← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · DakotaBlue
Thread ID: 20639 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2005-10-13
2005-10-13 19:42 | User Profile
The ACLU has turned out to be one of the most dangerous, if not the most dangerous legal activist organization in this country today. It's truly a fifth-column.
A judge in Oregon recently ruled that live sex acts are now legal entertainment as a result of a lawsuit that was brought by the ACLU. The Oregon law doesn't restrict locations where live sex can be performed so theoretically, it could happen anywhere. I guess public lewdness has become irrelevant. BillyO covered the ruling with liberal Judge Napolitano, a legal consultant to Fox who said he saw nothing wrong with the ruling. The Constitution provides protection and so be it was Napolitano's assessment.
The ACLU has been behind landmark cases that have made a mockery of the laws of this country. Its interest isn't in the Constitution no matter how many times it refers to its strength and vision. Its interest is in destroying this country by using its own laws against by turning the Constitution into a Trojan Horse.
They're well funded, connected and powerful. It's no surprise that with the advent of Jewish supremacy so too has this mostly Jewish organization gained power. Every cause that undermines family, Christianity, American culture and traditions, the ACLU is actively involved.
Question: Can they be stopped and how would it be done?
2005-10-15 02:45 | User Profile
[quote=DakotaBlue]The ACLU has turned out to be one of the most dangerous, if not the most dangerous legal activist organization in this country today. It's truly a fifth-column.
A judge in Oregon recently ruled that live sex acts are now legal entertainment as a result of a lawsuit that was brought by the ACLU.
How is that a problem? Provided the zoning defenses that were used [I]vis a vis[/I] stip joints in quite a few jurisdictions are resorted to, I'll offer that one will have to go out of one's way to go and find live sex acts as entertainment. "Outside city or town limits" works for me. For those so driven to pay to watch, a rather pathetic audience who are certainly in dire need of lives and spiritual guidance, what the heck, tax it and let them drive out to watch. Then, pull over those who drive back drunk from the hump fest. Assymetrical approach, eh?
I'd say this borders on victimless crime, provided, of course, that it is all adults. That's the problem, chances are that can't be assured.
[QUOTE] The Oregon law doesn't restrict locations where live sex can be performed so theoretically, it could happen anywhere. [/QUOTE] That's the problem. See the zoning rubric used to clean out some locales.
[QUOTE] The ACLU has been behind landmark cases that have made a mockery of the laws of this country. Its interest isn't in the Constitution no matter how many times it refers to its strength and vision.
No argument there. [QUOTE] Its interest is in destroying this country by using its own laws against by turning the Constitution into a Trojan Horse. [/QUOTE] Yes.
Question: Can they be stopped and how would it be done?
The "how many bullets will it take" question is answered by "how many lawyers in the ACLU?" :dry: :dry:
Trying to beat them in court is probably playing to their strength. An assymetrical approach would be best.
AE
2005-10-15 05:11 | User Profile
In regards to the Oregon case, the judge ruled in favor of public sex acts under the Oregon constitutional clause "Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right."
This clause is clearly designed to protect speech and press, explicitly "opinion", specifically speaking, writing, or printing. I don't think public sex qualifies here, not by a longshot.
Liberals do whatever they want. And, they can only get away with it because conservatism in America is all but dead. The Republicans are more than happy to play along while pretending that they're trying to do something about it.
2005-10-15 09:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]They're well funded, connected and powerful. It's no surprise that with the advent of Jewish supremacy so too has this mostly Jewish organization gained power. Every cause that undermines family, Christianity, American culture and traditions, the ACLU is actively involved.
Question: Can they be stopped and how would it be done?[/QUOTE]Well of course the ACLU, as you note, in many ways is just a front organization for the ADL. And recognition of that fact would certainly help the ACLU opposition do better. The ACLU opposition of course is pretty much epitomized by the Christian Right (Dobson, Robertson, Falwell).
Of course the Christian Right is pretty much the extent of it, and as long as the paleo and WN movement are so utterly impotent politically that's about the extent of it.
Other than that, its hard to say. One thing to note of course is really the ACLU certainly seems to back off when matters of real consequence are at stake (i.e. possible benefit). The certainly haven't had much success for instance challenging the Patriot Act.
2005-10-16 12:49 | User Profile
Last night, we reported that the Supreme Court of Oregon had ruled 5 to 1 that live sex shows are permitted in that state under the freedom of expression banner. The ACLU and The Oregonian newspaper both filed briefs in favor of that ruling. But why would the ACLU do that? What's in it for them?
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states and local communities have the right to limit expression. This is the U.S. Supreme court, in a time, place, and manner, application of standards. That is, you can't have sex on your front lawn, even if it's a personal expression on private property. The Supreme Court realizes the Constitution requires boundaries for what Americans do. If you don't have boundaries, you have chaos. Thus, community standards and public safety trump personal expression.
But the ACLU doesn't believe that. The organization has moved so far left, that now anything goes.
• Item: The ACLU is defending the North American Man Boy Love Association, saying that although the organization champions the criminal rape of children, it has a right to do that under free expression.
• Item: The ACLU endorses virtual child pornography and has defended the right of people to obtain real child porn.
• Item: the ACLU opposed the Minutemen protests at the border, obviously, a legitimate form of expression.
So it seems the ACLU cherry picks its cases. The Minutemen certainly have a right to protest the porous border situation, but the ACLU opposes that expression. — Off the chart hypocritical.
So let's apply the no spin concept to this. The ACLU simply wants a different country, a nation where conduct it approves of, public sexual displays, child molestation literature is allowed. But the ACLU wants to inhibit conduct it disagrees with, like protesting the border and celebrating the birth of Jesus. That's what's going on.
