Schwarzenegger sells out California citizens to the liberal democrats
POLITICAL FRAUD: FIREFIGHTERS, POLICE AND NURSES USED AS PAWNS IN PROPOSITION FIGHTS

ACLU: PRESERVING PUBLIC PERVERSION AND INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR FOR POLITICAL GAIN?

There is no doubt in my mind that the far-left American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long played politics with the law. In effect, using our own laws against the interests of the public in protecting any number of unsavory and despicable characters. In their infinite wisdom, people should have the freedom to do almost anything they want -- except keep and bear arms.

ACLU: Sex in bathroom stalls is private...

Although anyone will tell you that the stalls in a public restroom are far from private, the ACLU is arguing that individuals who use public restrooms have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Enter (or Exit) Senator Larry Craig...

According to Yahoo News...

"In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy."

"Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport."

"The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms 'have a reasonable expectation of privacy.'"

"That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote."

"The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued."

"The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal."

"'The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom,' the ACLU wrote in its brief."

Certainly Larry Craig can afford to mount (no pun intended) a case on his own without ACLU intervention. So then why would the ACLU voluntarily commit their time, effort and money to filing a court brief. Could it be to keep the Craig matter alive through the 2008 election cycle with the sole purpose of embarrassing the Republicans much in the same manner as those who pursued the  Mark Foley Senate Page scandal for political purposes.

ACLU: Defending the indefensible...

There is no doubt in my mind that the ACLU picks and chooses its cases based on political concerns: first, those which damage politicians who oppose their seemingly far-left socialist agenda and second, those which weaken the overall moral values of the majority of United States citizens... and in many cases, while concurrently trying to provide the rights of citizens to non-citizens and enemy combatants. Creating confusion, corruptions and lessening the moral imperative of the United States to function as a leader in human, civil and constitutional rights around the world.

The Curley Case...

In the guise of defending the First Amendment right to free speech, the ACLU is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) which openly advocates sex between adults and minors, some reportedly as young as eight years old by defending NAMBLA against a lawsuit brought by the parents of a murdered child, Jeffery Curley.

From Wikipedia...

"Their 10-year-old son Jeffrey was the victim of a 1997 murder by two men, Salvatore Sicari and Charlie Jaynes. The men took Jeffrey to the Boston Public Library and accessed NAMBLA's website. At least one of the men, Jaynes, later attempted to sexually assault Curley. When the boy fought back, Jaynes gagged him with a gasoline-soaked rag and eventually killed him. Jaynes then sexually assaulted his corpse."

"According to the Curley's suit, Jaynes and Sicari "stalked Jeffrey Curley... and tortured, murdered and mutilated [his] body on or about October 1, 1997. Upon information and belief immediately prior to said acts Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website at the Boston Public Library." According to police, Jaynes had eight issues of a NAMBLA publication in his home at the time of his arrest. The lawsuit further alleges that "NAMBLA serves as a conduit for an underground network of pedophiles in the United States who use their NAMBLA association and contacts therein and the Internet to obtain child pornography and promote pedophile activity."

"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stepped in to defend NAMBLA and won a dismissal based on the specific legal issue that NAMBLA is organized as an association, not a corporation. The Curleys continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members and NAMBLA Steering Committee members."

"As of April 2005 the wrongful death cases were still before the courts, with the ACLU assisting the defendants on the grounds that the suit violated their First Amendment rights.  The ACLU makes it clear, however, that it does not endorse NAMBLA's objectives."

The ACLU's advocacy of the fundamental issues of the free speech rights of a publisher, whether or not that publisher provides  cookbook  instructions to build a bomb or molest a child, seemingly further blurs the lines between the activities of a publisher providing information and an association which allegedly advocates, encourages and provides helpful tips and techniques to seduce young boys. 

Without a doubt a horrific case. So why not let the NAMBLA organization waste its resources on its own defense and serve as a warning  to others of the consequences of their inappropriate actions? Why did the ACLU intervene? The ACLU did not need the negative publicity. It is hardly a case to inspire charitable giving. So what is their motive? Unknown!

Yet, you did not see the ACLU defending a real Constitutional issue that is of supreme importance to all citizens of the United States.

Ignoring the individual to promote the collective...

Many people question why the ACLU will not stand up for the ultimate civil liberty: the Second Amendment right to own, keep and bear arms. Let's see what the ACLU has to say...

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

"The ACLU has often been criticized for 'ignoring the Second Amendment' and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times."

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."

Hardly a neutral position. Which serves to highlight the difference between the democrat socialists who believes government should deal with the collective (groups) and the conservatives who believe that everything begins with the individual.

What conclusions can we draw?

At least to me, there seems to be an apparent disconnect between the protection of our human rights and civil liberties and the actions of the ACLU. Whether or not the ACLU's agenda is to promote the disintegration of our society from within or to continue publicly embarrassing those on the right, Republicans or those who believe that there are some limitations to personal behavior, it is up to each of us to consider not what they say, but react to what they do.

What can YOU do?

My only suggestion is to think for yourself. Then take action based on your informed belief.

As for Larry Craig, my personal opinion is that if he was truly innocent, he would have been screaming bloody murder about being framed and demanded immediate resolution of the matter... instead of simply agreeing to accept a citation leading to his release. There is no travel schedule that is so important as to preclude a United States Senator from protecting his personal honor and good reputation. Of course, this is not the first time that Craig's name has surfaced in connection with gay rumors -- leading me to the obvious conclusion: Senator Larry Craig is not a man of his word and cannot be trusted to represent the people of his state.  It is up to his constituents and the Republican leadership of the Senate to take the appropriate action.

As for the ACLU, I would suggest that you research their rhetoric and their actions; denying all support if appropriate.

If you want to compare the ACLU with an upfront rights organization, check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation which walks the walk before talking the talk. (www.eff.org)

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private |Yahoo! Singapore News


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

Comments