Stop The ACLU’s One Year Blogiversary Blogburst: Top Ten Myths About The ACLU
Posted on February 9, 2006
Today I turn 29 years old, and Stop the ACLU turns one. We started out on blogsnot. Here is our first post. Enough about that…on with the blogburst.
Top Ten Myths of the ACLU:
10. The ACLU is non-partisan:
The Truth: Not only were they founded on Communism, they are about as liberal an organization in existence. The public saw first hand in 1988 how the ACLU was involved in politics. “The portrayal of the ACLU as a radical liberal lobby reached its climax in the 1988 presidential campaign when George Bush used ACLU membership as a black mark against his opponent Michael Dukakis. The perception had taken root that the ACLU of 1988 has about as much to do with civil liberties as the AT&T of 1988 has to do with telegraphs.”
“Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality, is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization.”William Donahue
They may take a token case here and there for the other side to bolster its non-partisan claims, but those cases are far outweighed by their numerous other cases that are clearly intended to further its partisan agenda. They even keep scorecards on Congressmen and Representatives. Their claim of non-partisanship is what gives them their tax-exempt status, and nothing is further from the truth. They have split their organization into two in order to lobby their causes to the legislative branch.
9. The ACLU Cares About Your Privacy Rights:
The Truth: Despite all the rhetoric over the current NSA program, where the ACLU opposes the U.S. listening to traitor’s having conversations with terrorists, the ACLU has no room to talk when it comes to violating privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders’ commitment to privacy rights.
Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization’s frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.
Daniel S. Lowman, vice president for analytical services at Grenzebach Glier & Associates, the data firm hired by the A.C.L.U., said the software the organization is using, Prospect Explorer, combs a broad range of publicly available data to compile a file with information like an individual’s wealth, holdings in public corporations, other assets and philanthropic interests.
The issue has attracted the attention of the New York attorney general, who is looking into whether the group violated its promises to protect the privacy of its donors and members. NY Times
8. It is a patriotic thing to support the ACLU.
The Truth: If you think the ACLU represents the average American values, then you are sadly misguided. Their absolutist views of liberty go far beyond what most people could ever support. They support the legalization of child porn distribution , and un-regulated prostitution. They are far from the traditional thoughts of patriotism, constantly defending Americas enemies, and fighting efforts of military recruiters.
7. The ACLU Defends The Bill of Rights.
The Truth: The ACLU defends the parts of the Bill of Rights that are in line with its agenda. What about the second, ninth, and tenth amendment?
ACLU POLICY “The ACLU believes 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.”ACLU
And they certainly don’t believe in States rights, constantly attempting to override the will of the people via the judicial branch.
6. The ACLU Defends Religious Liberty
The Truth: The ACLU claims to be the great defender of liberty, but the truth is that their definition of liberty is limited to what alligns within their agenda. As a matter of fact, the ACLU is the foremost religious censor in America. Despite the fact that this nation was founded upon the ideals of religious freedom, the ACLU has succeeded in manipulating the very founding principles through the corrupted judicial branch to repress the religious expression of America, and continues to work daily at erasing our National religious heritage from the pages of history.details
5. The ACLU’s Slogan of “Keep America Safe and Free”:
The Truth: What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety, in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil.
They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, to stop what they call profiling (we will never see a Protestant white middle-aged woman as a terrorist working with an extremist Islamic organization) by race, sex and religion, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations.
They say they are for a safe and free America. Yet their actions speak very loudly the opposite of the lip service they give in this banner for a safe America.
4. They Defend the Oppressed and Helpless:
The Truth: If you count terrorists, child molesters, and murderers as oppressed and helpless, then you may think this one is true. The truly defensless are the very children being harmed by these perverts the ACLU defend. The ACLU don’t believe children have any rights, unless it is to murder their own children without their parents ever knowing.
3. The word “American” in their name truly reflects what they are:
They are constantly stepping outside the bounds of America, reaching out to help the very enemy. They fight every effort by our government to protect us, and sue them every chance we get. For the ACLU, the mighty checkbook takes precendence over America’s security, and many think they are rooting for the enemy. It isn’t hard to believe when theytry to get admitted terrorists off the hook.
2. The ACLU Was Founded On Noble Intentions:
The Truth: One of the great myths of the 20th - and now 21st - century is the belief that the American Civil Liberties Union was an organization that had a noble beginning, but somehow strayed off course.
That myth is untrue. The ACLU set a course to destroy America – her freedom and her values - right from the start.
