Biggest threat to America?

I believe you missed the point entirely. Let me be more clear.

The A.C.L.U.'s contention that the RKBA is a done deal is a phony reason for their unwillingness to address/defend it. If we were to apply the supposed logic they use to defend their position, we could as easily say there are an infinite number of "done deal" legal issues that they do address.

In other words they have an agenda. That agenda includes - but is not limited to - destroying public morality, public order, common decency, and just about anything that a reasonable person might consider sane.

Which shouldn't be the least bit surprising given its founding as as the "Bureau for Conscientious Objectors of the American Union Against Militarism" in 1917 by Roger Nash Baldwin. Not to mention the cast of nefarious characters that continue to inhabit the A.C.L.U.

As Mr. Baldwin so famously said: ''We are for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. We seek social ownership of property, the abolition of propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.''


What is astonishing is the number of good people that buy their garbage.
 
I see your point now, but I still disagree. Maybe my judgement is clouded because some of the rights they have defended were MY rights too. Maybe I have a favorable opinion of them because I respect the members who happen to be the minority that I thought was the majority. Maybe you hate them because of a few members that you thought were the majority really are the minority. (don't get me wrong, I know that you base your opinion on past actions and released literature by the ACLU) But like I said before about the 2nd, I think that they have given up too easily. But then again, getting the S.C. to change their mindset on something years later was attempted by slavery advocates and segregationists for decades to no avail. Maybe they really do beleive that the 2nd is a lost cause, but I disagree with them and even though I respect the ACLU, I find it a little "funny" that they haven't even tried. After all, the SCOTUS has changed previous decisions when a new argument has arisen in the past.
 
Maybe you hate them because of a few members that you thought were the majority really are the minority.
Click to expand...
I hate them because they have never waivered from Mr. Baldwin's ''We are for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. We seek social ownership of property, the abolition of propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.''
 
I find it a little "funny" that they haven't even tried.
Click to expand...
Nothing funny about it. It's intentional:
''We are for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. We seek social ownership of property, the abolition of propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.''
Click to expand...
There is no mystery in that.
 
Hmm. I still disagree but you are making me rethink. I am going to try to contact them and see what they have to say in their defense and to see if that is still their complete goal. It may be possible that they respect Nash but think that he was a product of his time and disagree with some of the things he said. Like Washington and Jefferson having slaves does not make me lose all respect for them, they may have similar thoughts about (one of?) their founder(s?).
 
Novus Collectus,

If you call the ACLU and ask them seriously if their goal is the establishment of communism, they will laugh you off the line before you hear the "No."

Come on guys, let's cut down on the accusations...not every republican wants to replace all school textbooks with the bible, and not every liberal wants to institute mandatory kindergarten lessons on the Femino-Marxist-Socio-Economic implications of GI joe cartoons.

The ACLU is what its name implies, a civil rights organization. They refrain from defending our right to bear arms, which of course I disagree with. But I'm happy enough that they are willing to volunteer time to defend free speech, to ensure that criminal procedures and trial guarantees are preserved, and to do it in a way that is half-way respectable. If the all of the moveon.org ninnies spent their money on the ACLU to do legal battles instead of making hyped up political ads, I think we'd all be better off.
 
And we know the A.C.L.U. is incapable of lying because shootinstudent said as much. We also know that the A.C.L.U. just happens to not support our right to keep and bear arms, and that it just happens to be a part of their founder's stated goal to disarm America.

Gee... one would think that if they've had so much time to rethink what their founder(s) believed that they would have wandered (at least a little bit) from the path of supporting socialism 24/7/365. It must all just be coincidence. :rolleyes:
 
I never said it was one person. Nonetheless they do have a basic agenda in mind when they approach cases. Like any organization they promulgate policies that they collectively wish to implement.

As to the original members I am well aware of them, and that a handful of them differed ever so slightly from Mr. Baldwin. I also know that when the A.C.L.U. came under serious fire the A.C.L.U. was willing to sacrifice some of its more radical extremists for the sake of its own survival. No mystery to that either.

