1 HA HA, you really dont want to go there Howie. Shall we dredge up ALL the opinions of the American people that we can find in the polls these days? Along the lines of....Bush says this - American people think this... Me think the lefties will make that trade quite happily. The ACLU is one of the finest, most important organizations in American political life. It is the organization that insures that America lives up to the standards that free people are entitled to. Authoritarians, who crave to be slaves (wont mention any names, Howie) and to be utterly subservient to the government, hate the ACLU. Makes me love 'em even more...

2 I'm not against the idea of the ACLU just it's silly actions. Seems to me it's far more interested in defending the rights of aliens or whatever story makes the news. Thus the name Alien Civil Liberties Union. They have all of two attorneys in my state and all the cases they take are high profile news cases in Chi town. The rest of us are screwed. Not going to make the Tribune they don't give a rats ass. They may have been what you say at one time. they could be in the future.

3 Observer, STFU with your communist propaganda bullshit. You'll hang with the rest when the time comes, so don't make it any worse for yourself than it has to be.

4 The ACLU apeears to be extreme in it's goals. Homosexual marriage, child sex, get rid of the cross everywhere, Christain speech is hate speech, etc... The ACLU seems to have forgotten history, and whats to rewrite it to be very new age. An age of no limits, and what ever feels good is OK. The majority rules, yet the ACLU would like to see judges make law from the bench. That is the America the ACLU would like to have in all 50 states. I want to see the ACLU arrested as a terror group, given a fair trial, and lined up to be shot at dawn.

5 Hey Max, kiss my ass. (luv this site!!!)

6 Leatherneck, Thanks for making my point. We need more limits. Imposed by the government. Implemented by jarheads. Thats a fantasy America allright, for authoritarians (I'm being kind and keeping the rhetoric cool). The majority rules - but only within the framework of protected rights. Don't you understand the first thing about our contitutional order? Judges are there to protect individual rights from the potential tyranny of the majority. Thats why we can still have our guns even if 51% of the people vote to take them away. Thats why 90% of the people, or even 99% could never vote to enslave the remaining people. Spending some quality moments with airheads like you makes me want to run out and send the ACLU all my spare change.

7 >>>Authoritarians, who crave to be slaves (wont mention any names, Howie) and to be utterly subservient to the government, hate the ACLU. Makes me love 'em even more... That's orwellian in the extreme. The ACLU and its ilk believe in outlawing majority rule in favor of tyranny from the bench by small special interest minorities. It's minorities leading the majority by the nose, where elites dictate to the masses, and where elections and the will of the people no longer mean anything. That's the ACLU.

8 >>>constitutional order except for the 2nd amendment! lol! In that case the Founding Fathers couldn't predict assault rifles and 357 magnums! Must grab guns from the masses! We at Jawa all believe in constitutional order-- just not the Left's version of it, i.e., not the ACLU's version of it. When you try to hide behind "the Constitution", we at Jawa recognize that as just more empty rhetoric.

9 gee Jesus, Kinda full of yourself, aintcha? Putting the big J in your name. Speaking for an entire community? Maybe you are right though, maybe nobody here has an independent thought in their head....What would be the use of protecting individual rights for people who don't want them? Lets just all follow you.... It is minorites being protected from tryanny. Might sound familiar to you if you ever learned anything about America, and its history. I know you think that allowing non-majority people to exist is equal to them "leading the majority by the nose", but that is just because you are an idiot.

10 Observer : Thanks for making my point. They protect minorities and aliens. Fair enough except they forgot the rest of us "Americans". Show me the last case where they defended a WASP. Or WASCatholic against from the Govt. So why the word "American" in the name. How about minority and alien civil liberites union. Yes Virginia there are poor disadvantaged white people too.

11 Observer, you are foolish. I did not make your point. I suppose you feel there should not be any limits. That would be new age, and is not what most Americans want. Why do slander everyone, did your Mother not love you when you were a child? Perhaps, she droped you on your head.

