ACLU and 'friends' are endangering U.S. troops

phoenix80

Banned
ACLU and 'friends' are endangering U.S. troops


Bill O'Reilly
Syndicated Columnist


Every time I turn around, another anti-war person is saying how much he or she "supports" the troops. No matter how vicious the attack on the policy in Iraq or the Afghanistan situation or the proactive strategy to confront worldwide terror, it always seems there's a "support the troops" caveat at the end of the blistering dissent. OK, fine, opposing the Iraq war doesn't mean disrespect for the military, that's true. But the benefit of the doubt only goes so far. Now there's a litmus test, a way to expose the folks who really don't support the troops no matter what they tell you.

As you may know, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is demanding the release of all Abu Ghraib photographs and videotapes, and any other damning evidence of prisoner abuse by the American military. The ACLU filed suit last year, and the case is now coming to a head in New York City.

Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in front of the judge that any further public exposition of prisoner abuse could endanger the lives of U.S. and allied troops.

Of course Myers is right, and the Newsweek Quran fiasco proved it. Loony Muslims rampaged in a number of countries after that magazine falsely reported the holy book had been abused at Guantanamo Bay. At least 15 people were killed, hundreds injured.

Myers, himself, has seen the abuse images that have not been made public and says: "the release (of them) would aid the recruitment efforts and other activities of insurgent elements, weaken the new democratic governments of Iraq and Afghanistan ... and increase the likelihood of violence against the United States interests, personnel, and citizens worldwide."

But the ACLU does not care what Myers thinks - it wants to embarrass the Bush administration, and if people die because of that, tough.

This despicable attitude is being enabled by some interesting ACLU allies. In a "friend-of-the-court" brief, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and a few other media outfits urged the judge to reject Myers' argument and dump 87 Abu Ghraib photos and four videos into the public square.

An action of this type would have been unthinkable during World War II. But, today, the media operates outside patriotic constraints or even public safety considerations.

What is the point of more Abu Ghraib pictures? We all know what happened there, how dismal and inexcusable it was. If the pictures advanced the story, I could understand, but this is just more of the same, according to Gen. Myers and his staff. And in a time of war, you give the benefit of any doubt to the top military commander, don't you?

The mainstream media, on the whole, has consistently underestimated the danger America is facing from the Islama-fascists. Most press outlets supported John Kerry for president when the senator could not articulate a single strategy to fight the enemy other than enlisting the help of France and going to his website. That's why Kerry lost. He had absolutely no war plan.

The elite media don't have one, either. They love the Abu Ghraib story, the chaos in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the "abuses" at Guantanamo Bay. They run with those stories all day long.

But ask them how they would protect Americans from killers who obey no rules, who believe Allah wants them to murder babies, who are willing to die themselves while slaughtering innocent civilians - and you get blather about the "international community" and "constitutional rights."

The truth is that the ACLU and its "friends" don't care if they help the jihadists and don't know how to defeat the enemy. Those who are demanding more abuse pictures are not supporting the troops and are not looking out for everyday Americans. They are putting our fighting people and U.S. civilians in even more danger. And there is no excuse for doing that.

Bill O'Reilly can be reached by writing 5777 West Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045, attn: Bill O'Reilly.

http://heraldnet.com/stories/05/08/28/100opi_oreilly001.cfm
 
O'Reilly is a shitty moralist and domestic policy theorists, but he has a pretty good head when it comes to America's foreign policy direction IMHO.
 
Here's what the American Legion had to say at the National convention in Hawaii. This may tell you something you don't know.

Legion Addresses ACLU Legal Abuse

HONOLULU, August 24, 2005 - Delegates to the nation’s largest wartime veterans organization meeting here during their 87th annual national convention forged their solidarity against legal abuse and secular cleansing of American family values and religious symbols by the ACLU and other organizations.

Four thousand delegates representing 2.7 million members unanimously passed Resolution 139 that calls upon Congress to amend the practice of using taxpayer-funded attorney fees by claims under the Equal Access to Justice.
“The 1976 Civil Rights Attorney’s Fee Awards Act was much needed legislation, but in recent years, certain groups have abused the congressional intent of this public law in ‘Establishment Clause’ lawsuits against the Boy Scouts of America, the Ten Commandments, and now veterans’ memorials, ” said Thomas P. Cadmus, National Commander of The American Legion. “And it’s time to fix it!”