From its very beginning, the ACLU had strong socialist and communist ties. As early as 1931, the U.S. Congress was alarmed by the ACLU’s devotion to communism. A report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated
The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.
Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.
Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:
I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
1. The ACLU Does Not Collect Taxpayer’s Funds:
The Truth: The Civil Rights Act, intended to help poor people who could not afford to defend their rights, grants judges the right to award attorney’s fees in civil rights cases. The ACLU have turned this on its head, often using it to threaten small schools and local governments that can not afford to defend themselves from the ACLU.
Take it from a former ACLU Lawyer, Reese Llyod:
Stated Lloyd: “The ACLU has perverted, distorted and exploited the Civil Rights Act … to turn it into a lawyer-enrichment act.”
Lloyd says the American people are “oblivious” to how many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are going to the ACLU each year.
The attorney pointed out many attorneys in cases brought by the ACLU are volunteers, so the fees the group is awarded normally do not go to reimburse an attorney but rather directly into the organization’s coffers.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
65 Responses to “Stop The ACLU’s One Year Blogiversary Blogburst: Top Ten Myths About The ACLU”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Happy Birthday Jay!!!!!!! The Big 2-9. Well it’s been a year of fighting the ACLU and to be honest, I think that we’ve got their attention. The complete lack of ACLU rhetoric mid-week has me believing that they have noticed us and don’t want to fuel our fire.
Happy Birthday Buddy. And may you have about 75 more.
Happy Birthday Jay! Man, time flies doesn’t it?
Happy Birthday, Jay. Keep up the good work. Fightin’ the good fight. And we’re all in it.
Happy Birthday Jay.. and to the first year: Stop the ACLU! ((^_^))
Hey, Jay, I always imagined you as a grumpy (kinda) old fart like me! Happy BD!
Let’s see if we can’t get you, and all of us, birthday presents of a USA free from the scourge that is the ACLU! Will x-post this later today.
Happy Birthday Jay! Blog on dude!
A list of myths filled with more myths.
Happy Birthday Jay and Stop the ACLU. Party on!
Your comment about the ACLU not supporting the Bill of Rights is troubling. First of all, the 9th amendment doesn’t have any content (unless you count abortion, which the ACLU does defend). Secondly the ACLU has supported 10th Amendment cases concerning grand juries, double jeopardy, due process, and property issues. Finally, the ACLU takes a Militia view of the Second amendment, which is a legitimate interpretation of the Second Amendment (especially for originalists).
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JAY, AND CONGRATULATIONS. GREAT WORK, TO EVERYONE!
Happy Birthday!!!!!
I’m sorry to butt-in in the middle of all the kudos and congrats, but we had a bat leave a comment and she needs to be addressed.
Ok Meg, put down your koolaid and pay attention.
The 9th Amendment does have content. It was the liberal court who decided to expand the meaning of the 14th Amendment which made it irrelevant.
In 1868, in order to protect ex-slaves, the 14th Amendment did apply certain rights that the states couldn’t intrude upon: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Somehow Hugo Black, in his dissent in Adamson v. California (1947) found this to mean that all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights applied to the states: “My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment…persuades me that one of the chief objects that the provisions of the Amendment’s first section were intended to accomplish was to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.” One must ask, if this was one of the “chief objects,” why didn’t they put it in the text? (For a scholarly, devastating refutation of this interpretation of “the original purpose,” see Raoul Berger’s book on the 14th Amendment, “Government by Judiciary.”)
This concept of “Incorporation Theory” goes against the idea of federalism envisioned in the Constitution. Now that Justice Black’s dissent is accepted jurisprudence, state laws can be reviewed in federal court, which means that the Supreme Court now decides what our rights are. The 9th Amendment in its original sense is now irrelevant. Source
And as for the whole idea that the ACLU defends states rights under the 10th Amendment… Roe v Wade was the biggest incursion of the federal judiciary stepping on states rights when it decided that forcing the restrictions of the Bill of Rights on the federal government also applies to the state. Not to mention the fact that privacy appears exactly 0 times in the entire document.
Try again moonbat… Next time come prepared for a fight.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled program….
Excuse me? What’s with the personal insults? And what’s a moonbat?
Here is the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Explain to me how this amendment is being violated, so that I can see how the ACLU is failing to defend it.
Ok it can’t read either… I explained how the 9th Amendment is ignored by the ACLU in favor of the 14th. After-all it is with their prodding that the federal judiciary is now activist.