12 >>>It is minorites being protected from tryanny. Observer, "Jesusland" is what YOU LIBERALS call us Red states! So I fail to see how that makes me full of myself when I play along (except you Libs spit the name Jesus as an insult). You see the ACLU as minorities being protected from tyranny, But I see it as tyranny OF the minority over the majority. It's anti-democracy. In fact, it's AUTHORITARIAN. Kinda like in apartheid South Africa where the minority elites ruled it over the majority. Same thing.

13 Howie, Its just not true that they don't protect white people. Hell, they even went to bat for the neonazis, protecting their right to speech. And they are involved in lots of cases where poor (white) communities are not recieving their fair share of resources for schools or other state distributions. Go check it out, instead of just reading the nutjob websites. Fact is though, majority groups tend not to need protection to the same extent that minorities do, because majorities are ,,,well, they are majorities. They can prevent themselves being oppressed by the government because they control the government, by definition. But the country is so diverse in so many ways, not just racial, or ethnic groups, but diverse in ideas, ideologies, religions etc. that everyone gets to be a minority sometimes, on some issue. If you ever find yourself in the minority, and the majority not only gets its way with you, but tramples on your basic rights, who ya gonna call? Consider yourself lucky that you havent been in that position (I presume) yet, but if you ever are, then you will be damn glad that there are a bunch of people out there who will work to demand that you get a fair shake, under the rules, even though the majority is against you.

14 Now you are getting warm.

15 Yes poor whites control the government, LOL. Rather than Damn glad overall I'm damn disspointed. I have my reasons the perception is that they prefer to defend those who abuse America over America. That's my perception. No matter how off base you think that is there are a lot of people who share that perception. That perception is real so they have to deal with it. One thing I will fault conservatives on. If they think the the ACLU is too liberal that may be because few young conservative attorneys are willing to put off the big pay day and get involved in the work. Liberals are into that so therefore logic says it would lean left. If conservatives want the ALCU to be better they not only have to share their perceptions but a few may need to get invlolved. I'm not a a lawyer so not me. But protecting the rights of all americans and is an idea I'm OK with but not at the expense of our war effort. Afterward we can talk about it.

16 Oh poor little Jesus, you are being oppressed by the minorities? Gimme a effin break, clown. What are you being prevented from doing in your life by the ACLU? Putting a cross on a government building and pretending that we have a theocracy instead of a democracy? Teaching MY kids YOUR religous dogma in science class? Maybe you think that because you are of the majority opinion on every matter (bet you aint) that that opinion should be the only one allowed - in free America? You are just trying, desparately to find some way to play victim here. And to make a bunch of pro-bono lawyers out to be oppressors, as if they had any power other than what the constitution guarantees us all....It is so laughable -

17 You did't give me time. Oh and I believe in evolution dip. I'm science geek. You assume I'm a far right Chritsian Conservative. No I'm a middle right fiscal conservative socially liberal.

18 great Howie, Apologies for my assumptions. We may have some common ground. To get back to the issues at hand though, I do think that it is not asking to much for the government to get a warrant before tapping phone lines, especially given how damn easy it is to aquire one. And is the idea of having the government maintain a database of every call ever made by every American completely non-problematical to you? Why not ENCOURAGE some sharp lawyer-types to challange it in court, if, for no other reason, than to force the government to prove to a judge that they are doing it by the book. IF necessary, we could always change the book. But it is a step toward tyranny if the government can just ignore the book. And it doesnt help any of us for the cheerleaders to encourage them to do that.

19 Observer, what you call "minorities" are just perverts, degenerates, and extremist freaks. Those are the "minorities" the Leftists in the ACLU represent. And when the Leftist ACLU normalizes that freakish degeneracy through force of law, yes, that oppresses me. The fact that they are a "minority" and I'm in the majority makes not the slightest difference if they've got Leftist lawyers at their beck and call, and I don't. Force of numbers are irrelevant in a courtroom.

