Skip to main content

ACLU vs Al Qaeda: This is the most dangerous organization in America

Quoth David Anderson at Delaware Politics:

The ACLU has done more damage to America than any other organization. It has distorted the liberty protections of the Constitution into chains of oppression whenever it is allowed to go unchecked.


I looked into it, and by God he's right. Look at what that commie bastard scum group has been up to lately:

ACLU files brief on behalf of Fox News against FCC fining the network for fleeting expletives in live broadcasts.

ACLU goes to court to keep Yup'ik-speaking American citizens in Alaska from being disenfranchised by the State government in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

ACLU challenges repressive law in Annapolis MD that gives the government the power to say who you may and may not have as a guest in your own home.

ACLU advocates for disabled public school students who, research shows, suffer corporal punishment at a far greater rate than non-disabled students.

ACLU leads the fight to give States, not the Drug Enforcement Administration, the power to make decisions on the use of medica marijuana.

ACLU argues that Congress should end the sentence of life without possibility of parole for children.

Oppression all around.

Thanks for keeping us safe from the Constitution, David.

Oh: and just in case you forgot, David: the ACLU cannot legislate nor hand down judicial decisions. They actually have to work within the existing system and convince other people--judges and legislators--to make the changes they propose.

Again: too much nuance on my part for either wing of the Demopublican Party.

Comments

Ed Heath said…
Demopublican Party....I like Republicrat better!
townie 76 said…
Steve do you think David Anderson has ever read the Constitution? If he had he would know the ACLU is exactly what you stated, an advocate for those without a voice and for whom society has contempt.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...