As far as what a moonbat is, step away from your computer, walked to your bathroom, stand in front of the sink, that shiny thing above the sink, look directly into the center of it and you will be rewarded with a picture of a genuine moonbat.
P.S. Give me a case, not a crazy theory on the 14th Amendment. I want a case where the plaintiffs asserted a 9th Amendment right being violated.
hmmm a non linking Bat… Gang… what is the rule on linking?
MOONBAT MOONBAT MOONBAT MOONBAT
Please send me some Koolaid
Sorry for the typo. I was going to say “I think you’re (something bad)” but then I though that would be mean and said something else. Anyway, it should have been “your.”
Anyway, this group has a policy on non-linking moonbats, but not on people like yourself acting like a jerk?
The principle of privacy is in the Constitution in two places. One is the illegal search and seizure clause and the other is in the clause about quartering soldiers.
And why, exactly, is privacy such a horrible concept? Why does the right wing think nobody has any legitimate privacy?
People who oppose privacy want control over every feature of your life, every decision. They believe your body does not belong to you. It belongs to them and they have a right to control it from the moment you are conceived to the moment they decide you should die.
They are wrong. My body is mine and they can just butt out.
Try again… No where in any of the 7 articles or 26 amendments is there a right to privacy. You idiots looking for implied meanings are exactly what Alaxander Hamilton warned against in Federalist 84.
“I…affirm that bills of rights…are not only unnecessary…but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers, which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
The manufacture of implied meanings is the downfall of this nation. If there was supposed to be a specific right to privacy in the Constitution, there would be an expressed “right to privacy” as with the freedom of speech. It does not exist.
“I…affirm that bills of rights…are not only unnecessary…but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers, which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
Hello??!?! This quote is about the GOVERNMENT thinking they have more power than they do (this argument lead to the 9the amendment that you claim to know so much about). Hamilton is NOT talking about the using the Constitution to give MORE rights, like the right to choice.
Wait… what happened to Meg? Just so everyone knows, I didn’t touch her posts. Honest.
Aww I was having fun with her…..
I notice Gribbit ignored my questions. Here is the main one again: Why do you not wish to have a right to privacy?
RedSonja2000, Your body is yours up to a point, first of all if you could do anything with your body tell me why it is you may not run down the street naked? Why would they arrest you for shooting drugs? If you try to kill yourself they throw you on the fourth floor that does not sound to me like your body belongs to you. Now for you homework today, I want you to go look at the constitution and the bill of rights and tell us where it is in there that it says that a woman has the right to do anything she wants with her body…
Thanks for your work, Jay.
Your question was answered. I’m not opposed to it, but like Hamilton, I think personal liberties should have been defined in the states. This is why not even the Freedom of Speech was in the Constitution when ratified. It along with the other protections and rights of the Bill of Rights were added in 1782.
The original argument here was the fact that the ACLU claims to be defenders of the Bill of Rights. But at the expense of the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments, your ability to kill a human being without prosecution has been hidden in a manufactured right to privacy. It Does Not Exist.
Are you blind as well as stupid?
Hey - where’s the party?! AH HA - Who else besides Jay would start something like this “Stop the ACLU” station on his birthday! Hmmm “Best to ya” Jay and may everything only be BETTER than your best days with “Stop the ACLU!”
Now I KNOW I’m old enough to be your mother - my son turns 29 this year also - 1977! Happy Birthday - 1,000 times by now!
Meg… glad to see you back. Your comments disappeared for a sec.
Anyway, what do you think the judiciary is? As of late, they have been the government. The SCOTUS has been a court of 9 unelected self proclaimed Kings by committee. How else can you explain the recent Eminant Domain Case?
Personal liberties should never have been put into the Constitution. If that had never happened, this would be a moot point. State’s would have defined them.
Choice, another word that does not appear in the Constitution.
The judiciary is the body that interprets law and the Constitution.
If you are referring to the case I think you are (with the Souter opinion?) That case gave rights back to the states. States can now decide what to do about giving private property to other private parties. The court refused to intervene on the states rights. You should be happy : )
As for privacy rights, I think they are in the Constitution. More importantly, I think (like Redsonja) that women have an inherent right to choice.
I look forward to the day this blog can be shut down because the ACLU no longer exists to spread its nonsense. Happy Blogiversary!
If the ACLU is ever shut down it will be because civil liberties are dead and this blog will probably be shut down for you.
