Stuck On Stupid » 2nd Amendment Rights

Orwell's Nightmare Comes True – BIG BROTHER is Here!

Shari — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:13:42 +0000

George Orwell’s 1984 has always been one of my favorite books, ever since I was about 12 years old. I still, to this day, read it at least once a year. When I was a teenager it seemed so fantastical, but unfortunately today it seems to be the new reality. Liberals are always talking about civil liberties but as this story proves, yet again, it’s all lip service…

Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior. We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we’re “persons of interest.” The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore “legal barriers and deference to parental involvement” and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get. And that information doesn’t stay with the doctor, either. Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, “Does Daddy own a gun?” When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc. If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying. But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family’s (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad. She also got a new doctor. In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it. Read The Entire Article (Boston Herald, Michael Graham)

Get Shareaholic

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Shocker: A Liberal Accepts NRA View Of The Second Amendment

George — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:54:21 +0000

Of all the people least expected to back the NRA from Jonathan Turley in an editorial in USA Today :

A liberal’s lament: The NRA might be right after all

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District’s decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

…

Liberal Commenters on the article are fuming check it out here .

h/t: Hot Air

t/b: Stop The ACLU

Get Shareaholic

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Fred Thompson Has Exclusive Access To Florida Gun Shows

George — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:19:05 +0000

Fred Thompson & Bill Bunting

Fred Thompson has gained the support of Pasco County Florida Republican County Chairman Bill Bunting. A definite advantage for the Florida primary.

From The Miami Herald :

Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign has hit a conservative bull’s eye: The exclusive rights to advertise at some of Florida’s largest gun shows.

Pasco County Republican chairman Bill Bunting said he has engineered the deal for the former Tennessee senator and Law & Order star because he’s the best person to trust when it comes to the right to buy, sell and own guns.

In a state with 435,000 concealed-weapons permit holders, the arrangement all but guarantees that thousands of voters who care deeply about the issue could identify Thompson as their man heading into the Jan. 29 primary, in which the other Republican candidates’ gun-toting credentials are viewed as suspect by many.

”The other candidates just aren’t as clear in their support of the Second Amendment,” Bunting said. “There are good Democrats who own guns, but that party doesn’t put the right to bear arms in their political platform. The Republican Party does.”

Bunting plans to make his announcement this evening at his county GOP’s Reagan Day Dinner, where a Colt .45 will be raffled off.

GOP campaign guru David ”DJ” Johnson, who’s not connected to the Thompson campaign, said the deal is ”huge.” He should know. Bunting made the same arrangement for Charlie Crist’s successful governor’s race last year, flummoxing Johnson’s candidate, Tom Gallagher. Gallagher even tried to get some gun-show promoters to allow him to pass out fliers, but he was rejected.

”There are people who vote guns and only guns, and they’re Republicans,” Johnson said. “These are the people you see at the polls.”

The state’s biggest gun-show promoter, Victor Bean, of the Florida and the Southern Gun and Knife shows, said he has 11 shows left until the primaries and estimates that 11,000 people will see Thompson’s signs.

In addition, he said he has an e-mail list of 70,000 politically active gun owners he plans to contact on Thompson’s behalf.

”Going into this campaign, I was concerned,” Bean said. “We feel Fred is our best hope.”

Get Shareaholic

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

A Funny Thing Happened On My Way To The Blog …

George — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:22:55 +0000

I became Michael Moore.

Admittedly, I am overweight but no one who has ever read this blog has seen my picture…. And I don’t look like Moore. My Politics are the exact opposite of Moore’s, he is to the left of Fidel Castro and I am to the right of Attila the Hun. As odd as it seems no one at Barack Obama’s site has pointed out that Michael Moore is not Pasco Conservative (my handle At Stuck On Stupid).

Here is cached copy of her blog.

So what happened that I have become Michael Moore to my new blog admirer: Val McCall? Perhaps Val saw the picture for the article Michael Moore: Sicko below my post on gun control and the Virginia Tech shootings.

What is amazing is that Val thinks that the bloviator, Moore is against gun control. This is what she posted in the comments section of that post and her blog.