As I said earlier, some people will believe anything. They will believe that it is easy to explain that an organization that has never once in the entirety of its existence defended the most obvious of all civil rights (the RKBA) is in fact still a civil rights organization. They will believe that it is possible to believe that the one civil right that most tangibly secures all other rights can be overlooked by a civil rights organization, and that there are logical (not doctrinal) reasons for that. The fact remains that the right to defend oneself with arms is the most logical right possible since if/when one loses one's life, all other rights immediately become moot. Somehow that eludes the minds at the A.C.L.U. even though they have our best interests at heart.

You choose to believe that their total unwillingness to explore this civil right in just one case in their history is easily explained away. Good luck to you. I know better.
 
I too don't like the ACLU, not because of their unwillingness to fight for the RKBA but because they fight to allow organizations like nambla and want child porn to be legal.

If the brady bunch and vpc (and all the other ilk) was really "for the children" then they would be fighting to ban the ACLU in their quest to allow the explotation of children.

I'm going with Fred on this one.

Wayne
 
It is NOT their quest to allow the exploitation of children. It was their quest to defend the the rights that would have been violated by the government that we all have. They were afraid of the "legal foot in the door" analogy when it comes to eroding the few rights we have left. They don't want child molestors out molesting kids any more than we do but they would fight a law that would allow the government to enter our homes w/o a warrant, keeping us for questioning for months at a time, putting us in prison w/o a trial, etc with the same vigor as they did the molestors rights. They feel that it is up to the government to stop molestation without taking away our rights in order to do so. In the past they have said on a few occasions when a controversial case they fought with success just for the protection of the rights was handled in another way with a new law, they aplauded the new aproach.

If the government found a way to end all molestations without violating our rights then I will bet my life savings that the ACLU would be very glad and would say so publically. To say that the ACLU has a quest to allow the exploitaion of children (or want children molested) is inflammatory.
 
To say that the ACLU has a quest to allow the exploitaion of children (or want children molested) is inflammatory.
Click to expand...
No, it's called being accurate. Here is their position on free speech:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.
Click to expand...
If that were so we could never have a law that deals with conspiracy/fraud/treason/obstruction of justice/child-porn etc... words can and do have consequences. Our laws even contain provisions for "fighting words" so for instance if someone gets in my face and starts hurling threats at me, I am completely justified (by law) if I knock a few teeth out of his head. The law also contains provisions so that if I tell someone "kill him", and that person does, I am culpable in the murder.

The A.C.L.U. defends the predators at N.A.M.B.L.A. because they are detrimental to the fabric of society. N.A.M.B.L.A.'s one and only reason for existence at all is to break the law. No state in the country allows for the provision of consensual sex between adults and children. Not one. Their association is no more legitimate than a club that called itself Future Presidential Assassins of America. There are no lawful Presidential assassins, just as there are no lawful child predators. So when they get together to swap stories with each other about what techniques they use to lure, kidnap, rape, and even kill children, they are breaking the frigging law. It's called conspiracy. That isn't really so hard to understand is it?
 
Nevermind.

I don't like the ACLU, I think they are in it for themselves and could care less about the people. Just my opinion.

Wayne
 
Last edited:
The refusal of immigrants to assimulate. Someone brought up a good point in some other thread that most foreigners coming here don't want to assimilate into an American culture but they sure as damn well want us to assimilate into theirs here.

Another related threat - green card sponsorship by American business for those foreigners coming here and having no intention of staying or becoming US citizens. They are the "free-grazers" of the 21st century and they are sucking up our knowledge on our nickle and taking our jobs to boot.
 
If that were so we could never have a law that deals with conspiracy/fraud/treason/obstruction of justice/child-porn etc... words can and do have consequences. Our laws even contain provisions for "fighting words" so for instance if someone gets in my face and starts hurling threats at me, I am completely justified (by law) if I knock a few teeth out of his head. The law also contains provisions so that if I tell someone "kill him", and that person does, I am culpable in the murder.
Click to expand...
Conspiracy/fraud/treason/obstruction of justice/Creating child porn etc. are illegal acts in their own right and the written materials are part of the crime. However, if you have a book detailing how to overthrow the government, how to commit fraud, and why and how to commit treason then you are not breaking the law unless you were commiting one of those crimes the literature showed you how to do. As far as the part about yelling threats in your face or someone sending you letters with threats, those are crimes of assault and are under the same "yelling fire in a crowded theater" analogy and is not related or protected to free speech. If you tell someone in person to kill another or say it to a crowd then that is not protected, but a book for public domain is (IMO). You may be subject to a civil suit though.