20 On the way home I thought of a for instance just so we understand. There is a small town in KY that some guy targeted to open a porn shop becuase well that was something they just had not thought would happen so the guy opens the smut show or strip club just because he could. he didn't tell anyone just did it. He put it where it was just because they were unprepared for it and he could "get away with it" Not that I'm against nekkid chicks or anything But the people of the town didn't like it so the local government got together and figured out how to do the needed legal work and zone so that they could make him close or move. He lost in court. Rather than appeal becuase he had no case as the city had done well. He saw a ten commandments display on the courthouse lawn. He gave an interview or made a statement to our local news that he would, "get them back by making them remove the ten commandments". Now see it's their town. And the monument was old and historic and people liked it there because it's part of their home Nothing political about it except you don't like some dickhead porno guy coming into your town and telling you how to run it. Asking you to allow a porn shop and then with open malice sue to make you amputate part of your town. it's their town. Well he shopped around and no lawyer would take it because he's a dickhead but who rides to the rescue???? The ACLU so now you have asshole one and two coming to their town and forcing them to take it down. In another KY case the supreme court ruled they had to take theirs down and set guidelines to how they can be displayed. The town planned to intergrate the old display into a new one to cmply with the court and have files to lift the stay. The ALCU is arguing against lifting the stay saying they can't because the rest of the display is just to "get around/comply" with the court. Saying the other parts of the law are cover for the rest. Well duh they are trying to comply. See how this works? From where we stand it's just a bunch of assholes riding into town making an ass of themselves and leaving a scar as they ride out. How is that good? Also it may be harder to get them to turn up than you imagine.

21 I guess it's not much of an issue for me as I was never under the illusion that phones were not tappable listenable. Let me make a point. Intelligence collection I care nothing about. If you can show me a case where this intelligence was used to militarily to stop terror. That is the intelligence was good enough to act on then that's OK If we have intelligence that billy is going to paint the water tower on up to pretty serious stuff that does not rise to the severity to warrant military action. We then turn that over to law enforcement and then prosecute, using that intelligence. Intelligence that was aquired for a military purpose only, then that would be not OK with me. give me a minute to fix the eye bleeding. (edit this)

22 Carlos, I think you just living in the wrong country. If you don't love America, land of the free, (that means free to be pervy, degenerate and extremist) then get yourself to some nice regulated dictatorship - believe me, you would fit right in. Sorry, but you don't get to play "oppressed" because of the mere presence of people you dont like - even if they have the gall to exercise their constitutional rights. They punch you in the nose, you got a case. Otherwise, you don't. Why not just get off the ol' outrage addiction, and get a life?

23 So Howie, what are you some commie or something? A businessman opens a legal business (we can assume that he spent some capital setting it up) and a group of the town bigwigs don't like it, even though its legal, and they conspire to shut the guy down - how much money did he lose? Is that right? You want big government - there it is. Doesnt seem so big when we talk about national issues, but for the the one guy trying to make a buck, its big oppressive government. They dont want porn in town - well pass a law. Too late for that? Well, buy the guy out. I would be pissed too. Now the ACLU doesnt know, or care about the whole backstory. Personally, I dont care if Buttfart KY has a monument up, and nobody objects. We cut each other some slack here. But if someone who does live in the town objects, well then we go to the lawbooks. And the law, and the constitution, is pretty clear. Government doesnt take sides on religion. Thats what allows for religious liberty - for once the government gets involved, the government can control. So put your commandments up in the churchyard, but not on government property. Thats fair, thats common sense.

24 The ACLU doesn't know or care? I bet they freaking know and I bet they care about not talking up the fact that one of the clients they are "helping out" is a porn dealer whod rather than go to the city council first? And if I have a lawyer that doesn't know the case or my clients history well then I have an idiot for a lawyer. A reasonable person might imagine that in a rural community people might be a bit. That seems to be the way most of these things work in cities around here. There are permits for certain businesses like liquor stores, sex shops, yahda yahda. that way you don't end up with your elementary school right between a bunch of bars and stuff. Kind of makes sense. He targeted the place just becuase he could not get a permit elsewhere. If he had went first and got a vote could have saved all the trouble. My point is no one complined about he commandments except one out of town porn dealer.