Gribbit:
“Personal liberties should never have been put into the Constitution. If that had never happened, this would be a moot point. State’s would have defined them.”
and have our liberty and freedom subject to the whims of polliticians? No thanks.
you live in a liberal fantasy world. One that can never and will never exist. We will win. And when we do this nation will be better of for it. The ACLU since its inception has been the legal arm of the Communist Party USA. Doubt me, check into what J Edgar Hoover said about it.
Gribbit:
“you live in a liberal fantasy world. One that can never and will never exist. We will win. And when we do this nation will be better of for it.”
You mean we will be better off when we are stripped of our rights and freedoms? I don’t think so. I don’t live in Saudi Arabia for a reason.
“The ACLU since its inception has been the legal arm of the Communist Party USA. Doubt me, check into what J Edgar Hoover said about it.”
Although I have some very good friends who are cross-dressers, I don’t really give a damn what J Edgar Hoover said about the ACLU.
Did I say that? If you actually believe that the ACLU fights for your freedoms, you belong in a rubber room. Because they don’t.
Our domestic problems and concerns of personal freedoms have no business in the courts. The ACLU’s answer to everything is a lawsuit. Whether they have standing or not. I’m waiting for the day that they actually sue themselves.
You are either extremely stupid or young and have no idea what you are fighting for…..
And you should care what the former FBI Director said about them. Because he had the goods on the ACLU.
I’m getting extremely bored with you. Why, because STUPID PEOPLE ANNOY ME!
ATTENTION KMART SHOPPERS….
We have officially entered our regularly scheduled every 6 weeks new batch of bats cycle. It is that time where we are going to be confronted about facts that we have proven over 20 times over the past year.
I say we just start deleting the stupid ones
You are so rude. You’re the stupid one. How can you talk to her like that? She’s making some very good points!
Happy Birthday Jay! Happy Birthday to your blog as well! Keep up the good work.
Gribbit:
“Our domestic problems and concerns of personal freedoms have no business in the courts.”
So there should be no recourse to redressing grievances. Okay. I thought that was explicitly in the constitution. Oh, well, must have been wrong.
Hoover had a talent for manufacturing “the goods” on anybody he didn’t like.
Deleting any argument you don’t agree with is going to make your world full of nothing but sychophants. That’s the problem with suppression of free speech. If you don’t ever hear a contradicting argument, you have no way of figuring out if your ideas match reality. A simpler way of dealing with that is to not care if your ideas match reality.
Go away… or I started editing…… yes I am. G
What facts have you proven? That you can mis-quote Hamilton?
This is getting tiresome, go away
Deleting any argument you don’t agree with is going to make your world full of nothing but sychophants. That’s the problem with suppression of free speech. If you don’t ever hear a contradicting argument, you have no way of figuring out if your ideas match reality. A simpler way of dealing with that is to not care if your ideas match reality.
We finally realize what is wrong with The loonies at the Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos crowd and for more irony, told to us by ACLU fan!
I did NOT misquote Hamilton
http://patriotpost.us/fedpapers/fed_84.html
9th paragraph
Happy Blogiversary, Jay!
Happy 29th birthday!
Thanks for all you do! Keep up the excellent work!
God bless you,
Jean
GREAT PARTY! Sorry I missed all the “bashing the moonbat pinata” fun while I was at work. Somehow I got 49 emails since I left my HAPPY BIRTHDAY comments this afternoon. All were titled “response to STOP THE ACLU.”
-Come to think of it, I think I had a similar thing happen after I left a comment at Cao’s blog. It’s probably my email or blogger settings, but I wanted to let you know.
I can’t imagine how you guys deal with all the traffic. Gribbit, I want to mention that I found your post extremely thought-provoking, and think I will post it today at LEAVWORLD.
Hey, wasn’t anyone ticked off at my last cartoon? I’ve got a new moonbat from a blog called Muslim Unity on me about the Allah and Mohammed one! -Sorry, just trying to get the fun started again.
HAPPY BLOGIVERSARY, STOP THE ACLU!
LEAVWORLD SALUTES YOU!
You absolutely did mis-quote him. Well, I guess it’s more like you mis-interpreted the quote.
As I said above, Hamilton was worried that giving a list of rights would give the government grounds to argue that those rights are the ONLY rights (i.e. that the list was all inclusive). This argument was what led to the 9th amendment, which you think you are such an expert on.
Hamilton was not worried, and never said, that people would argue the Constitution contained more rights than enumerated.