“Exorbitant attorney fees awarded by Courts to be paid by American taxpayers has become the newest ‘Sword of Damocles’ strategically employed by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to coerce settlements by cities, counties, states, and large organizations like the Boy Scouts of America and the Department of Defense by suits and threats of lawsuits against any public expression of America’s religious history, heritage, and values,” Cadmus said. “When out-of-court settlements are more cost effective than the judicial process, then the system is clearly broken.”
Cadmus lauded the introduction of HR 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), by Rep. John Hostettler and urged all Americans to strongly support this long overdue legislation.

Long time civil rights attorney Rees Lloyd spoke to the delegation earlier in the day on what he calls the ACLU’s aggressive “secular cleansing of our America heritage through the elimination of our religious symbols and our core values of decency, citizenship and Americanism.”

Lloyd, a past commander of American Legion San Gorgonio Post 448 in Banning, Calif., worked for the ACLU at one time and is very familiar with how the ACLU’s mind-set and litigation strategies work.

“Using taxpayers’ dollars to pay these court-ordered attorney fees, especially when attacking established, traditional American values is absurd,” Lloyd said. “The list of victims continues to grow - Los Angeles County, the cities of San Diego and Redlands in California, the school boards in Chicago, Ill., and Portland, Or. the Village of Castleton, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Defense, Ten Commandments cases in Kentucky, Texas, and Alabama, and even a Veterans’ Memorial in the Mojave Desert. Who will be the next victim?

“When the mere threat of attorney’s fee is so severe that large organizations fear the consequences, then imagine the power and chilling effect it has on local elected officials faced with the threat of court-ordered, taxpayer-paid attorney fees if they do not surrender to ACLU demands to cease sponsorship of Boy Scouts, or to destroy religious symbols like the Ten Commandments,” Lloyd said.
 
Rabs said:
I like O'reilly. But im a big Micheal Savage fan if anybody knows him.

I love O'Reilly, he really brightens up my day.

For example:

"I won a peabody" incident
"Bill O'Reilly the Combat Vet" incident
"Paris Business Review" fiasco
His "wholly without merit" lawsuit against Al Franken.

And of course, I REALLY enjoy the lessons in 'morals' from a guy whose co-worker accuses him of sexual harassement. Reminds me of another 'morals' hypocrite who says drug users should be in jail!

The first time ever I agreed with Limbaugh.

Savage doesn't have O'Reilly's ability to make me laugh, he's just a homophobic nutcase with a nasty streak in him.
 
mmarsh said:
Rabs said:
I like O'reilly. But im a big Micheal Savage fan if anybody knows him.

I love O'Reilly, he really brightens up my day.

For example:

"I won a peabody" incident
"Bill O'Reilly the Combat Vet" incident
"Paris Business Review" fiasco
His "wholly without merit" lawsuit against Al Franken.

And of course, I REALLY enjoy the lessons in 'morals' from a guy whose co-worker accuses him of sexual harassement. Reminds me of another 'morals' hypocrite who says drug users should be in jail!

The first time ever I agreed with Limbaugh.

Savage doesn't have O'Reilly's ability to make me laugh, he's just a homophobic nutcase with a nasty streak in him.

Would you at least say his endeavor to get the Jessica Lunsford act going to be nobel? Or did his perversion void everything?

O'reilly certainly has his vices, especially his arrogance....

So criticism is probably warranted, but how thick you layed it on.... it looks pretty over zealous, ignorant.
 
More ACLU actions:

Link

Friday, August 26, 2005
ACLU Alliance with CAIR?

For those who are still not familiar with the group CAIR—the Council on American-Islamic Relations—I’ll provide some background information. Founded in 1994, CAIR is headquarted in Washington, DC and has thirty-one chapters and regional offices in the United States and Canada. Of note, CAIR was founded by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahwad, Rafiq Jaber and other former members of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). Jaber is also the current spokesman for the Bridgeview Mosque Foundation in Illinois; a mosque tied to the IAP and the Quranic Literacy Institute that were named in the 2004 drive-by murder of David Boim. The IAP and Quranic Literacy Institute were ordered by the court to pay Boim’s family $156MM in restitution; money that had previously been raised in the US (as “charity” donations) by these Islamic organizations. *US donations used to finance terrorist activities and, subsequently, for the results of said terrorist activities—most interesting.

