Sam Heath
General Interest and Speculation

A blog about Personal Journals.
About samheath


Member Since:
March 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
November 22, 2009
Profile Views:
10836
Blog Views:
76593
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
May 09
June 09
July 09
August 09
September 09
October 09
November 09
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


samheath - > Sam Heath -> The ACLU is not "American!"
The ACLU is not "American!"

Why isn’t the ACLU at the forefront of supporting Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons? Well, in its own way it is. By doing all in its power to destroy every vestige of America’s heritage and culture, attacking efforts at making English our national language by law and supporting ballots printed in a polyglot of foreign tongues, attacking every attempt to secure our borders, defending the rights of perverts and criminals rather than their victims thereby emasculating police from doing the job of protecting law abiding citizens, in short attempting to destroy any American identity as a nation by attempts to make us over into the image of the ACLU or destroy our nation the organization is blindly handing Iran and all other enemies of America the support of the organization.


There is absolutely nothing “American” about an organization that supports illegal aliens, the criminals that are pouring over our borders by the millions, and insists it is the responsibility of legitimate American citizens to support these illegal alien invaders using the high flown rhetoric of “human rights” as opposed to “American rights.” These illegal aliens do not have the rights of American citizens, and for the Marxist ACLU to make demands on Americans to care for these illegal alien invaders as though they were legitimate American citizens is to put the lie to the organization’s claims of being “American.” Let the organization go to Mexico, China, Iran, and preach their doctrine of “human rights” there and make those nations over into its image! But no, the organization seems quite content to destroy America.


My rights as an American do not derive from the ACLU, nor do they derive from a corrupted bastardization of our Constitution by this infamous anti-American organization and its allied activist universities, judiciary, corrupt politicians and politically correct media making “immigrants” of illegal aliens! It is my right as an American to refuse to support illegal aliens by the tax money extorted from legitimate American citizens! It is nothing but a thinly veiled doctrine of Marxism the ACLU is preaching, and this is one American that will not remain silent, will not be cowed and bullied into submission by this bullying anti-American, anti-God and anti-Christian organization that is anything but “American” and has proven time and again it cares for nothing distinctively American, but on the contrary has devoted all its money and power to destroying anything distinctive of the America of our Founding Fathers and the Great Generation!


Our heritage and culture as a nation, our very beginnings as a nation is firmly rooted in the Bible and the Christian religion. To try to say otherwise is to fly in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. To deny this the ACLU obviously has another agenda than that of the Founding Fathers and the America they bequeathed us.


In today’s Californian I read Bakersfield Councilmember Irma Carson’s plea to “Create plan to fight gang violence.” She says “Gangs are roaming our streets like terrorists, killing and shooting innocent victims without provocation. They have insighted (?) fear in local citizens who may have witnessed one of these heinous acts of violence. Gangs will continue to kill if no one tells what they saw or provide information to law enforcement.”


My dear Ms. Carson you are whipping a dead horse. There is not a single common sense attempt to curb gang violence but what our police will be stymied by threats of lawsuits by the ACLU. As for begging those in your district to come together as a community to confront the problem of home grown terrorists, no one in their right mind would give this the chance of the proverbial snowball. When illegal aliens are encouraged by the ACLU to sue Americans and American cities, just what chance does anyone have in dealing with these homegrown terrorists when the howls of “Racial profiling!” and “Discrimination!” are bound to follow aided by the ACLU?


Here in Kern County we have witnessed too many cases where the barbarians are confronted only to have lawsuits brought against those attempting to curb criminal activity because thanks to the ACLU illegal aliens and other criminals are better protected in our courts than their victims.


Alas, I am forced to conclude Ms. Carson is only engaging in political rhetoric in the vein of Caesar Bush and his “Stay the course” nonsense reflecting an ACLU politically correct war unwinnable on the face of it. Aiding corrupt politicians refusing to secure our borders for the sake of slave labor benefiting only the wealthy at the expense of legitimate American citizens the infamous ACLU has made it impossible to do so even to the extent of emasculating border patrol agents from performing their duties, making it impossible to do the necessary racial profiling that would prevent crimes and acts of terrorism, but on the contrary has made the building of jails and prisons a growth industry in which to house the multiplied thousands of illegal aliens at taxpayer expense.