Reading the article about the Apalachian Law School shooter, one may think that perhaps the great loss of life at Virginia Tech could have been avoided had the students been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Perhaps someone may have been able to stop the Virginia Tech student by pulling out their own 9mm and firing back at this troubled youth. On the one hand, this may seem justifiable and, in the matter of the Virginia Tech incident, a better outcome that could have most likely saved a lot of lives. We do have laws that allow for citizens’ arrest and for citizens to apply deadly force wherein their lives are in mortal danger, etc. But is this really justice? This scenario can all too easily lead us down into a black hole of anarchy wherein justifiable homicide becomes a household term. What is even more scary is that carrying concealed weapons is all to easy in our society. This is a real money maker, and not just for the gun manufacturers, but for the fashion industry and the entertainment industry, as well. The possibilities and money to made in such a venture are endless.

It’s all about the money: This would be a marketing marvel. How about designer handguns in colors for every season (and remember not to "wear" your handgun with white pearl handles after Labor Day). Or for those more quiet folk, a handgun with a peace symbol on the handle — there’s a real oxymoron. Or a 9mm handgun that comes with an assortment of exchangeable clip holders — one for every outfirt, with lots of bling. Then there is the upscale clip holder that could possibly be designed by Louie Vitton or Prada. And let’s not leave out those animal prints. For the more masculine line of accessories, you could have your favoirite sports team logo imprinted your handgun handle or clip holder. Then comes a host of handgun accessories, such as hip holsters, back holsters designed especially for the corporate executive that come in designer straps to match designer suspendors. And how about that backpack with a special compartment to place your handgun just like you have for you hand-held electronics. And you wouldn’t have to worry about targeting sales for the main stream market, as once the high-end designers put their hand gun accessories out on the market, the goliathes of the chain superstores would get on board with lower-priced goods. Naturally, you would have to worry somewhat about the knock offs that are guaranteed to follow. We make it sexy. We make it appealling. We make it a high-end that is available for in the low-end chain stores, must-have commdotiy. If we can sell canned air and pet rocks, why not color-coordinated handguns with matching accessories.

Now envision the campus with students and faculty walking around with their stylized handgun accessories with lots of bling. Are they safer? Are they more secure? Are their new toys a deterent to violence or being attacked? No. It is just the opposite. Suppose someone cuts you off as you park and you are late for class — do you pull out your hand gun and say get out of my parking space or I’ll shoot you? Take a deeper look at road rage. Many states are (if not in place already) writing new laws to deal with the rising rate of road rage and the subsequent injuries, including fatalities, that result from same.

There is no justification for us to arm ourselves in this manner because there is no humanity in taking a life. Killing someone does not create value, even if that person is in the wrong. No value has been created by untimely or horrific death — self imposed or otherwise.

No doubt we must have security and the appropriate laws in place to ensure our security at home and abroad. Paraphrasing one of our country’s forefathers, "he who gives up his freedom for the sake of secuirty, deserves neither." In essence, we must take thoughtful action based on creating value for all.

Take a moment to picture in your mind what it would be like were we to opt for a militarized state of existence based on fear and suspicion, wherein every public building has metal and explosives detectors, bars on the windows, armed guards dressed in military gear with drug sniffing dogs and assualt riffles. (Unfortunately, some may say that is just like my highschool.) The creative spirit would become extinct. And it is that creative spirit (along with a host of other ingredients) that allow us to be human. We must take thoughtful, humanistic action based on creating value for all.

We must have HOPE for a society based on creating value and take ACTION to instill and nuture our youth, and everyone, to make value-creative choices (including the laws we enact) in every aspect of life in order for us to bring about a possitive CHANGE. Namely, we must become the change we wish to see through a human revolution from within.

Val McCall

The low wattage of the liberal mindset.

You have it all wrong Val the right to carry is all about self protection and retaining our freedom. The privilege to carry is stated in the Second Amendment. We are not a militarized state because of the constitution and the Second Amendment among other things.

Liberals and Democrats don’t want a capitalist society such as we have today. Socialism and all the freedoms that are denied us now would be the norm desired by Obama and his ilk.

Linked To: Michelle Malkin

Get Shareaholic

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The Danger And Tragedy Of Gun Control: The Virginia Tech Shootings.

George — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:41:55 +0000

The Virginia Tech shooting could have been minimized or prevented had the Virginia Tech hierarchy allowed conceal carry on it’s campus.

A similar incident happened in January 2002 without the consequences of Virginia Tech’s Tragedy.

This was at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia.

This from a February 2002 WND Column by Larry Elder :

On Jan. 16, 2002, a law student at Virginia’s Appalachian School of Law shot and killed the dean, a professor and another student, while wounding three others.

How did the shooting spree end?

