Some Serious Thoughts About Who Runs the ACLU

Exactly what is the ACLU? A true civil liberties organization or a hideout for secularist who use it to after people of faith?


There are some real concerns voiced by many Americans today about the ACLU and its agenda against people of faith. People of faith have been a part of the success of the United States since its very inception, even inspired by the puritans who could not exercise their religion, overshadowed by a state religion. Because of that they never wanted to live in a country that would declare any one religion the state's religion. Yet the ACLU sees their very symbols of freedom in the way of the ACLU's new world order.

The ACLU acts with an intimidation that resembles too much of the early days of the Nazi Brown Shirts. These thugs helped to bring about the cleansing of the Jewish religion from the German society, resulting in the deaths of over six-million Jews. This is disturbing when considering the current demographics that may drive the ACLU in its zealous cleansing of America from Christian words, symbols, and moral values.

Instead of tossing rocks through store windows as the "Brown Shirts"did starting in the late 1920's Germany, the membership of the ACLU seems to have realized it is more effective in a politically-correct world to throw instead a few court summons or the threat of a lawsuit to make the same point. And best of all, it cleverly uses the court system of the United States against its own people.

In simple terms, the ACLU informs the poor souls it is attacking, "Either do what we tell you to do or you will be crushed." To those who have felt the wrath of the ACLU, it's an attack where the victim must either submit to the ACLU's views or try to figure a way to find millions of dollars to simply defend a way of life they have lived since they were born. It's probably why Bill O'Reilly, host of The Factor on cable news, called the ACLU a Fascist organization. He said he came upon that conclusion because, in so many words, ACLU membership dues and its lawyers had become weapons of intimidation to make American citizens and their elected officials bow down to whenever would go against the wishes of ACLU's radical ideology.

Rather than coming onto the Factor and explaining their organization's mission against the symbols of people of faith, the ACLU has instead, according to O'Reilly, told its employees they're not allowed to be a guest on any of his shows. So much for freedom of speech, eh?

The Factor is watched by over three-million Americans along with others across the world, Bill claiming that the total number of viewers each night across the globe could very well approach six million. So I wonder what the ACLU is afraid of and why I now write this piece to see if its membership will come out of its comfortable cottage and walk into the daylight so all of us can look into the mass of living faces that run the ACLU.
The story of a seal, a cross, and a Pagan princess.
You may remember the ACLU's most recent and notable arrogance against the city council of Los Angeles last year. They told the council to either remove a tiny cross from the city's seal or they would sue that it violated the separation of church and state. This private organization, for basically the cost of a 37-cent letter, threatened the council to bow down to its membership's demands or else.

The council voted to take the "little cross that couldn't off the city seal without a whimper, even knowing it would cost millions of dollars to replace the seal on police cars, fire trucks, letterhead, etc. Did the ACLU care that the money pulled from funds**** came from taxpayers for resources for city services that included the poor and homeless? Of course it didn't. The law is the law, as even proclaimed by the Old Testament.

One could have laughed to see the council actually trying to save money by printing city seals that could be pasted instead over already existing ones with the little cross, hoping it would appease the finger-pointers at the ACLU's Washington headquarters. But guess what!? The little cross would not be denied. It was reported to show through the pasted-over seals. "How dare you show your face," the ACLU must have told the little cross, and the council had to go back to the drawing board spending more of the people's money to satisfy the peering eyes of the secularists of the ACLU.

If the people of Los Angeles have so much money to throw away without a fight against the ACLU's headquarters on the east coast, then the rest of us really have little trouble feeling sorry for their deficit problems when earthquakes and mudslides hit their communities. Remember what one statesmen said, "A million here, a million there. Soon you're talking about real money." (Paraphrased from former Sen. Everett Dirksen.)

But here's the joke. The ACLU knew that a huge Pagan princess was also on the same seal, yet it was mute on her staying or going. Why? They never responded to questions to my knowledge, probably the ACLU seeing it as a stupid image having no power against its secular agenda. In fact, the ACLU might have even left it in to smash it into the faces of the Christians, which the organization's members so despise. So the council left it in, deciding the princess was not a religious threat to the people of the City of Los Angeles, either. You can't make this stuff up.