25 I've not noticed any Judge I've seen taking out he bible to judge. I think they have lawbooks there. oh and GFYS

26 You can always tell when we are winning because he asked carlos to mellow out and then resorted to calling me a commie. Being one of the most liberal posters on the jawa of all the commenters you are the first one to call me commie. Thanks. I just think the feds have no business in the issue except that the ACLU has a cob up their ass. Yep everybody should run around passing laws for problems that have not occured yet. Yep you're liberal. Also so how is the local government acting wrong. Seems the big government is stomping the little one. And why should samll governments have to pass the smae laws that large cities have before problems arrive. That's inefficient you are asking small areas to carry burdens they don't have. Run your big cities how you like. I like to go. We have all that stuff withind driving distance if you want to. I like to have a bar and liquor store within reasonable driving distance. But I don't live there because that's where I want to live. I like my little berg let us run it the way we like. Also he had every chance to argue his case to government before the law was passed.

27 For those of you who have been missing my famous orations; I believe I might be right in naming Carlos, Oyster, JJ, and Rooster, (Where are you Grayrooster?), or if you haven't, here's one anyway... Only someone like Observer could think that just because we hate the ACLU it means we love the government. That's why liberals can never be reasoned with; they only see diametric opposites, and cannot understand that there are many of us who love liberty more than safety and do not tolerate anyone who wants to take away either. I don't care if it's turbaned fanatics, Armani-suited lawyers, or the BATF gestapo trying to kill me, I'm ready to fight. Notice how Observer deviated from the oft-failed liberal tactic of twisting the meaning of the Bill of Rights and creating new rights where none were written, such as special rights for oppressed minority group X; rather he tries to convince us that he understands the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and that we have nothing to fear since the federal government always upholds the Constitution and can be trusted implicitly to do the right thing. Sure. So, he accuses us of being government sycophants because we oppose a group which seeks to undermine the Constitution by exploiting the flaws in our legal and legislative systems, which only exist because our elected officials, who are supposed to represent us, instead exploit their positions and see to their own best interest because there is nobody to stop them... or so they think. The ACLU, like the government, is made of people. There are no machines making decisions at either place; just people. Idealistic, misguidable people; imperfect, corruptible people; ambitious, power-hungry people; elitist, holier-than-thou people; and just plain crazy people. The only claim to legitimacy the government has is that it is ordered in the Constitution, and is itself governed by We, the People, whereas the ACLU only exists by right of association, (also provided in the Constitution,) but the activites of which may not infringe on any other part of the Constitution, nor foment sedition or rebellion against the nation. Guilty, guilty, and guilty. So does this mean we love the government because we hate the ACLU? Do I really have to answer that? If you think I should answer that, seek help. Now. Now that we've determined that groups are made of people, the questions pertaining to alliances among groups are thus: What is most precious in life; security or liberty? What is the price of each, individually? Can one have both? What is the price of both together? Is it worth the price? Can one avoid making enemies? If not, will one need an ally? With whom does one ally, and at which time? What are the criteria for alliances? What is the price of an alliance? What will be the consequences of an alliance, whether in victory or defeat? Does being the enemy of an enemy make one a friend, or just another enemy? Will an ally of convenience become the next enemy? What if an enemy seeks or proclaims a false allegience? What happens if one chooses to ally with no one, but to stand alone if necessary? The above questions in slightly different form would make an interesting flow chart which would produce a different answer for each combination of answers, and which would be historically verifiable because the results of certain actions by people are almost completely uniform throughout history, but which would follow a general theme; the right allies promise victory, but the wrong allies portend defeat. Liberals, as ever, have chosen to stand with the enemy du jour of Western civilization, with whom they join to attack the principles and institutions which are its foundation. Why do they do this? The answer is multi-faceted, but the question itself is moot. The proper response to this question is not an answer, but a statement: One who stands with my enemy is also my enemy and must turn or be destroyed; one who stands with me is my ally and must be protected. The greater threat must be confronted before the lesser threat; an enemy who is trying to kill me is a greater threat than an enemy who is trying to steal from me. Liberals have proven themselves countless times over to be incapable of exercising good judgment when it comes to allies and enemies, though they occasionally (rarely) get it right, and then usually by accident.

