin. More like Hillary. Eww
loboinok on October 22nd, 2005 12:22 am

“and that a flimsy piece of paper that clearly everyone respects with the utmost reverence will stop the gov’t from trampling my rights.”

That and several million armed Americans that have a ‘pair’ and are willing to back up the Constitution for themselves and on behalf of all the ’skirtwearing’ critical, woe is me,crying wusses.
Laurence on October 22nd, 2005 10:33 am

Next time I see the military do anything other than what the executive branch asks of it (this is all administrations, mind you), I’ll agree with you. That’s not to say these people don’t have balls and that they aren’t worthy of respect for the service they perform.

But it’s dishonest to make it seem like our government and the instruments of it are actually working for the defense of the constitution day by day, hour by hour. There’s a political agenda in all of it.
Don on October 23rd, 2005 11:31 am

The ACLU seeks to do battle, not right injustices.