According to the Los Angeles Times, "Other students tackled [emphasis added] the gunman minutes after he stalked through the tiny campus of the Appalachian School of Law where he wounded three others during the shooting spree." The New York Times also said that other students "tackled" the man. The Associated Press quoted another student, off-duty Sheriff Tracy Bridges, "’I just reacted,’ said Bridges … who tackled [the shooter] with classmates."

But, according to the same man the Associated Press quoted, Sheriff Tracy Bridges, the newspapers left out relevant information about how the shooting ended.

Here’s what Sheriff Tracy Bridges told me: "We were located in the classrooms just across from where the first professor was shot. We heard the first three shots. At the time, we didn’t really know that it was gunfire. Just a few seconds later, we heard the next three shots, followed by some screams. Another student and I went into the hallway. We ran into a professor and he said that Peter [the gunman] was in the building and that he was shooting. So I ran back to the classroom and, what students were left, I said you all need to get out – there’s a shooter in the building.

"We exited out the back stairwell of our building. As I exited, that day I was running a little late, so I did park in a faculty parking spot, which put my vehicle between me and the shooter. We saw him in the front yard there. I stopped at my vehicle and got my handgun out.

"As we approached Peter, I started giving him a lot of verbal commands. … I told him to drop his weapon, to get on the ground. … His back was to us, and once he turned around and saw that I had a weapon, he laid his weapon down and stuck his hands in the air. At that time we approached him, and there was somewhat of a struggle, but we took him to the ground and handcuffed him until the authorities got there."

But why did they fail to mention Bridges’ role in stopping the shooting spree? Did members of the media simply fail to interview Bridges?

…

Just another incident with all the details conveniently omitted by the MSM.

As a result of the Appalachin School of Law shooting incident a student group attempted to have a campus ban of conceal carry lifted.

From CNS.com September 2002:

After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school’s ban on guns.

"We are trying to build a detailed and persuasive brief that would include statistics on increases in safety, decreases in violent crime when you do have concealed carry permit holders in a jurisdiction," said Orest J. Jowyk, president of the Second Amendment group at George Mason University School of Law.

"I think the middle ground is to allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry just like they can anywhere else in Virginia," he said. "You provide extra safety to the student body that way."

Jowyk began researching his law school’s gun policy following the January incident in which a disgruntled student at Appalachian Law School, Peter Odighizuwa, allegedly shot and killed the school’s dean, a professor and a student on campus before being subdued by two armed students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges.

Gross and Bridges reportedly ran to their cars to fetch their own guns and returned to confront Odighizuwa, who surrendered after allegedly initiating a fistfight.

Jowyk was heartened by the students’ intervention. But looking into GMU’s gun policy, Jowyk found to his dismay that the school’s board of visitors had in 1995 passed a ban on all weapons, concealed or otherwise, except by law enforcement officials.

Anyone who violates the school’s gun ban would face administrative repercussions but not criminal charges, according to Jowyk.

Then in April, Virginia’s Democratic governor, Mark Warner, signed a law prohibiting local governments from using administrative rules to pass gun restrictions that go beyond existing state law.

Jowyk’s Second Amendment group is now investigating how that law might apply to GMU, though the group has not yet approached school administrators about changing the policy.

"There is a question that’s being bandied about in the Commonwealth whether or not this university qualifies under that law as a locality," said Mike Lynch, chief of police for GMU law school’s police department. "Today, I don’t think we have the answer."

If that legal question is eventually resolved in the school’s favor, Lynch says he will likely recommend that the weapons ban continue.

"The more people that have guns…on them, it is my opinion that that would increase the propensity for somebody getting hurt," either through accident or mischief, said Lynch. "And I don’t want to see that."

…

A Viginia State Legislator Attempts to allow students to carry weapons on campus. This from January, 2006:

Bill Seeks To Clarify Rules On Permits Allowed By Law But Prohibited By Colleges.

Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, has introduced a bill that would force public colleges to allow students with concealed weapon permits to "pack heat" on campus.

Gilbert introduced the bill at the request of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which was formed in 1994 to protect concealed weapon laws.

"It’s a gray area," said Philip Van Cleave, the defense league’s president.

The state allows concealed handgun permit owners to carry weapons at colleges and universities, but campus officials, including those at James Madison University, have restricted them.

"We’re trying to get that rectified," Van Cleave said.

The proposed legislation, he said, has exceptions allowing storing weapons in dormitories and banning them at athletic events. Van Cleave said students must be 21 years old and go through a screening process approved by the state to get a permit.

The law, he said, would most likely affect students who live off campus and adults who take classes.