The group that gets together and PLANS to commit crimes then they are breaking the law. If they get together and TALK about aspects of illegal acts and or the repercussions and how someone had eluded getting caught then they are protected under freedom of speech. They could be subject to civil suits though. The KKK is the second most hated (by me) organization (N.A.M.B.L.A. is first) but if I don't defend their rights to freedom of speech then I could lose mine for being a democrat if the neo-conservatives who someday may be in total control of the government decide my political ramblings are inciteful, harmful, against common Christian moral values are now against the law. Or your rights if the liberals acquire total power and say that your conservative, moral ranting icited Rudolph to bomb liberals. Any political power can easily do this to quiet the opposing political thought and they would use "common morals" as an excuse (this is one reason why we have freedom of speech in the first place).

There is a way that we can try to get rid of N.A.M.B.L.A. and that is to do what I saw a woman doing on T.V. last night. We can volunteer our time and educate the public to who these individuals are and protest outside of their homes, establishments, and buisinesses. After all, our freedom of speech rights that the ACLU fought for in some of these controversial cases would allow us to do this.
 
Novus Collectus
Despite what has been said by the conservative media elite, the ACLU does not (and cannot) take on every case that it "considers". They only have so many lawyers in their organization.
Click to expand...
Right, but you would have figured that, like an the ER in a hospital, priority would be given to the most serious as opposed to the minor problems.

IIRC euthinasia is legal in at least one state, Oregon. Suicide is not allowed if the reason is for depression and there is a quality of life. While all humans believe in life (at the very least, for themselves) the degree of when a life can end is different from religion to religion
Click to expand...
Not sure whether it is or is not in Oregon myself either. But then sodomy has been illegal in "some States"; and the opposite principal has not stopped the change agents when the the issue suits their agenda.

All humans believe in life because it is the natural law - part of our human nature. Just as suicide is against our own nature; which is manifest by the will to live - to survive. Just as the natural impulse to resist murder (And even which tends to inhibit a "justifiable" homicide). People who ignore their consciences - or with consciences dulled by various desensitizing influences - defy even the natural law when they do such things.

As far as the media portraying the Florida incident in a certain way, well, I can say exactly the same thing about the right wing, religious conservative media. WE don't really know all the details, but we do know that the courts decided the case something like 20 times with almost as many judges.
Click to expand...
The testimony by certain hospice staff, qualified medical specialist and friends, who I heard speak on the matter, as well as circumstancial facts, cast more than reasonable doubt as to the so-called "husband's" statements, intent and actions and the victim's "wishes".

All the higher courts did was re-examine the procedural elements etc of the lower court. None of them re-examined the testimony and facts - nor testimony that was disregarded by the initial lower court. That is like having an appeal in a criminal case that refuses to hear any new testimony and evidence and simply bases it's ruling on whether or not there was "procedural error" in the lower.

Even the Pope let himself die even when he could have been saved by medicine and lived for a few more years. Even among different main denominations of the Christian beliefs have different attitudes on where to draw the line when it comes to life
Click to expand...
Karol Wojtyla refused what amounted to artificial cardio-vascular support; but he had a feeding tube until the end. I can not speak for "other religions", but the Catholic Faith requires what can be done short of artificial means of support. Food and water are not considered artificial support. Refusing food and water when it is a matter of life and death amounts to suicide - a sin. Refusing to give food and water when it is possible to do so resulting in death is likewise murder. And this is why mentally and physically handicapped people who can not feed themselves are fed by other people.

Of course the Nazis took a different view, and one of their first angles on the handicapped was this "humane" death abomination for those whose "quality of life" was considered subnormal.

There is an agenda here as clear as day; what was perpetrated on a handicapped woman in Florida would be illegal to do to a dog in all fifty states. It would be a crime to starve a dog of food and water - if it could not feed itself - to death. Death would have to be "humanely administered" - I'll bet even in Oregon.

So in order "to prevent such sufferings", the next step will "assisted suicide", and where things are determined as being "unclear" it will be the State who shall decide.