Now my next comments are directed at our liberal viewers. How can you support a group as nakedly, pardon the pun, radical as the ACLU? This isn't about freedom. This is about imposing a radical secular progressive agenda on a country that has traditionally voted on public policy issues. If the live sex act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it'd be voted down big. Remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage.
So once again, the ACLU is using an activist court to undermine what the folks want. This isn't democracy. This is judicial fascism.
It's also a joke. The founding fathers didn't write the First Amendment with live sex shows in mind, OK? Everybody understand that? You can easily pervert the Constitution by saying every kind of expression is protected, but again, that would lead to chaos and conflict.
"Talking Points" believes the 400,000 members of the ACLU should wake up and smell the totalitarianism. This organization is bent on undermining freedom, not fighting for it. And everybody should understand that.
And that's "The Memo."
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171995,00.html[/url]
2005-10-16 13:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]The ACLU has turned out to be one of the most dangerous, if not the most dangerous legal activist organization in this country today. It's truly a fifth-column.
A judge in Oregon recently ruled that live sex acts are now legal entertainment as a result of a lawsuit that was brought by the ACLU. The Oregon law doesn't restrict locations where live sex can be performed so theoretically, it could happen anywhere. I guess public lewdness has become irrelevant. BillyO covered the ruling with liberal Judge Napolitano, a legal consultant to Fox who said he saw nothing wrong with the ruling. The Constitution provides protection and so be it was Napolitano's assessment.
The ACLU has been behind landmark cases that have made a mockery of the laws of this country. Its interest isn't in the Constitution no matter how many times it refers to its strength and vision. Its interest is in destroying this country by using its own laws against by turning the Constitution into a Trojan Horse.
They're well funded, connected and powerful. It's no surprise that with the advent of Jewish supremacy so too has this mostly Jewish organization gained power. Every cause that undermines family, Christianity, American culture and traditions, the ACLU is actively involved.
Question: Can they be stopped and how would it be done?[/QUOTE]
**Here's how...
Write to your congressmen and ask them to eliminate the provision for attorney fees in the Establishment Clause... every time the ACLU wins a case we pay for it! **
“The effort – spearheaded by Craig McCarthy of CourtZero.org, a site dedicated to stemming judicial activism – seeks to change 42 U.S.C., Section 1988, of the United States Code. The statute now allows judges to award attorney fees to plaintiffs in civil-rights cases brought against local governments, thereby putting the taxpayers on the hook and oftentimes funneling public money to the ACLU. McCarthy wants the law changed so cases involving the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment would not apply.
When the ACLU takes a city to court claiming a Christmas display violates the Establishment Clause, for example, if the municipality loses, the city's taxpayers would not have to pay ACLU attorneys. Ending the financial incentive, McCarthy says, would cause the ACLU to decrease their anti-religion litigation. "Asking the ACLU directly to cease their destructive behavior is unlikely to have much impact," McCarthy told WND, "but cutting off public funding of their activities would be both doable and effective."
[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41635[/url]
2005-10-16 21:08 | User Profile
Mass democracy is a disease-spreading terminal failure. Democracy means the rule of unqualified beastmen and their anthropologically infra-human beastcults. The subhuman hordes of beastmen, in their nihilistic outrages, will some day have to be subjected to the most rigorous justice by a spiritually based regime of Aryo-Christianity. The secular law is as good as worthless in America. If the secular law allows heartless subhumanity to reign, we must seek higher grounds of conduct. Separatist groups like the Amish must be learned from. Defenders of truth, justice, and humanity in America should now be learning physical and spiritual self-defense skills like the warrior-priests of the Middle Ages and actively separating their loved ones from the hellishly decadent world which Judah conniving with our own filthy rebellious proletariat has created.
2005-10-18 02:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]How is that a problem? Provided the zoning defenses that were used [I]vis a vis[/I] stip joints in quite a few jurisdictions are resorted to, [/Quote]
[B]That's the point. No zoning laws apply to this case. Live sex inside your favorite deli will probably hold up in court as that law is now written and interpreted.[/B]
[Quote]I'd say this borders on victimless crime, provided, of course, that it is all adults. That's the problem, chances are that can't be assured. [/Quote]
[B]There is a victim. I believe it degrades society as a whole in the same way gratuitous sex, violence and foul language in the entertainment field have degraded our lives. I agree with your last point.[/B]
2005-10-18 02:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]...Liberals do whatever they want. And, they can only get away with it because conservatism in America is all but dead. The Republicans are more than happy to play along while pretending that they're trying to do something about it.[/QUOTE]
[B]I agree. What's more misleading is when you hear people like Gingrich, Limbaugh and Hannity proclaim that most of the country is in the "red" but what they fail to mention is that liberals control the content and flow of information through news and entertainment and force you to comply with their views through the authority of the courts. It matters little that there are more red states than blues when all the power has passed into the hands of the radical 60's gangs. [/B]
2005-10-18 02:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]...One thing to note of course is really the ACLU certainly seems to back off when matters of real consequence are at stake (i.e. possible benefit). The certainly haven't had much success for instance challenging the Patriot Act.[/QUOTE]
[B]They haven't backed off, just waiting for the opportunity to present another challenge. They never back off, they're too arrogant and focused unlike the rest of us. [/B]
2005-10-18 02:28 | User Profile
Gaby, excellent information. I didn't know that. I will definitely do it but it will be a futile gesture unless the masses get behind it.
Free Republic seems to be able to marshall their readers who in turn energize others to take up important issues. Does this forum have that same ability? I'm fairly new here so I don't know.
2005-10-18 02:31 | User Profile
Esoterist:
This isn't a democracy and if it were, we'd be in worse shape than we're in right now. I think it's not unreasonable to think that in the not too distant future, a benign dictator will rule this country and his authority will be welcome.