The many websites giving chapter and verse for “What is wrong with the ACLU?” are available to all who want to bother doing the research. But I am not holding my breath waiting for the supporters of this infamous organization to acknowledge the facts supporting my accusations against it that were it honest would not be using the term “American” to identify itself. But being a shameless entity dedicated to either making America into its image or destroying our nation that isn’t going to happen. It remains this organization will continue to aid illegal aliens at the expense of Americans, supporting the corrupt politicians and corporations profiting from this slave labor to the end of making wage slaves of all Americans.


It is far past time real Americans made their voices heard against the enemies of America like the ACLU. If we don’t we deserve an America made in the image of this godless, anti-American, anti-Christian organization, and the best way to confront this infamous organization and its allies is at the ballot box! In the meantime keep sending those letters to politicians and to the editors of newspapers and TV pundits. Make your voice as an American heard against the enemies of America before it is too late!

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by samheath on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:24 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 362 times
37 comments from 11 users

1

posted by robbwillis on Aug 23, 2006 at 09:44 AM
What a broken record!
Reading this crap makes the ACLU look better and better. If it wasn't for them, this country would go down the "Sam drain".
posted by TomW on Aug 23, 2006 at 09:46 AM

So we meet again, Sam.

Look, I think you're a smart guy and we differ on some things, so I'll show you the respect you deserve.  To call the ACLU unAmerican is to call the Bill of Rights unAmerican, because that is what they defend.  Now, if you'd like to discuss your displeasure with certain positions of theirs, fire away.  I'm happy to go toe to toe with you where we disagree and commiserate where we do.

As for the ACLU, they defend all of our rights every time they fight for something.  But let's be clear that they aren't Anti-American and they certainly aren't Anti-Christian.  I'd argue that anyone who wants to post the 10 commandments in secular halls of government is Anti-Christian because they are handing the Bible to Caesar.

As for immigration, and I'll ask seriously, do you really think a wall is going to stop illigal immigration?  How far out into the ocean would the wall need to go to stop the boats?  How deep underground to stop the tunnels?

posted by ProgressivePete2 on Aug 23, 2006 at 09:51 AM
At least this time he's actually made the focus the ACLU instead of posting something about the snail problem and slipping in some attacks on the ACLU.

Sam's gotten his directive from the republican talking points issued by Limbaugh, Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'riley (3 of our most cherished charlatins). Marilee had better watch out. Sam's a comin.

Thank You ACLU for protecting the rights of all Americans. Even Sam. If it weren't for you we'd be just like Cuba or China.
posted by anonymous on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Herbert Hoover is not in office Sam, regardless of what your biological clock my tell you. Our bill of rights is not as clear as it used to be, this is the twenty first century and after a relatively few years of Republiken government they heve erodes badly and the ACLU is the only buffer left between the people and dictatorship.

"
Our heritage and culture as a nation, our very beginnings as a nation is firmly rooted in the Bible and the Christian religion". Who exactly is "our heritage" or are you the grand puba who speaks for us all, sice we have no other choice, right?

Get a life,  there are other people outside that Tehachapi cave of yours. "
the necessary racial profiling" get a life there is already too much racial profiling and this phony war on terror is just making it easy for those whose racial hatreds  fit your mode to operate.
The ACLU at this point is constitution's only salvation.
posted by randomfactor on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:14 AM

Sam, I smell cognitive dissonance.  How do you feel about the ACLU filing suit to stop "Caesar Bush" from tapping phone lines without a warrant? 

.

I envision a TV commercial in which a solemn voice intones:  "These individuals have been found to support the terrorists over the American Way of Life," followed by screen images of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin...
.
Fortunately, *YOU* and "Caesar Bush" do not get to decide who is and who is not an American.  God bless the ACLU.