Now my impression (and I hope it is right) of what the ACLU's view on most of their controversial cases is not that they really do not like to defend abortion or child pornagraphy, but it is telling the government that if it wants to solve a problem, don't do it in a way that will cause reduction in all of our rights
Click to expand...
.
This turns human nature - the natural law - reason and logic on it's head. The abortion issue is very clearly defined by those involved. Child pornography can not be remotely confused with any rights issue whatsoever.
 
All the higher courts did was re-examine the procedural elements etc of the lower court. None of them re-examined the testimony and facts - nor testimony that was disregarded by the initial lower court. That is like having an appeal in a criminal case that refuses to hear any new testimony and evidence and simply bases it's ruling on whether or not there was "procedural error" in the lower.
Click to expand...
But the lower courts did hear the testimony of (most if not all)those nurses and other witnesses and asked to reconsider as late as 2003. IIR some of the apealed cases (and/or request for apeal) also decided the justification for a new trial. And there was a hearing of new evidence and it was re-examined at least once that I know of.

Quote "All humans believe in life because it is the natural law - part of our human nature. Just as suicide is against our own nature; which is manifest by the will to live - to survive. Just as the natural impulse to resist murder (And even which tends to inhibit a "justifiable" homicide). People who ignore their consciences - or with consciences dulled by various desensitizing influences - defy even the natural law when they do such things." End quote

I disagree with the use of "natural law" in the first place, but I assume (with respect) that you mean "laws of society". There are cultures that believe that life is not the most important thing and justify killing or what we call suicide. After all, is it not also human nature to place ones life in danger to save ones children's lives. Serious enough pain would also make many people willing to let their life end or even have someone do it for them if they cannot do it themselves. I never suggested that people do any of these things without consience and a personal conflict and I can't see many people doing this because their conscience was numbed. I believe that these decisions are not done lightly but with a serious consideration of all aspects of their conscience. To say otherwise would seem to me to be dismissing their way of thinking entirely just because it is hard for someone to imagine it themselves.


Quote"Of course the Nazis took a different view, and one of their first angles on the handicapped was this "humane" death abomination for those whose "quality of life" was considered subnormal." End quote.
The Nazis did it without peoples consent and were only doing it for what they thought were practical purposes and not what they thought of as moral. I honestly think that the Florida woman asked to be let to die if in that situation. I also think that it would be moral to follow those wishes if a family member asked me to do it for them. The Nazi reference does not apply in my opinion.

Quote"So in order "to prevent such sufferings", the next step will "assisted suicide", and where things are determined as being "unclear" it will be the State who shall decide." End quote

Please. The same right to life groups would have fought this just as bitterly if she had this in writing, notarized, and told a hundred people. They would simply say that she was coerced into singing and telling her friends. (it was hard to figure what your statement said and I think that you are reffering to a living will)

As far as your last statement. If someone had a naked cherub statue and they passed a law making even drawings and statues of child porn illegal, then they might be breaking the law. If someone was studying the sick brains of a child molestor and downloaded some pictures to see what kind of thing to look for when diagnosing a pedophile, they might be breaking the law.
Although some laws have good intentions they can be so broad as to violate the rights of people that have nothing to do with the laws origional intent. THAT is what I am defending am defending when we are talking about what the ACLU did. IN NO WAY AM I DEFENDING CHILD PORNAGRAPHERS I am just saying that in order to catch all molestors and all potential molestors I do not want to give up my right to own a gun, say what I want (if it is not in a theatre), practice my beliefs etc.. The government can catch molestors without censoring every thing we think, write, read, say, or own. There has to be another way because the first amendment isn't there just for us, it is there for the future of this country's democracy.

Let's say that there was a new wave of child molesting done at the point of a gun. Would you defend the right to bear arms for yourself even though you know that a future child molestor could buy one and use it to rape a child? Right are rights and even the sick depraved scum of the earth have rights until they lose them.
 
There is an agenda here as clear as day; what was perpetrated on a handicapped woman in Florida would be illegal to do to a dog in all fifty states. It would be a crime to starve a dog of food and water - if it could not feed itself - to death. Death would have to be "humanely administered" - I'll bet even in Oregon.
Click to expand...