…

And was this bill passed? No…

From the Virginia Citizens Defense League:

Gun Control Claims Lives At Virginia Tech

As most of you know VCDL has been pushing hard to change Virginia law
to allow college and university students with concealed handgun
permits to be able to carry a gun on campus for self-defense.

Last year Delegate Todd Gilbert put in such a bill for us and so did
Delegate Mark Cole this year.

We could not get the bills out of subcommittee.

We warned the General Assembly that violent crime can, and does,
happen on campuses across the Commonwealth.

But the university and college lobbyists swore that crime was not an
issue and that the schools did not want students and visitors to be
able to defend themselves with a gun or other weapon. They argued
that the schools had little boxes with lights that had a button
someone could press if they needed the police.

The General Assembly turned a deaf ear to allowing college and
university students to be able to protect themselves and here we are
today

While it is NOT illegal for a college or university student with a
CHP to carry in Virginia, they could get expelled (or fired if a
teacher). And that is a severe enough financial penalty that students
don’t want to take the chance. Who can blame them?

But, I’ll bet a few are reconsidering their position now. Expelled
by 1 or carried by 6?

VCDL will make it a high priority again next year to get a bill
introduced that will let students and faculty carry.

I don’t want to hear from universities and colleges any more about
crime not happening on campuses, or the police will save you if there
is a problem, or that we need more gun control on campuses.

ENOUGH OF ELITIST BALONEY FROM COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES!

If just ONE of those victims had been armed, this most probably would
have turned out very differently

***************************************************************************

John Tabin of The American Spectator shares my view that the school’s gun ban didn’t insure safety.

In January 2006, Virginia Delegate Todd Gilbert introduced House Bill 1572, which was meant to guarantee, with a few exceptions, that students with concealed handgun permits would be allowed to carry guns on college campuses. The bill died in subcommittee later that month. Like many schools, Virginia Tech had a policy prohibiting guns on campus, and Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker expressed pleasure at the bill’s defeat. "I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions," said Hincker, "because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

As we all know by now, the gun ban didn’t insure safety. Virginia Tech was the site of the worst shooting spree in American history yesterday. Thirty-two people are dead — not including the shooter, who committed suicide — and at least fifteen are injured. Mightn’t a law-abiding armed student might have stopped the spree in its tracks? We’ll never know.

Perhaps some school administrators still think that declaring a "gun-free zone" makes a campus safer; that was what legislators thought when they started passing gun bans at high schools in response to the late-’80s youth-crime spike. But it’s likely that at the college level, fear of litigation plays a large role in shaping such policies. No school or business has been successfully sued following an on-site incident involving a gun, but according to David Kopel, director of the Second Amendment Project at the Independence Institute, "that doesn’t stop administrators from being scared." Kopel notes that big business is afflicted by the same lawsuit-paranoia. "If you look in these corporate counsel manuals…you’ll find these things all over the place, saying that you should adopt a no-guns policy so you don’t get sued — when there’s really never been a case of a successful suit," says Kopel.

The irony, Kopel points out, is that Virginia Tech may have opened itself up to a lawsuit anyway. Two people were killed several hours before the rest of the victims, and many have complained that the school didn’t warn people of the situation before the killing started again. "This interval and failure to warn, after having affirmatively disarmed them…I’m not a Virginia tort expert," says Kopel, "but that strikes me as a good start" for an enterprising litigator. Perhaps the reluctance to release the news flowed from the same central-command instincts that led administrators to disarm their students.

The Brady Campaign and all the liberals and Democrat Party operatives will take this opportunity to pass more legislation for gun control and further their agenda of deconstructing the Second Amendment.

Don’t let it happen. Fight any new legislation for gun control in your locality and at the Federal Level.

Linked to:

Hot Air

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

District Of Columbia Gun Ban Overturned

George — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:22:01 +0000

Another victory for gun owners.

AP Reports:

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

Allah at Hot Air Flopping Aces & Michelle Malkin have more Details.

Get Shareaholic

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Senator Thune Introduces Senate Version Of National Right-To-Carry Bill

George — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:06:10 +0000

From NRA News:

U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) recently introduced S. 388–the Senate version of H.R. 226, a national Right-to-Carry reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. This legislation would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other’s carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses.