We hope, after reading all of the following, you are as interested as we are in putting a face on who is really making these decisions at the ACLU's headquarters, and who or what makes up the membership that supports, funds, and applauds the ACLU's cleansing of religion from America's landscape.


Exactly What Is The ACLU? A Civil Liberties Organization Or A Hideout For Another Religious Organizations? You Decide.


What's Wrong With This Photo?

Absolutely Nothing!

There was an e-mail being sent around claiming that the ACLU was against prayer on government property by citizens who found themselves now in the company of the U.S. Marines. The ACLU, however, reported that it had not filed any law suit against prayer in the military, which I was delighted to discover in my research. However, my response to that report was, "you mean not yet."


So who was removing all those Santa Clauses in the early 1990's while representing the ACLU?

Newspapers in the early 1990's reported that members of the ACLU were driving around Jersey City spying on the lawns of city governments. They wanted to see if reindeer really knew how to fly and had landed on the lawns of New Jersey city governments, along with other related Christmas nothings that blinked in the night of New Jersey's cold winters in December.

To answer this we have to ask ourselves what group makes up the core membership of the ACLU, and who exactly was it that was driving around and spying to see where Christian symbols were located in relationship to government property?

You can eliminate the Catholics right off the bat. And we know it wasn't Christians. And we also know it wasn't Muslims. Muslims would have also wanted Jewish symbols taken down no matter where they saw them. So who was driving around, picking on silly-lighted Santa Clauses on the snow-covered lawns of government buildings in northern New Jersey? For that answer, let's take another look at the intentions of the ACLU since actions speak louder than words.

While you knew several cities were directed by the ACLU to take down their Santa Clauses purchased from America's many retailers like Wal-Mart, did you know the ACLU also was trying to remove a tiny cross from a threatening small town's flag somewhere in the state of Missouri only a few years after the Santa Clauses were nailed? The ACLU claimed, in so many words, "they were only coming to the aid of a lonely and confused witch who lived in that area, her lovely eyes offended by a tiny cross that waved at her on the city's flag." Whether it was a real "witch" or one planted or encouraged by the ACLU in their cleansing efforts of religious symbols across America, we'll probably never know the truth sealed in the bowels of the ACLU's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Burghers of Calais. Compliments of the Paris Web Museum

The poor elected city officials had to run for cover as the ACLU's slick-city lawyers descended upon the midwestern town like vampires in the night, threatening to suck life-giving budgets from the city's treasury filled with taxpayer money. The city fathers were looking at the choice of either taking the little cross off their city's insignificant flag or fighting the pinstriped suits of the ACLU.

The scene must have reminded one of the plight of city officials rendered through Rodin's bronze piece titled, The Burghers of Calais.

According to the excellent Australian Web site, ArtServe run by Michael Greenhalgh, Rodin's Burghers of Calais commemorates an incident in the Hundred Years War between the English and the French. In 1347, the site says, the City of Calais was besieged by the English, led by King Edward III. Edward demanded the surrender of the city. To stop any further loss of life, it continued, the oldest Burgher, Eustache de Saint Pierre, led a group of six of Calais' leading citizens to the English. However, thanks to the intercession of Edward's wife, Phillippa, the site reminds us, the lives of all six Burghers were spared. They fortunately had never had to deal with the slashers at the ACLU.

While the ACLU was attacking the town in Missouri, it had to know at the time there was also a little cross on the seal of the city of Los Angeles. But the ACLU is not stupid, probably realizing it was not the politically-correct time to show their muscle and upset the second largest city in America, losing membership dollars again. So the ACLU would wait out their time, knowing the day would come when they could burn that other little cross on the lawn of the City of Angels.


And who was removing all those Ten Commandments in the late 1990's for the ACLU?

The ACLU since has been involved in the removal of a plaque from the Grand Canyon as well as suing city governments across the United States for having the Ten Commandments on government property, the same ones found in the Old Testament of the Jewish Bible.

This reminds us all that governments within the United States owns lots of property, or didn't you notice that fact by the number of lawsuits by the ACLU? There is first the Federal Government and all the land it owns. Then there is the state governments and all the land they own. There is also county governments and all the land they own. And then there are city governments and all the land they own. What is interesting is that unlike dictatorships and royalties, it's the people of the United States who really own all the land via their representative governments, which are supposed to be accountable to them. So when the ACLU is cleansing government, it really isn't. It's cleaning the people of the United States.