28 Bravo, IM

29 Go IM now it the rest of the old timers around here show up here or next week that would be cool. Argument city baby.

30 >>>They punch you in the nose, you got a case. Otherwise, you don't. Observer, likewise. I don't see any "minorities" getting "punched in the face" either. So I guess they don't have a case! Your rules, buddy. People who have nothing better to do than get "offended" 24/7 by the most insinificant public displays of religion and seeking to impose themselves on an entire society through the courts (which ultimately means threats of violence if they don't comply) and you're telling ME to get a life? lol! Irony, your name is Observer. It's like when someone comes around and starts smacking you on the back of the head and won't stop, and when you turn around and tell him to fuck off, he responds "get a life." lol! Welcome to the upside down world of Liberalism. Get a life is exactly what I would tell the ACLU and all their "offended" clients. It's so rough being a "minority" these days! The "oppression" is just about more than they can bear! The "oppression" that the Left focuses on these days is a testament to how truly oppression-free this country really is.

31 IM's " A Beautiful Mind " persona again ....

32 "Liberals, as ever, have chosen to stand with the enemy du jour of Western civilization, with whom they join to attack the principles and institutions which are its foundation.... One who stands with my enemy is also my enemy and must turn or be destroyed; one who stands with me is my ally and must be protected. The greater threat must be confronted before the lesser threat; an enemy who is trying to kill me is a greater threat than an enemy who is trying to steal from me." Dude, OBL isnt the only one who wants to kill me - apparently so do you.

33 What was the WP:s exact question that gave those 63% approval ratings? Did they ask if it was OK to check the phone records of ordinary people, or did they actually ask something completely different? "According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/

34 Well R4, if you fit the criteria for an enemy, then yes.

35 Time to send the ACLU to mexico or cuba its nothing more then a leftists bunch of crinmals with its HQ in HANIO ON THE BAY SAN FRANCISCO

36 You're dead right Carlos. I'm an atheist and I don't have a problem with religious displays on public ground in most contexts. The real issue is that Marxists are still trying to destroy Christianity because it is one of the cornerstones in the foundations of Western civilization. If they win, we all lose.

37 "Well R4, if you fit the criteria for an enemy, then yes." If being an "enemy" means disagreeing on issues like School prayer ... well, im willing to kill you over this too.

38 let me know when tickets go on sale ....

39 >>>If being an "enemy" means disagreeing on issues like School prayer ... well, im willing to kill you over this too. I don't see the pro-prayer folks going around killing over their beliefs. Are you Lefties going to kill people when the Court throws out Roe v Wade too? Probably. Just goes to show the secular Taliban are the real fanatics in this country.

40 They're not going to kill anyone Carlos, because they're gutless, chickenshit cowards; instead they hope their muslim pets/masters will do all the killing and they'll get all the fat government jobs when it's over. It's not about principles, but power.