Note: The IAP has often been referred to as the American wing of Hamas—a terrorist group that has vowed to destroy Israel. Of interest, Hamas senior leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said in a recent interview with Arab newspaper Asharq Al Awsat: “We do not and will not recognize a state called Israel. This land is the property of all Muslims in all parts of the world. Let Israel die!” Suffice it to say, this is not an organization that has any desire or any plans for peace.

CAIR currently has enough political and “PC” (political-correctness) clout to cow the US political and business establishment. Even though three of its (now former) members were convicted of federal terrorism charges, CAIR has greatly increased its influence in the US. Of note are CAIR’s intimidation of the publication National Review to stop [its] running advertisements for the books “The Life and Religion of Mohammed” and “The Sword of the Prophet” and the recent firing of talk-show host Michael Graham from ABC-Disney Radio for making anti-Islamo-fascist comments. Is a trend being established, here? Are all Radio talk-show hosts no longer going to be able to speak against Islamic terrorism? Watch out Rush, Praeger and Hannity! You may be next.

Islamic education in the US (are these Wahabee schools?) also appears to be in the process of attempting to take over US private school organizations—at least in Texas. In 2004, the Islamic Education Institute of Texas sought inclusion into TAPPS (Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools). As reported by the Houston Chronicle, Edd Burleson (Director of TAPPS) had the ‘extreme audacity’ to ask questions of the Islamic educational organization. Quoting the Islamic Quran, which calls upon Muslims to be violent against Christians and Jews, Burleson asked in a letter containing ten questions to the group: “Why do you wish to join an organization whose membership is basically in total disagreement with your religious beliefs?” and “Why do you wish to join an organization whose membership is basically in total disagreement with your religious beliefs?” As if asking these questions wasn’t cheeky enough, Burleson went on to ask about the Islamic organization’s position on “the spread of Islam in America” and the objectives of the school “in this regard.” A week later, Burleson sent another letter that included the question “Do you teach your students to 'Make war on them (Christians and Jews) until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme' (Koran 8:37)?” These questions were enough to bring the ACLU flying to Islam’s defense. The ACLU and CAIR demanded an apology from Burleson! It appears that questions directed to Islamic organizations are no longer to be allowed in the USA. However, as we already know, reverse situations are allowed. Christians may be asked any and all questions and are allowed to be brow-beaten unmercifully by both Islam and the ACLU. Christians are not liked nor accepted by Islam. And if we have learned anything at all from its myriad suits against the teaching or even displays of Christianity, neither does the ACLU. Remember the ACLU’s threatened suit against the County of Los Angeles, for merely having a small cross on its County Seal? One has to wonder if the ACLU would have threatened the county if the Islamic crescent had been present. Doubtful. But then, the ACLU is increasingly joining with CAIR on a number of battlefronts and lawsuits. A few of these include the following:

The ACLU is working with CAIR and Amnesty International (a decidedly in-my-opinion Marxist group) to defend Ghassan Elashi and his brothers who were convicted of terrorism.

In 2001, the ACLU joined CAIR and other Islamic support groups to challenge the detention of potential terrorists.

In 2003, the ACLU joined CAIR and other Muslim advocacy groups to challenge portions of the Patriot Act.

Also, in 2003, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU awarded its yearly “Liberty Flame Award” to the Ohio chapter of CAIR “for contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties.”

In 2004, the ACLU joined CAIR in demanding the FBI make its files public as to [its] surveillance of Chicago Muslim groups and ‘expressed special concern today over the FBI’s targeting of Muslims and Arabs in the Chicago community’. Note: Remember it was two Illinois groups (the IAP and Quranic Literacy Institute) that were convicted of terrorist murder.

In North Carolina 2005, the ACLU joined forces with CAIR toward including swearing on the Koran (as opposed to the Bible) for Muslims. Note: The push for Shari’a law in Canada has already become a strong force. Will the US be next?


The above cites are only a few examples of the ACLU’s increasing alliance with CAIR; an association that does not appear to have any indications of disbanding. Yet, the ACLU’s affinity towards Christian groups and Christianity as a whole is nonexistent. Although some may wonder at the ACLU’s agenda, I don’t. Its current and past actions speak louder than any possible words. Don’t believe me? Check the Net, yourself, for ACLU-CAIR alliances. The alignments are there for anyone willing to take the time to do so. I, for one, find it exceedingly troubling.