To this end, we've even heard that the ACLU has tried to remove those innocent little roadside church signs found in every city in the country that tells you in what direction to drive to find a local place of worship. These signs, being on the roadside and therefore on government property, would be a prime focus for the membership of the ACLU wanting them uprooted from where they have stood for decades, if not longer.

So then what's to stop the ACLU from suing anyone to take down any religious symbols that are displayed even across from government buildings or parks, the ACLU at the time saying people on government land can see them and some might be offended, or if the object was a church, would it have to build a wall so it would be out of sight.

Ridiculous? We don't know what's ridiculous with the ACLU anymore. Obviously, one thing is clear. Like the Brown Shirts of Nazi Germany, there are no boundaries for this organization's acid-left membership.


So just who or what is the core of the ACLU?

To start with, archives on the Web along with the ACLU's own Web site have reported that at least 2,000 or more Jews immediately dropped their membership to the ACLU in the late 1970's. At the time, the ACLU acting like a civil rights group, had supported a couple of Nazi's wanting to march down a street in Skokie, Illinois. In case you didn't know, Skokie is a city inhabited by 99% of those who profess the Jewish faith. Ironically, the tiny group never did march, the ACLU having followed its original directive to protect the civil rights for even the less popular of groups.

In this case, however, the ACLU's directive went 100% against the grain of its majority of members, who we now know are of the Jewish faith. At that time and according to the ACLU, its president was also Jewish. Certainly, he must have known his paychecks were coming from the dues of the ACLU's Jewish membership, so it's a little confusing why the ACLU was shocked. The rule has always been simple; you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

But that one event in Skokie obviously caused a paradigm shift that changed the ACLU's direction forever. The ACLU would no longer focus on any Jewish symbols, Jewish history, or those who had gone against the Jews, which they have kept so far until this day.

You might say, "Hey, but what about the Ten Commandments?" Well what about them? We've heard Jewish Rabbi as guests on national radio shows complain that 75 - 80% of those who claim to be Jewish consider themselves instead as "Secular Jews," some even referring to Christ as a "dirty Jew."

(Please be aware there are many Jews who strongly object to the new secularism, calling themselves Jews for Morality. We suspect Steven Spielberg is not one of them along with professor Peter Singer of Princeton in the Human Ethics Department, better known as an oxymoron.*)

Actually, Secular Jews, who are members of the ACLU, may already dismiss the Ten Commandments as a myth seen through the lens of intellectualism. In fact, here is a statement from a professor and ACLU supporter who sees the document exactly that way:

The civil rights professor, Robert S. Alley,** professor of Religion and Humanities, Emeritus, at the University of Richmond, a supporter of the ACLU, has written in the introduction of his book, "Without a Prayer," his interpretation of the Old Testament, an obvious secular professor that the elite membership of the ACLU gladly embrace. The professor wrote in his book,
"When his mother and I tried to explain in terms he could understand, that the Noah tale was a myth developed three-thousand years ago by ancient people to explain natural events in a nonscientific world, we discovered we were creating an emotional conflict that was disturbing to our six-year-old."
We know the ACLU's focus is now on membership and contribution dollars gleaned from the Skokie experience. We have also seen this focus from an ACLU in-house event reported by a local newspaper, when it was providing information on a new replacement for an ACLU outgoing manager for its New Jersey office. If I remember correctly, the dismissed employee had complained that the ACLU focused too much on fund raising and not enough on other issues.

And then there was the statement by an ACLU attorney in Atlanta, Georgia, on a national television network, brightly saying on camera that the goals of the ACLU were to take lawsuits they could win so they could afford more lawsuits they could win, which would assure more money for the goals of the organization. Again, you can't make this stuff up.

The ACLU's agendas are no longer hidden and no one should therefore be surprised by its financial motives to meet its mission of being sure that all and any symbols of the Christian religion are expunged from all government offices, land, and buildings . . . save not one.


WHY NAMBLA is the ACLU's back door to attacking the Christian faith.

