March 14, 2006
ACLU Rides to the Rescue of Veterans' Funeral Desecraters
Yesterday I wrote about the disgusting inbred gaggle of hicks who make up the Westboro Baptist Church, and get their sick kicks picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in the War on Terror.
Today, John at Stop the ACLU notes that (big surprise) the ACLU is going to bat for these degenerate hatemongers:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
In reaction some states are creating laws to limit these protests with buffer zones. While most reasonable folks can see the common sense in this, the American Civil Liberties Union are calling it Unconstitutional.Yes, wherever some aspect of the Constitution can be twisted to an evil purpose, the knights of the American Civil Liberties Union can be found.
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:42 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I can't believe so much time and interest is spent on this wacky little CULT that apparently has lost Jim Jones special brew recipe.
Posted by: hondo at March 14, 2006 12:56 PM (9pQ6D)
2
Amazingly there are people who still believe the ACLU is a fine, upstanding pro-America legal association.
I notice when they're suing the Government for percieved separation of Church and State cases they make the news, while their defense of Gitmo detainee's, NAMBLA and now GHF/Westborough doesn't get anywhere near the attention.
Posted by: davec at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM (CcXvt)
3
No big surprise. The ACLU attacks mainstream America and fights for vile repugnant scum like this.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 14, 2006 01:16 PM (8e/V4)
4
In 1998, Fred Phelps ran for governor as a DEMOCRAT! I shit you not. Perhaps thats why the ACLU likes this guy!
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at March 14, 2006 01:41 PM (+BgKd)
5
There is also photographs all over the Internet of Fred Phelps taken with Al Gore.
Posted by: davec at March 14, 2006 01:45 PM (CcXvt)
6
Gore and Phelps. Isn't that special?
Posted by: Oyster at March 14, 2006 02:12 PM (g9UJq)
7
Oyster
Remember the photo of Jim Jones and the Carters late 70's.
Posted by: hondo at March 14, 2006 03:28 PM (9pQ6D)
8
Leave it to the lowlife sidewinders at the SAN FRANCISCO based ACLU Atheists.Communists,and Lunatics.Underground to came to the aid of these scum the ACLU is americas AL QUEDA who uses lawyers rather then bombs to get what they want
Posted by: sandpiper at March 14, 2006 03:29 PM (O2c+K)
9
Just like my grandmother used to say, "Birds of a feather flock together."
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 14, 2006 03:31 PM (rUyw4)
10
I hate to defend these scumbag protesters - not to mention the ACLU - but these people do have a First Amendment right to say stupid things in public. I'm not a big fan of time, place, and manner restrictions and that is what these law amount to - classic First Amendment case. As a wise man once said, the proper remedy is more speech not restricting speech.
But then again, I'm a bit of a First Amendment absolutist.
Posted by: KG at March 14, 2006 03:50 PM (SZsz5)
11
KG,
there is no such thing as an absolute 1st amendment right.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 14, 2006 04:16 PM (8e/V4)
12
And there is also no problem with local lawmakers passing ordinances placing buffer zones around cemetaries and such places. They don't have a problem passing laws that keep bars so many feet away from churches. And alcohol is not against the law. The problem is that local goverments are too lax in protecting their constituents from scum like the Phelps family and too busy trying to seize property for the tax benefit.
What kills me is that the ACLU an others have no problem imagining a privacy clause in the Constitution for abortion, but not for families trying to bury their dead.
Posted by: Oyster at March 14, 2006 04:51 PM (YudAC)
13
So, the ACLU stands up for gay-haters who protest the funerals of soldiers, but not for gay-haters who protest at gay festivals? Typical.
Posted by: RepJ at March 14, 2006 06:15 PM (y6n8O)
14
I think I remember people who misused the word of God for their own purpose that was ungodly. What where they? Oh yes, know I remember, Pharisees!
Posted by: Catholicgauze at March 14, 2006 11:15 PM (UA1kS)
15
Why don't we get 421 lawyers and go help out ACLU. I'll be security.
Posted by: forest hunter at March 15, 2006 05:52 AM (Fq6zR)
16
I am sad to say that I attended the wake and funeral of a Marine LT. about 18 months ago. There were at least 100 men in uniform at the funeral, most of them Marines. I would think that for the safety of the protesters a buffer should be established. I have no problem imagining the Marines stomping the protesters into little piles of puke on the sidwalk...
I would argue that their protest is nothing more than an attempt to incite a riot. Be careful of what you wish for because you just might get it.
Posted by: Babs at March 15, 2006 07:03 AM (iZZlp)
17
JC, I said I'm a bit of an absolutist, I didn't say there was an absolute right under the First Amendment (shouting fire in a crowded theather and the like). But this is political speech, dispicable political speech, but political speech nonetheless. Oyster, the buffer zones you talk about with bars and churches has to do with zoning laws, an entirely different issue from First Amendment rights.
My problem is the notion of "free speech zones". We're seeing it more and more, you have something that might offend somebody, then you can say it, just not where anyone can hear it. And yes, I know there is no right to be heard, but what is the point of having the right to speak if there is no one to hear you?
As I said before, what these people are doing is wrong - but that doesn't make it illegal. As far as the ACLU goes, well, I have to keep it PG-13, so nevermind.
And again, I think the best thing people can do is find out where the pukes are protesting and line up on the other side of the street (or even better, in front of them) and let the families know that there are plenty of people out there that support them and thank them for their sacrafice.
Posted by: KG at March 15, 2006 11:09 AM (SZsz5)
18
KG
I tend to agree - it is free speech - but like shouting fire in a theater there is another term for this speech - it's called fighting words.
Maybe we should discuss the right to use "fighting words" and the right to fight. Seems this group and the ACLU is obsessed with the right to use "fighting words" in an attempt to prevoke that reaction - but then want to pussy out and want protection to prevent that reaction. Where's the freedom in that?
Actions are a form of free speech! I know this because "Liberal courts" have told me so!
That's the problem with the new left - they want to act, look, and be tough - but then go limp and start to whine on 'bout being "passive" "civil" etc.
It's Freedom baby! Put'em up or shut up! Gotta love freedom and free speech!
Posted by: hondo at March 15, 2006 12:27 PM (9pQ6D)
19
That chick in the photo - yeah - I think I can pop her in the kisser - I'm givin' about 30 years n' she's probably in better shape than I.
Wow! Spewin' disgusting fighting words about my fallen brothers AND HOMOSEXUALS! Hell! I'd smack her! - for both! Guess that makes me kinda liberal for a day.
Posted by: hondo at March 15, 2006 12:34 PM (9pQ6D)
20
KG, I understand. It was a bad analogy. But there still needs to be a solution. Simply citing the Constitution does little to solve a real problem. This isn't just cartoons in a newspaper hurting delicate sensibilities.
We enjoy free speech, but we are not guaranteed a platform for it anywhere we want.
Posted by: Oyster at March 15, 2006 01:41 PM (g9UJq)
21
Oyster
I have some reservations about hitting a woman - would you punch out that bitch for me - please?
Posted by: hondo at March 15, 2006 03:08 PM (9pQ6D)
22
Let me at her!
Posted by: Oyster at March 15, 2006 06:46 PM (YudAC)
27kb generated in CPU 0.0157, elapsed 0.1383 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1276 seconds, 271 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1276 seconds, 271 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
