|
Post by bluecrabber on Feb 20, 2009 10:00:59 GMT -4
Whoa now.. I have always viewed the ACLU for the most part as a bunch of poor misguided souls who smoked too much pot and had fried brains, but their support of the right to carry is WAY out of normal for those guys.. I might have to send them money.. gun rights have never been a subject the ACLU has fought for. Maybe they are beginning to see the light.. I clipped a paragraph from the link: Given its mission, the ACLU certainly should be fighting such lawless harassment of innocent people. But it is notable that the gun angle did not prevent the Texas chapter from getting involved, despite the national organization's position that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Since it does not believe the Second Amendment imposes any limits on the government's authority to restrict possession of guns, the national ACLU has never challenged gun control laws. By contrast, the ACLU of Texas supported statutory changes aimed at allowing law-abiding Texans to keep guns in their cars, whether for self-defense or while on the way to and from the shooting range, and now it is monitoring enforcement of the changes and recommending further revisions to ensure that the legislature's intent is implemented.Best regards, BC
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Feb 20, 2009 14:09:02 GMT -4
ACLU Continues to Fight Katrina Hurricane Cross Memorial Los Angeles Times - 8/16/2006 The ACLU of Louisiana has stepped up its demands that the St. Bernard Parish not build a memorial to the victims of Hurricane Katrina which would feature as part of it, a cross. The ACLU contends that the land upon which the memorial would be built is public – but it is not! They also contend that because local government officials were part of the committee that chose the location -- and the location is near a public waterway, it would be unconstitutional for the memorial to be marked with a cross. The memorial is scheduled to be erected on the 1st anniversary of the storm, August 29. It is a 13-foot high, 7-foot-wide gold-plated, stainless steel cross bearing a silver artistic rendering of the face of Jesus. An accompanying stone monument will be inscribed with the names of the parish’s storm dead and the 20 who were never found. Parish President Henry “Junior” Rodriguez said of the ACLU, “I don’t know what their problem is…(w)e’re just trying to memorialize the people who passed away during Hurricane Katrina. This has nothing to do with religion. We’re going to memorialize these people, whether the ACLU likes it or not.” According to local ACLU Executive Director Joe Cook, they are waiting to receive information about the project and the involvement of parish employees, at which point the ACLU will take action. Stay tuned …… Kinda funny. All those people who stayed behind and said "i'll pray and god will protect me" that ended up dying will be remembered with a cross...... Actually, I find it disturbing that you would even think that it is "kinda funny". Yes, some people may have stayed because they thought that God would protect them. Although I am a Christian, I would not have relied on God's protection to get me through a Hurricane that I knew was coming. God gave me a good brain for a reason and had I been there I would have packed my SUV and left. However, just because you and I believe that they should have done more than rely only on Divine Intervention, does that mean they should not be remembered or prayed for? Also, people stayed for many other reasons; should they also not get a cross just because we feel their lack of actions foolish?