The ACLU seems to attach itself to any lawsuit that will help weaken the moral fabric of America, even ones that attack people of faith from the rear. Few of you probably know about the ongoing lawsuit of several years now by Barbara Curley against NAMBLA, a mother whose ten-year old son was murdered by a vicious member of the man-boy love association, NAMBLA. That's because many newspapers seem to rarely print news that will negatively affect the ACLU. The mother of Jesse Dirkhising discovered that, too, on the day the "presses stood still," when virtually every mainstream newspaper and television network refused to print or even speak of her thirteen-year old son's death, as if he was so dirty you couldn't mention his name, "Dirty Jesse?"

Note: It's why the cat may have come out of the bag . . . that these newspapers and the ACLU really do talk to each other on what to print, our also wondering about the involvement of the ASNE, which had left the word "religion" out of its hiring requirements in its diversity mission statement. Amazing stuff, eh, these people of the Fourth Estate? It reminds you of the power of the press that allowed the deaths of thousands to be murdered through the writings of another media mogul, the French journalist, Marat, during the vicious French Revolution, probably the world's first taste of what an ACLU-like organization is capable of doing to the people it rules.

Mrs. Curley had sued NAMBLA to take its offensive Web site down, saying that the content assisted the NAMBLA member in killing her son, her now trying to save other boys from the same fate. Reports said the man sat on her young son in the back of a car, forcing him to breath in from a gasoline-soaked rag that had been placed against his face until he was dead.

Also reports said that the man had recorded in his diary that he played with the cadaver after it had been brought it back to an apartment, admitting later to police that information found on the NAMBLA Web site had helped him to decide to murder the boy.

Coming to the rescue of NAMBLA, of course and who else, was the ACLU saying that taking down the NAMBLA's Web site would infringe on (you guessed it) its freedom of speech. NAMBLA has been associated with the acts of pedophiles, its Web site focusing on its adult members having oral sex and sodomy with young boys while avoiding the authorities. And again, don't be surprised if the ACLU lawsuit against Mrs. Curley somehow missed the attention of your local newspaper editor. It was no accident.

So who would be surprised if the ACLU later moved to telegraph its future intention of helping NAMBLA with its mission; to change laws that would allow permissive sex with young boys down to 14-years old or less to avoid the authorities altogether?

It came in the form of a small brief filed by the ACLU in a Kansas case where man employed by an institution continued to have sex with a 14-year old boy, one who was reported to have been mentally unstable and a resident of the facility. It was also reported the third offense finally got the adult a hefty jail sentence. The ACLU's brief did not hinge on this, as much as it did on the young boy's age, saying that if young people of 14-years old could give permission to have sex with whomever they wanted, this man would now not be going to jail, but instead would be free to walk the streets.

The State of Kansas attorney general was so angry he said the ACLU would probably give all American children a business card with a 1-800 number printed on it, allowing kids to call the ACLU whenever their parents wouldn't let them go out and have sex with whomever they wanted. With several documented cases of young women teachers now having sex with young male students via years of GLAAD and NAMBLA issues being allowed to be taught in the public schools, it would be no surprise that those teachers would now have a field day.

Who would have ever envisioned that a parent might one day in the near future call their son's teacher, asking her to please stop having sex their 9th grade son? The son hears about it and calls the ACLU that his parents are interfering with his freedom of choice. The ACLU obviously had that intention with its Kansas City brief in an effort to bring in even more money, and why this organization has been elevated from "Orange" as dangerous, to "Red" as "An attack is eminent on the morals of the American family."


So who or what sits as the core of the ACLU's membership?

So who is at the heart of this agenda of the ACLU to turn America into another Denmark, now the most liberal country in the world that sends child pornography all over the globe and wants to allow whores to greet airline passengers at Denmark's airport? Remember the reports on the 30,000 members leaving the ACLU in the late 1970's? After the ACLU executives got the message to reform the organization, they obviously used their list management to draw back the membership that had left, promising to take the ACLU in a different direction. They did.

While waiting for hours in an airport in Washington, D.C., circa 1982, about four years after the Skokie incident and during a business trip, I read a newspaper article way back in one of Washington D.C.'s mainstream press. It was small and didn't say much, except that 70% of the membership of the ACLU was Jewish.