41 It's time everyone woke up to the facts of what's going on in the world today. Fourteen hundred years ago, islam burst forth from one of the most backward places on the planet with only one goal; complete global conquest by whatever means necessary, and it hasn't erred from that path. In 1789, leftism conquered the most powerful nation in the world at that time - France, and began to steadily spread outward to the rest of the world also with one goal in mind; complete global conquest by any means necessary. These two ideologies have been at odds with one another from time to time, but have most often been aligned in common cause; the destruction of Western civilization, because as long as traditional Western culture stands strong, leftism and islam can never conquer. Leftism cursed the world two main totalitarian ideologies - fascism and communism, from which all other non-islamic totalitarian ideologies have spread. Many people believe that fascism and communism are ideological opposites, but in reality they only have one point of contention; fascism is ethnic-based nationalism, and communism is ideological-based internationalism. In other words, the difference is moot, because both are virulent and destructive to the individual and society. Both are statist and totalitarian in nature, both are socialist, and both require violent outward expansion in order to fund their massive economic pyramid schemes, which consume more at each level than they produce. The main historical difference between islam and leftism was the point of religion. Islam is a religion, and so is leftism, though leftists would have one believe that they are atheistic or agnostic in nature. The Soviets and Red Chinese did the most complete job of eliminating all non-statist religions from their midst, but even they faild. Now, modern leftists see that the need for religion is as basic in humans as is the need for food and water, though not as urgent, and so they have chosen to align themselves with islam, because despite obvious superficial differences between the two ideologies, islam and leftism have far more in common than not. Both rely on a massive underclass of ignorant, superstitious, fearful peasants who would rather have a full belly than freedom of speech. Both require authoritarian regimes backed by a brutal and omnipresent military and police presence to keep the people suppressed. Both rely on "bread and circuses" to keep the people appeased. Both rely on the absolute absence of dissent in order to operate. As I said; other than minor, superficial differences between the two, there is really not much difference between leftism and islam, but far more important than their differences is what they hold in common; they both seek the destruction of traditional Western civilization by any means necessary.

42 Tell me, r4d20 and Observer, where was the precious ACLU for these parents? Oh, that's right. They were busy climbing all over this. There are a vast many cases the ACLU won't take which, they claim are due to various reasons like "lack of funds". Interestingly, these cases are often against leftist organizations that share the political viewpoint of the collective ACLU. Every one of these cases they win and then collect our tax dollars for is one step closer to the socialistic micro-management of our country and the rights of the vast majority on behalf of a disgruntled extreme minority. While the initial inception of the ACLU was (conceivably) for a noble cause, to keep the big guy (big business, big government, etc.) from running roughshod over the lives of ordinary Americans, the whole concept has gone awry. Now they support NAMBLA and sue the Boy Scouts. They sue schools who allow the Boy Scouts to use an empty auditorium for a weekend meeting or a city who allows them to camp for free at a public park, yet, are strangely silent about schools who set aside rooms for Muslim prayer and allow students to actually leave class for that prayer. They go to bat for those who want to view porn on public library computers and routinely turn down cases for those who are victims of blatant reverse discrimination. They zealously sue for public displays of Christian iconography and ignore Islamic indoctrination in an Arizona school. There are limitless numbers of these hypocrisies. Now they're even paying for full page ads in newspapers comparing George Bush to Richard Nixon. Odd though, that we never heard a peep out of them for all the transgressions of a previous President. Sometimes I wonder if it really has gone awry and isn't just finally picking up steam toward its initial hidden purpose: NB: From the book Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU: "The ACLU founder and executive director from 1920 to 1950, Roger Baldwin, described the Soviet Union as a "great laboratory of social experimentation of incalculable value to the development of the world." He wanted to bring socialism to America, but he knew that to be effective, he had to disguise and mask this goal in terms of individual rights. He wrote: "Do steer away from making it look like a socialist enterprise. We want to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of the country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."" I could go on, but I need to get to work. You two have fun defending them.

43 IM: For an athiest, you sure do have a true Catholic perspective on the dangers of leftist idealogies. God Bless, YBP.

44 YBP, just because I don't believe in the divine doesn't mean I don't recognize the benefits of religion in society. I'm an objectivist, not an ideologue.

45 Hey, so am I! And so is G. K. Chesterton! (Read "Orthodoxy" by if you haven't already. Good read.) How is the construction business treating you? Weren't you doing free-lance photography for a while?

46 I'm working about 60 hours a week on construction, and still do the photography from time to time, so I limit my reading to a few minutes a night before bed, and as I already have a nice stack of books on my nightstand, I don't think I'll get around to anything new for a while.