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:15 AM
Good luck, TomW.  I tried the polite approach.

BTW, he never did supply his "mountain of evidence."  Instead, he insulted me for asking.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:22 AM
Exactly what do you have against warrants? Do you trust the government that much that you don't think they would abuse the wiretapping even a little bit? That surely would suprise me. I've always wondered what they're trying to hide by not getting warrants. It's not like it isn't very easy to get them approved. Are they spying on political opponents like Nixon? I will go out on a limb here and speak for the liberals here by saying that we don't have any problem with spying on terrorists with a warrant. It's actually encouraged. Who else are they spying on that they couldn't get a warrant for?

This administration has repeatidly shown that it cannot tell the truth to the American People, so what are they hiding?
This isn't about the ACLU. It's about Bush not getting the warrants required by law.
posted by tonyh on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:26 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com/View...

The ACLU is doing just like Sam Said. Check it out.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:30 AM

Yes, I disagree with the ACLU in this case.

 
Nevertheless, I possess and use the modest level of intelligence needed to understand that my disagreement with them does not make them anti-American.

posted by randomfactor on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:33 AM
Good for the ACLU, Tony.   Do we really want small towns setting immigration policy?  Somehow I doubt illegal Canadian aliens would be denied housing.  Their skins aren't dark enough to qualify for the new ordinance.
posted by tonyh on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:34 AM
posted by tonyh on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:41 AM
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:43 AM
Worldnetdaily is a hate group.

In this case, the ACLU's positions are 100% right.

BTW, thanks for yet another direct link to a far-righter denying that freedom should exist.

"They hate us for our freedoms" -- and thanks to Tony's help, you can read it in their own words.

posted by tonyh on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:43 AM
Oh,
This one is SWEET!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006...
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Again, good for the ACLU.  The recording industry has been allowed to carry copyright law to absurd extremes.

The purpose of copyright law is to protect and enhance creativity.  But the recording industry has been allwed to take copyright to such absurd extremes as to inhibit and chill creativity.

This must be stopped.
posted by tonyh on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:47 AM
posted by randomfactor on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:51 AM
Tony, you have accidentally hit on my one disagreement with the ACLU, the internal regulation of free speech.  And yes, I have conveyed my opposition to this move, to the group itself.  It may indeed be time for new leadership--but none of the *INTERNAL* mistakes makes them wrong in their lawsuits--just hypocritical at best.  As I understand it this rule has *NOT* been adopted, and if it *IS* adopted I will pull my support until it is corrected.  (My support will go to my alternate, Americans United for Separation of Church and State.)
posted by randomfactor on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Awarding attorney fees to the victor in a court case is the usual practice, Tony.  You want to overturn *THAT*, you remove the last remaining block to corporate ownership of, well, everyone in the country.   CNSNews (a tiny right-wing organization) is full of Bandini.    The ACLU gets nothing if they don't win.
posted by TomW on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:57 AM
So Tony, once a group does something you don't like, you think of the whole group as UnAmerican.  I'm a Christian, and I can run through a list of things done by Christian Churches that piss me off too.  Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
posted by mattloch on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:59 AM
Erik, do you have any numbers on that? You know, showing the percentage of their total cases in relation to immigration cases? Is it >50%? Just because a large legal organization that has hundreds, of not thousands of cases simultaneously being worked on ONE of them you disagree with, that invalidates the entirety of their work? Does that mean that we only need to find ONE case Bush has lost to prove that EVERYTHING he's done is illegal? Of course not. But to marginalize an entire organization because of a single case, that's just showing how elitist, hypocritical, and ignorant you are.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 23, 2006 at 11:02 AM
To be fair, I haven't yet heard Tony call the ACLU un-American.

