Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Proposed ACLU policy change now withdrawn, appropriately.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/us/12aclu.html

0 Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okie- Keltic Wizard is no better than a totalitarian who wishes to expunge a group that has an opinion that is contrary to his. All through this thread, it has been stated again and again that providing counseling services to women who are considering an abortion IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

KELTIC WIZARD APPARENTLY REFUSES TO ADMIT THAT.

AGAIN, PROVIDING COUNSELING SERVICES TO WOMEN WHO ARE CONSIDERING AN ABORTION IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

If Keltic Wizard feels so strongly about the issue, he not only should, he MUST head up a drive to adjudicate the matter in court.

Until he does, he can scream, shout, stamp his foot, protest, demonstrate, and declaim BUT HE WILL NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT AT PRESENT PROVIDING COUNSELING SERVICES TO WOMEN WHO ARE CONSIDERING AN ABORTION IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

Mr. Blatham's post reveals that the ACLU has now rescinded its gag order on those members of the organization who were protecting the rights of the Anti_abortion Counseling group to speak to women considering abortion.

We now view the weird scene in which Keltic Wizard, who seems to be a rabid one issue person and Advocate who was appropriately dubbed by the perceptive Ticomaya as "hyperbolic",GOING AGAINST THE MOST LIBERAL ORGANIZATION IN THE USA, THE ACLU, WHO SAID THAT SOME OF THEIR MEMBERS MUST BE ALLOWED TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF THE ANTI-ABORTION ORGANIZATIONS TO SPEAK.

It would appear that only people like Keltic Wizard and Advocate are the kind of totalitarians who would restrict free speech.

AND FREE SPEECH IT CERTAINLY IS SINCE IT HAS NOT, HAS NOT, HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED UNLAWFUL!!!

0 Replies

I've just learnt that Timothy H. Edgar, former Legislative Counsel of ACLU and a a prominent critic of the Bush Administration national security policies, has now been awarded the post of a deputy to Alex Joel, the Civil
Liberties Protection Officer in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:

Quote:

"I have recently taken a job as deputy to Alex Joel, the Civil
Liberties Protection Officer in the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence," he wrote in an email message to former
colleagues last week.

"This was a position that Congress mandated in the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and it reports directly to the
DNI."

"The new job is challenging and I am looking forward to continuing to
defend civil liberties within the government," Mr. Edgar wrote.

source: SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, Volume 2006, Issue No. 80; July 17, 2006

0 Replies

Help us all. Expect more political correctness to gum up the works.

0 Replies

Any bets the ACLU will take this man's case?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204013,00.html

Just wonder if the judge would have done the same thing if the man simply said, "Thank You" or maybe even "Thank You Allah."

0 Replies

You mean because the headline says something different than actually reported.

Hmm, those "journalists".

Quote:

Border declined to comment but indicated the court minutes reflected his actions. The minutes showed he found Stowers' "nonverbal gestures and outbursts to be disruptive and improper regardless of content."

Court minutes said Border later dropped the charge because he realized Stowers' trial lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Carmel Kwock, did not have time to tell Stowers the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced.

0 Replies

You could be correct. The man could have been out of order. Just because he uses a religious phrase does not entitle him to behavior that would otherwise be disallowed in court. I simply asked whether the judge would have done the same if he had used other words? I don't know, but if he had used Allah, perhaps the ACLU would be on the case?

0 Replies

You mean excluding or including "nonverbal gestures and outbursts"?

Abusing a household member might be a quite common ritual among members of the Assembly of God Church on the other side ...

0 Replies

Outbursts, gestures, I don't know what those were, so I don't know?

Do I detect a bit of disrimination, Walter? Are you a bigot, or perhaps a better phrasing, do you have a stereotypical view of religious people? I am not accusing, I am simply asking, because the man was acquitted I think. Maybe he did it and the kid decided to let him off the hook by changing his testimony, we don't know, but he was acquitted nonetheless.

0 Replies

I have no idea if the ACLU would get involved.

Neither do you.

Looks to me that the judge got mad because his specific directions to have no displays of emotion was violated. Maybe this guy had been emotional and disruptive throughout the trial, and the judge had just plain had it.

0 Replies

I was you who posted that link, asked that question and related it to ACLU.

0 Replies

You could be correct. None of us probably know unless we were there. I think it is fair to say however that some thought the judge picked on him a bit because of what he said, and that is what caught my eye.

Carry on.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I was you who posted that link, asked that question and related it to ACLU.

That is correct, Walter it was me, because I have seen the ACLU apply their principles differently depending on who they like. I will admit I don't know about this case. Lets move on.

0 Replies

The voodoo pregnancy centers are all about lying to pregnant women. For a good piece on this, see:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/17/voodoo_pregnancy_centers.php

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
I was you who posted that link, asked that question and related it to ACLU.

That is correct, Walter it was me, because I have seen the ACLU apply their principles differently depending on who they like. I will admit I don't know about this case. Lets move on.