LAK, You are correct, to not give an animal food or water is defined as animal abuse. If the animal is not able to take it on their own, and you don't take to a vet, then that is considered animal abuse also. You can't even legally put down a animal here without having the vet do it via injection. To do so is considered animal abuse (put it down). You have to have permission from the Sheriffs department or from the county to put down an animal via any other means.

In Oregon we do not have a "suicide assistance" law. It's a law that states that if a person wants to go faster than normal, then they can ask their doctor for the means to do so. The doctor, other then prescribing the drugs, cannot "assist" you in the taking of, these drugs. That is still against the law. It is the decision of the person (your kids and such cannot ask for and get the drugs and then do you in) that wishes to die. And people who are not in terminal health can not get these drugs (legally) so suicidal(sp) folks are unable to take abuse of the law. They will find other means to carry out their wishes.

This was not a "right to die" case as it was a "right to force my opinion through the courts in order to kill a person that I no longer wished to be around" case. Mike Shivo moved on and fornacated with another and just wanted Terry out of the way so that his sin would become justified in his eyes. There are only two ways for a Christian to re-marry, and that is either from adultery or from the death of the one you are married to. Terry could never commit adultery but she could be killed in order for him to believe that it was okay for him to be in the life that he has now.

This was shown when he had the body cremated(sp). Via Catholics dogma (I'm not Catholic), to be cremated is not a good thing, it's forbidden, yet even after the murder of Terry, he pressed it even further, knowing the faith, to do this. It was done out of pure evil and bad intentions.

I didn't mean to interject my thoughts about religion into the thread but I had to say my part since it did come up. This wasn't a "right to die" issue in any means. This was based on something that *may* have been said 15 years ago, I'm not believing this. I've said many things 15 years ago and I hope/Pray that none of them come true. I was young (as she) and you say many things that you don't mean. And the simple fact that it took him 7 years AFTER the fact (and not to mention the 1 million dollars that was won about the same time) leads me to believe that it was all born out of an evil scheme.

But I degress. I took the time to go to the ACLU page and read the press release about nambla. Sure, they said that they "don't advocate sex between adults and children" yet their actions give the opposite perception. There are better cases to fight for out there then this. Why not take up the Right to print and sell books describing how to build or modify semi-autos into fully auto arms instead of the non-right of child sex manuals? Both issues are clearly unlawful yet they will stand and fight for the publications of child sex manuals and fully disreguard an actual Right of keeping and bearing arms *all arms*.

This may get me banned or a great loss of respect (like I had any before) but I think that drawings and anima should be legal when it comes to "adult/child sex" but what is out there right now is actual adult/child sex and that is NOT acceptable. I don't like or condone either aspect of this deprivity(sp) yet I cannot say that a drawing or computer generated forms should be illegal, due to the fact that no child, living, has been harmed or abused. It may lead up to an actual abuse of a child and that should be dealt with harshly and ending up with the death of the person. Just my opinion.

Freedoms are great, yet if you begain to abuse them, in any form, then you should pay the piper for doing so. Yes, you can yell "fire" in a area full of people, that is the freedom of speech, but you will be held accountable for the chaos that ensues. As it should be.

Wayne
 
So in order "to prevent such sufferings", the next step will "assisted suicide", and where things are determined as being "unclear" it will be the State who shall decide.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to mind the State trying to seize the reins when it suits you. This was a personal decision of the woman in question, as relayed by her husband, and upheld by the courts. Then the holy rollers in Congress decided to open their yappers to score points with their "pro-life" constituency. The State attempted to reverse a personal family decision that was properly upheld by the courts, just because some Congresscritters didn't like that family decision, and because most of them are media whores anyway.

So what's the standard now? Is state interference evil when it comes to some personal medical decisions, but not others? Who decides, and when do you think it's proper to deny a patient their own decision regarding artificial life support?

You know, the conservatives have abandoned all their self-professed philosophies in the Terri Schiavo case.

They say they want less government in people's lives, and yet they can't get federal legislation passed fast enough when people make life decisions they don't agree with.

They say they're for States' rights, but they brazenly attempt to nullify a State court decision that has been held up by multiple instances.

They say they uphold the sancity of marriage and the "sacred bond between husband and wife", yet they declare that same sacred bond null and void if the husband-wife team makes a mutual decision that goes contrary to their theology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top