(But I get the weird feeling that in just a few short seconds, everyone will forget that I have tried to be fair.  It kinda makes a guy feel, "what's the point?")
posted by TomW on Aug 23, 2006 at 11:06 AM
I'll remember, Hardliner.  I'll remember for the day that comes when you and I are once again political opponents and beating the hell out of each other.  I'll say, "There's a guy whose at least fair."
posted by tonyh on Aug 23, 2006 at 11:07 AM

I don't like ANY organization to step up and decide that THEY will decide FOR me. They stick their noses into places where it doesn't belong.


I don't allow a Church to "Decide" for me either.


If a bunch of KIDS at a school want to perform Jesus Christ Superstar as a school play, let them. I've seen it when it first came out. It Sucked. That's just my opinion. I wouldn't go see it again. That should be the reaction of anyone who doesn't like it. The ACLU was bullying a bunch of kids.


The ACLU isn't my "Decider". I am. I resent their arrogance in thinking that they can step up and assume that role. From what I've seen, they've got their OWN agenda. They're only hiding behind the propaganda that they generate.


Awarding Attorney fees is different than what the ACLU does. They collect absorb anent fees. Sometimes they collect fees for work that was done Pro Bo no. That means that they collected profit, not fees. That's the wrong part. It's called taking advantage of the system. How low and underhanded is that?

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 23, 2006 at 11:17 AM

Well, at least I see and understand your perspective.  (Argh, there I go being fair again.)

.

I actually agree that they push the Establishment Clause farther than it was intended.  The difference, though, between myself and some other folks is that I do understand that they are -- in the long run -- trying to protect religious freedom by severing it as much as possible from government connections.
.
The underlying principle is sound and backed up by history.  Government, by definition, represents coercion, the threat of coercion, favoritism, and disfavoritism.  When these inherent qualities of government become entangled with religious agendas, history speaks uniformly about the result -- persecution and oppression in a relatively homogenous society, and civil war in a less homogenous society.
.
The question, then, do the minor things like Nativity Scenes on the courthouse lawn present a slippery slope that is likely to lead to a religiously coercive environment?

I think it does not.  The ACLU thinks it does.

We disagree there, but I nevertheless understand the principle that motivates them, and that principle is thoroughly pro-American.

posted by TomW on Aug 23, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Tony, the ACLU is protecting your freedom to decide.  If kids what to put on a religiously based play, do you feel ok with having your tax dollars pay for that?  Go after the politicians to change the laws, but don't attack the group that works within the law.
posted by randomfactor on Aug 23, 2006 at 11:36 AM
You are perfectly free to organize a group to oppose them in court.  That's how the American system works.
.
The ACLU does *NOT* set itself up to be the "decider."  They let the courts do that.   That's how the writers of the Constitution set it up.
.
Both sides of the religion-in-schools issue push the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.  Thank God--again--the ACLU is there to push back.  
.
I just wish they'd get their internal organization straightened out.  It may be time for Romero to go.  But don't fault the organization because their leader may be bad.  That would be like hating America because George W. Bush is a blithering idiot.
posted by randomfactor on Aug 23, 2006 at 12:00 PM
Tune in again tomorrow as Sam suggests that a special committee of Congress be set up to investigate the ACLU.  Let's see, we could call it the "House Un-American Activities Committee."  That has a good acronym, reminiscent of the purging sound when an alcoholic wraps his arms around the Porcelain Convenience.  But who could we trust to run it?  
.
 Tom DeLay isn't doing anything (well, except running for Congress and facing a jury trial).  But "Hot-Tub-Tommy" doesn't have the same cachet as "Tail-Gunner-Joe."  But certainly he fits the rest of the requirements--having, at long last, no sense of decency.  I say we go with him.  
.
(I'd nominate "Turd Blossom" Karl, but I imagine he's too busy these days, what with yanking the terror warning lever everytime there's an election result he doesn't like.  Expect the Terror Warning System to go to "Infrared Alert" just before November.)
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 23, 2006 at 03:20 PM

Paragraph 5:  "They have insighted (?)"