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Feb 20, 2009 14:51:52 GMT -4
First, with regards to the ACLU of Texas defending peoples rights to carry guns in their cars. I was a little surprised to hear about that when it first happened, but not too surprised. Although the ACLU proclaims to defend everyones civil liberties, it really does not (and literally could not even if they wanted too), so they pick and choose what causes to support. The ACLU has a strong foothold in some regions of the country while others are very weak. It is my belief (don't have the statistics or anything else on this - it is just my belief now) that the ACLU did this strictly as a way not to completely lose its grasp with the south. Not long before this taking place, the ACLU sided with a group called "Free Borders" (or something like that - maybe "open borders" or "no borders) and tried to fight for no border regulations and free and open access to our country. Well, this didn't hold very well with many people, especially our fellow citizens in the south. So, now the ACLU advocates for open borders and also for our citizens to be able to carry weapons in their cars? Well to me this seems like "open hunting season" for our citizens in the south. Next we will be hearing about the ACLU defending Mexicans who have to run faster because they are being chased by Southerners in their cars with guns aimed at them. The ACLU isn't always that popular with many living in the south. A few years back the ACLU had considered filing actions against a Sheriff of a prison who was making all of his male prisoners wear pink underwear. I don't believe that they ended up doing anything over this (probably because the rest of the country didn't care or was in favor of the Sheriff). Now second, with regards to the article about the ACLU supporting a child's right to wear his hair long. Well, thats nice. Its nice to see that they will represent those cases nobody else really gives a sh*t about or really cares about the outcome. Yes, every once in a great moon we will hear something that the ACLU does and we may think "wow, I'm really glad they did that". However, the majority of the time they do things and I wonder "what the h@ll were they thinking?". I don't have any personal enemies, but their are some people who I don't care for - some are mean, others are self-centered, etc. However, no matter how much I don't like these people they do have some good qualities and do some things that are good. My husband and my close friends, I think they are wonderful people and I think highly of them and I love them very much. However, they are not perfect and they too make mistakes. Although the ACLU states that they represents everyone's civil liberties, they do not. They are free to pick and choose the causes that they want. Their fundamental belief of protecting individual's civil liberties is absolutely wonderful and I believe that is a wonderful thing to have if done the right way. Their organization manipulates the system into their own agendas. Just as we can pick and choose our friends, the ACLU is free to pick and choose their causes. Even though the ACLU may do something right occasionally, the times that they do something wrong far outweigh any rights they have ever done. I looked up and read your links... please read my links if you get a chance. They can pick and choose their cases. Why are they representing and supporting terrorists and child molesters?
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Feb 20, 2009 14:55:45 GMT -4
THESE ARE QUOTES FROM OTHER ARTICLES:
Dennis Miller on "The Tonight Show:" “The ACLU spent this entire holiday season protesting public displays of the nativity scene. Yeah, that's the problem with America right now: Public displays of Christ's birth, that's the problem. It's unbelievable to me. The ACLU will no longer fight for your right to put up a nativity scene, but they'll fight for the right of the local freak who wants to stumble onto the scene and have sex with one of the sheep.”
The ACLU also sued to stop enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which tightened employment requirements for airport screeners, the primary line of defense. They also supported the wall of separation that hindered communication between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism.
Dennis Miller on "The Tonight Show:" “I say we create a new airline, called the ACLA, the American Civil Liberties Airline where you don’t check anybody, you don’t ask any questions, and let those morons fly on that one.”
In the 3 years since September 11, there has not been a single law or policy the ACLU has supported that would help prevent a bloody repeat of the mass murder of innocent Americans by fanatical Muslim terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Feb 20, 2009 14:57:19 GMT -4
THESE ARE QUOTES FROM ANOTHER ARTICLE:
A chaplain at the Naval Academy will continue to give thanks to the Creator for His blessings before the midshipmen's weekday lunches -- leading a nonsectarian voluntary prayer -- leaving the ACLU to stand outside jumping up and down in protest. "We tried things the nice way, and they've told us to pound sand," said David Rocah, a staff lawyer. "If someone is interested in challenging" the academy, Mr. Rocah said, "we'd be perfectly happy to talk to them about doing that." These same "tolerance advocates" fought to halt the long-held tradition of saying a nonsectarian mealtime grace at Virginia Military Institute. Get a clu, ACLU, you're starting to sound like the kid looking to pick fights at the sand box. ****************************************** In the summer of 2003, Prison Fellowship - which partners with local churches across the country to minister to prisoners, ex-prisoners, and their families - planned a program in Nebraska, with the full support of the Department of Corrections. Yet on the day before the program was to begin, the Nebraska ACLU threatened a law suit against the state if it went forward. A recent study of such a program in Iowa showed that inmates who graduated from the program are two and a half times less likely to return to jail as other inmates. Yet, the Iowa ACLU has actually sued PF and the state. Defending the suit will cost PF and Iowa taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, money that could have been put to much better use.
The ACLU has never implemented or suggested a program that is more effective at reducing recidivism than such faith-based programs. Yet they continue to assault programs that have been proven to work.
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Feb 21, 2009 17:35:46 GMT -4
Lynn, will you be my valentine?? You go girl.. Best regards, BC Sir, If I didn't have a husband, I would be happy to. Thanks, you did make me smile.
|
|