If you support the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans right-to-carry contact your Senator and/or Representative and ask them to support this bill. Ask them to support S. 388 and H.R. 226! You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

Technorati Tags: National Rifle Association, Second Amendment, John Thune, Conceal Carry, National Reciprocity, U.S. Senate

Del.icio.us Tags: National Rifle Association, Second Amendment, John Thune, Conceal Carry, National Reciprocity, U.S. Senate

Furl Tags: National Rifle Association, Second Amendment, John Thune, Conceal Carry, National Reciprocity, U.S. Senate

Linked To: Perri Nelson’s Website, Outside The Beltway, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog

Get Shareaholic

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Midweek OTB & Linkfest For Dec. 20-21, 2006

George — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:16:37 +0000

Cox & Forkum

This is a midweek OTB & Linkfest for Dec. 20-21, 2006.

Trackback URL: http://stuckon-stupid.com/sos-mt/mt-tb.fcgi/268

Permalink

Other Open Trackback Parties: Perri Nelson Planck’s Constant Conservative Cat, Bullwinkle Third World County TMH’s Bacon Bits

Linkfest Haven

Get Shareaholic

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Choose Or Lose! NRA Endorsements for Candidates Nationwide.

George — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:41:53 +0000

Choose Or Lose!

Check the endorsements for your state at the NRA-Political Victory Fund website.

This is an important midterm election. If you value your second amendment rights vote for the right candidate.

Michelle Malkin: Support American snipers

Get Shareaholic

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The Hypocrisy Of The ACLU

George — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:30 +0000

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:

In case you haven’t heard, a group of dissenters from the ACLU are rebelling and calling for a change in the current leadership of the main organization. The summary of things this new group is fed up with is hypocrisy and the ACLU is full of it. Purging the ACLU of its hypocrisy is bound to be a goliath task.

Where do we even begin with the ACLU’s hypocrisy? How about its odd stance on the Second Amendment? They have decided that the term "the people" that is contained in the Second Amendment does not apply to "the people" as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. They defend even the most radical in free speech for individuals, but somehow have adopted the opposite position on the Second Amendment. Surely it couldn’t be that the Second Amendment doesn’t fall within the boundaries of their liberal agenda! Could it?

In August of 2005 the New York ACLU sued against random bag searches on the NY Subway. Ironically the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

The ACLU have fought tooth and nail against the Bush administration’s NSA program, a program designed to track international phone calls being made to or from suspected terrorist organizations. They have hailed themselves defenders of the right to privacy and labelled the program an illegal "secret" program of "domestic spying". All the while the ACLU has its own "secret" program of domestic spying of its own members and their personal financial information. This program has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with the real bottom line of fundraising. Former ACLU board member Michael Myers was shocked at this discovery.

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders’ commitment to privacy rights.
Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization’s frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”

After spending 23 years on the ACLU board, the “defenders of free speech” issued gag orders to him, not to speak about the issue. Now thats free speech for you.

When it comes to free speech the ACLU claim to be its most steadfast defender. Now, I am not an absolutist on unlimited free speech. However, most people would think that an organization arguing for hate cults to protest with "God Hates Fags" signs at military funerals, neo nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods, and that child porn distribution is protected by the First Amendment are about as absolutist as it gets. Not so!

When it comes to pro-life protesters the ACLU could care less about their free speech rights. As a matter of fact they actively fight against pro-life protesters’ free speech and have even tried RICO lawsuits on them. It is scary to see just how far the ACLU will go for its unrestricted abortion agenda. Free speech definitely takes a backseat to their pro-abortion agenda. They have even listed it as their number one priority pushing the defense of the First Amendment, the alleged heart and soul of the ACLU’s mission, down to third on the list, after civil rights.

But don’t just take my word for it, listen to the words of a former Execuitve Director:

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.
But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU’s press release: "We view the jury’s verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion."

Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.

The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled "The Nuremberg Files," after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called "baby butchers." …

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending "robust freedom of speech" in the ACLU’s book, but defending people’s right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list.

But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America’s religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be errected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can’t convince the Senate to pass this as well.

But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU’s disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members.

Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous.

“For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists.”

After a huge controversy, media coverage, and public concern of the NY Attorney General’s office the ACLU dropped the proposal. Instead they switched to more effective measures of replacing or voting out the members that were not in line with their agenda.

When it comes to principles the ACLU has none other than lining their pocketbooks and furthering their own liberal agenda. As I said at the beggining of the article, cleansing the ACLU of hypocrisy will be a mammoth task. I don’t think its possible. I’m more hopeful that their own greed and corruption will eat them from the inside. I think we are beggining to see the cracks and hopefully enough light will shine through them to wake people up to the truth.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Get Shareaholic

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark It

Hide Sites