The correct spelling is "incited."

 

I'm not going out of my way to nit-pick spelling -- rather, I know that writers dislike misspelling things.

 

posted by Tridge on Aug 23, 2006 at 05:35 PM
The ACLU has always seemed consistant in my mind. I may not like the things they defend at times but I understand why they defend them. And in times like today when 1/2 the country is ready to throw away civil liberty in trade for the modicum of false safety they are promised on fox news, I am glad they are still here keeping REAL freedom alive.
posted by anonymous on Aug 23, 2006 at 07:21 PM
erikbako, one of your bro's just killed his momma, aren't going to tell Irma?

Ah and yes, the ACLU is not American, the Pope is not a Catholic, bears do not sh*t in the woods, Cheney is a dead shot.

Now run off and whine to Heir Molen and the thought police...again!
posted by tonyh on Aug 23, 2006 at 08:08 PM
In my opinion,
The Play, Jesus Christ Superstar, was SACaILIGIOUS (sp). That's why I didn't like it. There are MANY others (who've seen it)who feel the same way. I still think that the ACLU doesn't belong there. These kids, in a community, decided to act out this play. Let them.! if you don't agree with it (as I don't), don't go see it. The kids are still learning theatrical skills. That's what the tax dollars are paying for. They're also learning to think for themselves. Why should the ACLU take that away from them? I don't think they should.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 24, 2006 at 07:45 AM

The spelling is "sacrilegious," since you appear to be soliciting for the correct spelling.    Just think "sac" + "religious" and then switch the "i" and the "e".  BTW, I'd agree.

Something analogous happened here in Bako some 15 years ago, but it drew protests from "the other side."

Bakersfield College students put on the Sixties stage play "HAIR."  The now all-but-defunct local group "B-COOL" (a Religious Right group) came out to protest and tried to get the play shut down.  What flushed out this group (led at the time by militant pastor and former KHSD board member David Crenshaw) to call for shutting down this play?

A four second nude scene.

The play went on, with a bigger audience than expected thanks to the publicity.  My wife and I, who normally find stage plays profoundly boring, attended as a form of support and counter-protest.

Now, anyone who feels that both Jesus Christ Superstar and HAIR should have been allowed is consistent and has my respect.  Trouble is, many people who object to religious themes being kept out of public schools are just as quick to demand the banning of themes that they don't approve of.

For the record, my #1 pet peeve is when someone uses the word "indecent" to describe nudity.  But that's just my own hot button.

posted by randomfactor on Aug 24, 2006 at 07:49 AM
Thus sayeth Heinlein:

"Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated out of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing -- with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for second and third place."
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 24, 2006 at 08:19 AM
Y'know, sometimes I really must feel sorry for the cops.

We were watching the cable TV show "COPS" the other day, and they showed New Orleans (pre-Katrina) cops busting people for prostitution.

Anyhow, I felt pity for the cops having to arrest them for the positively stupid-sounding charge of "crimes against nature."  How antiquated is that?  Even the Old Testament of the Bible never made prostitution a crime, which puts consistent Dominionists in a pickle -- Dominionist Jay Rogers, who headed a Florida chapter of the Christian Coalition, said that prostitution should be legal because it was legal under Mosaic Law.

Now clear-cutting rainforests -- that's a crime against nature.

Meanwhile, in the "More Power To 'Em" department, there's this:
http://www.reformer.com/sea...

With resentment against the Religious Right growing fast among youth, may this catch on everywhere.
posted by tonyh on Aug 24, 2006 at 08:23 AM
I've seen "Hair" also. I wouldn't go and see it again though. I wouldn't vote to try and shut it down either. It's Art. If you don't like it, don't go and see it. It's as simple as that. As I said before I'll be my own Decider.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 24, 2006 at 08:26 AM
Yeah, it was pretty dumb.  But then again, a play has to be exceptionally good to get and hold my attention.
posted by gr8scott on Aug 26, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Test
1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

Advertisement