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1018&theType=NR

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/lawsuit.htm

http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000223.shtml

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/27/Worldandnation/
ACLU_sues_NC_to_allow.shtml

These people are not about OUR liberties, but about a political agenda. A SOCIALIST agenda.

This is the same group that went down to "monitor" the Minute Men Project and carried air-horns and strobe lights to warn illegals of how to avoid patrols.

Steven
 
Chocobo_Blitzer

Fair enough.

I will say that occasionally O'Reilly supports a good cause or that occasionatly has a point. For example, he defended Dan Rather.

The problem with O'Reilly is not his arrogence (they all are arrogent) but that he lies. He's different from Hannity or Moore who bend the truth or omit certain details. He's more like the Anne Coulter, "pulled out of thin air" type of lie. Thats not journalism, thats propaganda. As Goebbels once said "tell a Big enough lie and keep repeating it and people will eventually believe you". A news organization cannot go around telling people its "Fair and Balanced" when its stories are in fact opinions, and baseless opinions at that.
 
mmarsh said:
Chocobo_Blitzer

Fair enough.

I will say that occasionally O'Reilly supports a good cause or that occasionatly has a point. For example, he defended Dan Rather.

And this is good? Good ol' Dan at least stands by his lies until the last breath. Like the "official" Bush National Guard documents written on a typewriter that uses MS Word. But he is a survivor, I give him that.
 
Missileer said:
mmarsh said:
Chocobo_Blitzer

Fair enough.

I will say that occasionally O'Reilly supports a good cause or that occasionatly has a point. For example, he defended Dan Rather.

And this is good? Good ol' Dan at least stands by his lies until the last breath. Like the "official" Bush National Guard documents written on a typewriter that uses MS Word. But he is a survivor, I give him that.

O'Reilly stated it was a fault of sloppy journalism not deception, and that they were all guilty of it. I'll try and find the transcript of the broadcast again. While the evidence was bogus, the story probably still is probably true, unless you believe the White House's claim of mass amnesia for over a year on a military base. All Rathergate did was silence the subject, very effectively too.

Mind you, I don't criticize Bush on this, alot of people ducked out of Vietnam. Although it does bug me that he plays the 'war president' as if he knew what combat were about.

Besides, Hannity and O'Reilly have done much worse. Perhaps O'Reilly was simply following the rule of "those who live in glass houses..."
 
The big difference between O'Reily, Hannity, and Rather is that the first two tell you that are not news reporters and what you get is their interpretation. Rather is supposed to be a News Reporter and therefore sources are critical. He's just biased and it is profoundly evident.
 
mmarsh said:
Chocobo_Blitzer

Fair enough.

I will say that occasionally O'Reilly supports a good cause or that occasionatly has a point. For example, he defended Dan Rather.

The problem with O'Reilly is not his arrogence (they all are arrogent) but that he lies. He's different from Hannity or Moore who bend the truth or omit certain details. He's more like the Anne Coulter, "pulled out of thin air" type of lie. Thats not journalism, thats propaganda. As Goebbels once said "tell a Big enough lie and keep repeating it and people will eventually believe you". A news organization cannot go around telling people its "Fair and Balanced" when its stories are in fact opinions, and baseless opinions at that.

Lies? Like what? And ew, comparing him to Anne Coulter... that's just foul.
 
mmarsh said:
Mind you, I don't criticize Bush on this, alot of people ducked out of Vietnam. Although it does bug me that he plays the 'war president' as if he knew what combat were about.

At least he joined up. I wore the uniform but didn't go to VietNam. Like in the movie"where were you in `62."
 
responding to what the topic is about, i must ask where you have been. The ACLU has been endangering our troops and this country since they first opened their terrorist organization in 1920.

The ACLU and many other people use natural disasters as leverage for bashing on the current political system, some people even blame the president for stuff like this. It is the same old thing about how you can't please everybody, take some of the world view of America for example: if we go to help others then we become "big brother" and we don't mind our own business; but if we don't do anything, then we are just being selfish.

I mean come on, the hurricane already hit and i would have to say i am about 99.9999% sure that Bush didn't cause it, so instead of sitting and assigning blame and bragging about who got there first, they should group their efforts into helping the people who suffered in this.
 
Back
Top