Are you affiliated with some sort of college/ university (e.g. student, ta, professor)? If so, go ask someone in the political science department what Hamilton’s argument means.
Happy Birthday to both of you, fellow Aquarian! Good to see we share more than just our “love” of the ACLU; I turn 46 (ugh) Sunday.
Semper Fi,
The Almighty Mattski
Meg:
“You are so rude. You’re the stupid one. How can you talk to her like that? She’s making some very good points!”
that is why he (a) is rude and (b) wants me to “go away.”
So, can we start shooting aclu(natic) lawyers now? Or, should I just use a baseball bat?
Smoke Eater:
“So, can we start shooting aclu(natic) lawyers now?”
here’s some folks who’d be happy to help you with that:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm
Happy birthday, Jay! Thanks for the incredible service you do in exposing the ACLU for the anti-American organization that it is.
“You mean we will be better off when we are stripped of our rights and freedoms?”
When you libs start defending the rights of unborn babies, then you can talk. The ACLU, as has been pointed out repeatedly, picks and chooses which civil liberties they will defend, and which ones they will abolish. Most of the “civil liberties” you libs want protected do not exist in this country anyway.
apostle:
“Most of the “civil liberties” you libs want protected do not exist in this country anyway.”
Yes, apparently you don’t want to have the right to privacy and believe that it actually doesn’t exist. You think the government has a right to investigate or regulate your private affairs and what you do in you in your own home even if it harms nobody. You may not think you have a right to the sanctity of your own home, but I do and so do a lot of other Americans.
p.s. I am opposed to abortion.
RedSonja2000 ,
Wow, you stand out like a RED fag to me..second parnoid post I have noticed of yours.
Nobody is watching you in your bedroom or home. Liberals are so self centered they actually believe they are important enough for someone to spy on them. Unless you have wires sticking out of your tennie shoe, what is the problem? Egos, egos, ego..
Bahahaha…I meant..Red flag, that is a typo..HONEST~! Sorry~!
Marti, The government searches (e.g. wiretaps) people who are innocent all the time. Probable cause is all that’s needed. If the government can’t even come up with probable casue then it’s clear that lots of innocent people ARE being spied on. Someone IS being spied on in their bedroom and home. Even is Redsonja isn’t, she is standing up for the rights of others. I think that’s pretty nobel of her. It’s sad that more people don’t stand up for the rights of others….like the ACLU does.
Marti:
“Nobody is watching you in your bedroom or home. Liberals are so self centered. . . etc.”
I didn’t say they were. I was saying conservatives don’t seem to mind if they do. Sort of a reverse voyeurism, I guess.
“I meant..Red flag, that is a typo..HONEST~! Sorry~!”
not a problem–though I *do* have a thing for boys.
I don’t see the attack on our civil liberties ..The only attack I see, is the ACLU changing my country to serve the pedophiles, criminals and the anti Christ’s of America. I would like to dual them, one by one.
If a “conservative” FBI agent is peeking in my window I just hope I am wearing a sexy negligee to make his job more enjoyable.
In all honesty, you have to be paranoid to worry about such things, I don’t.
“Yes, apparently you don’t want to have the right to privacy and believe that it actually doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t.
“You think the government has a right to investigate or regulate your private affairs and what you do in you in your own home even if it harms nobody”
If this were actually happening, then there would be cause for concern. Since its not…
Hi. I just found your site and it’s the perfect anti-ACLU resource. If you can, I’d appreciate it if you’d check out my humble blog and if you’re game, I’d love to exchange links with you.
Let me know please.
The ACLU’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is, I hate to tell you, the interpretation our courts have given it from the beginning of the Republic.
As for religious freedom, think about it — one of the reasons we’re perhaps the most religious democracy on the planet is precisely because the government keeps its nose out. We were founded on 18th century principles in which any belief in a deity wasn’t quite what you seem to think it is. Read Jefferson’s abridgement of the Bible for a very good introduction to the basic attitude of the Founders towards Christianity. Would they recognize it today? Lord have mercy, no. And the inroads that have been made in the last 50 years (the “under God” part in the pledge, for example, a part added in the 1950s and that I won’t say despite being a Catholic and a sincere believer in the deity) don’t prove anything except an unwillingness to confront or face our history.
I’m only up for the child porn stuff right now:
“The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment.”
You really can’t go around saying the ACLU supports child porn, when they are talking about manufactured images.
I just want to say, Let’s shut down the ACLUnatics under the RICO Act.