Have you? What cases? What is the principle at issue and where have they been inconsistent to a party liked or disliked regarding the principle?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

okie wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I was you who posted that link, asked that question and related it to ACLU.

That is correct, Walter it was me, because I have seen the ACLU apply their principles differently depending on who they like. I will admit I don't know about this case. Lets move on.

Have you? What cases? What is the principle at issue and where have they been inconsistent to a party liked or disliked regarding the principle?

I wondered if anyone would call me on that statement. I am surprised you can't admit the obvious, blatham, and I am not particularly interested in spending hours researching this to prove what should be obvious. I've noticed them on a regular basis in the news, but obviously I did not write them all down for historical reference.

The unequally applied standards of the ACLU can be seen in several areas or issues. Religious rights would be one. Gun rights would likely be another. Discrimination would be another. Issues surrounding illegal immigration probably another. Abortion probably another. I think their biased agenda is manifested in nearly every aspect of politics and issues these days.

Lets take religion. The following cites their agenda of getting rid of Christian references in public, while at the same time they don't have any interest at all in a much more flagrant case of government helping with an Islamic mosque. blatham, I simply pulled this off the internet in a couple of minutes, but I am sure there are many examples that might be better than this one. I personally know of teachers teaching the Koran, nobody seems to notice, which is apparently okay, but if the Bible was taught, I am sure the wrath of the ACLU would jump on them immediately. I've heard of this happening at many schools by the way.
Anyway, the example I found in a couple of minutes:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1612813/posts

0 Replies

Quote:

I've heard of this happening at many schools by the way

.

News from over the backyard fence apparently still weighs heavy in okie's world. (Sigh) Okay. Name more than three schools that you have heard this happening at.

Joe(I am not particularly interested in spending hours researching this to prove what should be obvious.)Nation

0 Replies

ACLU Defends Churches in Ypsi
19. August 2005 Ari Paul
Email this article

An interesting move by the ACLU of Michigan, considering many of the patriotic group's critics charge that it is anti-religion.

From the ACLU press office:

In a letter sent yesterday to the Ypsilanti mayor and city council, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and its Washtenaw Branch has advised that a city zoning ordinance unconstitutionally discriminates against religious groups. The letter also urges that the city reverse a decision to evict a Pentecostal church group from a building in the business district.

"Religion flourishes in this country when government remains neutral," said Michael J. Steinberg, Legal Director of the ACLU of Michigan. "Government may not favor religion over non-religion, but by the same token, it may not discriminate against religion. Ypsilanti's zoning ordinance discriminates against religion by allowing secular community groups to meet in the business district but not religious groups."

http://arborupdate.com/article/959/aclu-defends-churches-in-ypsi

0 Replies

okie wrote

Quote:

because I have seen the ACLU apply their principles differently depending on who they like.

blatham

Quote:

Have you? What cases? What is the principle at issue and where have they been inconsistent to a party liked or disliked regarding the principle?

okie

Quote:

I wondered if anyone would call me on that statement. I am surprised you can't admit the obvious, blatham, and I am not particularly interested in spending hours researching this to prove what should be obvious. I've noticed them on a regular basis in the news, but obviously I did not write them all down for historical reference.

The unequally applied standards of the ACLU can be seen in several areas or issues. Religious rights would be one. Gun rights would likely be another. Discrimination would be another. Issues surrounding illegal immigration probably another. Abortion probably another. I think their biased agenda is manifested in nearly every aspect of politics and issues these days.

So far, you are zero on answering any portion of the specific questions I put to you. All you have managed is to repeat your belief/claim and to tell us that you are certain about it. "It's obvious that whites are superior" or "there is tons of evidence that conservatives eat babies at satanic rituals!!" or "Where have you been for the last ten years? Everyone knows that Abe Lincoln and Jesus were homosexuals" are claims as deserving of our attention as your claim.

Quote:

Lets take religion. The following cites their agenda of getting rid of Christian references in public, while at the same time they don't have any interest at all in a much more flagrant case of government helping with an Islamic mosque. blatham, I simply pulled this off the internet in a couple of minutes, but I am sure there are many examples that might be better than this one. I personally know of teachers teaching the Koran, nobody seems to notice, which is apparently okay, but if the Bible was taught, I am sure the wrath of the ACLU would jump on them immediately. I've heard of this happening at many schools by the way.

You make more claims of the same sort above, again without answering, in specifics, the simple questions I put to you. It is not at all clear that you understand what the term "principle" means. And it is certainly not at all clear that you have the courage to put your certainties to any kind of rigorous test to see if they hold true. And that is made even more evident by your choice of a source to link us to.

Quote:

Anyway, the example I found in a couple of minutes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1612813/posts

OK. I've read the link. Are you able, in your own words, to state the principle which the ACLU ought to be forwarding or which it claims it is forwarding? We'll call this Step One.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Anyway, the example I found in a couple of minutes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1612813/posts

OK. I've read the link. Are you able, in your own words, to state the principle which the ACLU ought to be forwarding or which it claims it is forwarding? We'll call this Step One.

You've read the link....and?

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know