That didn't raise the hairs on the back of my neck until I read in the 1990's, about ten years later, that ACLU "members" were now driving around northern New Jersey looking for Christian Santa Clauses on government lawns along with other Christmas decorations in cities such as Jersey City, and ready to sue to have them removed.

I know many organizations have their far-left and far-right members that include political parties and religions groups be they Christian, Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish. But after reading about the membership of the ACLU, it looks like the ACLU may be supported and run by extreme-left secular ACLU card-carrying members of the Jewish faith, ones that even everyday Jews are furious about, Christians don't know about, and the federal government doesn't care about.


Why is the ACLU attacking the Boy Scouts? While it seems to have nothing to do with advocating issues, it has everything to do with the mission of the ACLU.

Add to the above Steven Spielberg removing his endorsement of the Boy Scouts inline with the continued and vicious lawsuits against the Scouts by far-left secular Jews and other members of the ACLU, and one can easily see why a civil war may be on the horizon for America. It's more than just Red counties vs. Blue counties. It's a society getting to the point of saying "enough is enough." (See a far-right Christian perspective of Spielberg's movies.)

The lines in the sand seem to have been drawn.

One Scoutmaster I found ont he Web, (site no longer active), wrote on the Web about Spielberg and the Hollywood elite (his spelling):

"Another disappointment was Steven Spielberg. He was always so supportive of Scouting and kids love his movies. (Adults do too!) Some of my own Scouts met him at a National Jamboree in Virginia and told me what a great person he is. He became a pet project for me. I was bound and determined to reach him. I wrote him every year on New Years Eve so that my invitation would be the first piece of mail he received for the new year. I wrote him at other times as well. Different addresses, different studios. Finally, I got a letter from someone on his staff saying that he was much to busy promoting 'Shindler's List' and couldn't take on anything new. I never wrote again."

People who support the Scouts need to consider now if they really want to rent or buy any Spielberg or Dreamworks movies, knowing a piece of their rental or purchase cost may go to help destroy the Boy Scouts of America, turning it into a secular organization that seems to meet Spielberg's personal ideology. His movie, The Goonies, where young everyday boys are shown trying to replace a penis broken off of a statue, the boys getting it wrong so it looks instead like an erection, should have flagged many of Spielberg's later intentions concerning moral issues.***

Jewish organizations, not associated with the ACLU, are probably already realizing the ACLU in the end can only do harm to them in their relationships with America's general Christian population. If the ACLU is being supported and promoted by secular Jews who are located on the far-left edge of the world, then the ACLU should just say it. All anyone can ask is that the ACLU simple admit what it is or what it is not, backed up with provable documentation.

So we ask the question of the ACLU. Is it a civil rights or a religious organization? We know what part of the membership drives Focus on the Family. They don't hide that. But we really don't know what part of the membership drives the ACLU, do we?

Here is sadly what one concerned Jewish Boy Scout wrote about a Jewish organization he read about in the New York Times, the organization aligning itself with the agenda of the ACLU:

"Today's New York Times featured an article that a major Jewish organization recommended cutting ties to the Boy Scouts of America. This came as a shock to myself and my family being that we are of the Jewish faith. Judaism strongly condemns homosexual relations and the Bible states that homosexual relationships carry the death penalty. The Reform Jewish organization that made this official announcement does not represent true Judaism and has made a step in the worst direction. In today's day and age with so many dangerous and immoral influences such as drugs and violence abound, there is no better time to support the Boy Scouts of America then now. The Jewish people who have always stood for family values most definitely support this wonderful organization."

Another young boy, who is a Scout, writes about Spielberg's defection, taken from the same Web site. These are not stupid children. They know what is going on:

"Recently in the news I learned that Steven Spielberg dropped out of the Board of Advisors for the Boy Scouts I just want to tell someone there, "Don't Look Back!!"

Thank you for upholding your oath! It takes a lot of courage to stand up to rights activists and the liberal media. I can tell you right now that if you allowed homosexuals to be troop leaders I would never let my child join. I do not consider avowed homosexuals to be worthy role models for my children or anyone else's! I am not a homophobic. But, I don't agree with the promotion of their lifestyle. I really am just an average American parent. Thank you for upholding my family values.

I am impressed by your courage and stand for what is right. Keep up the good work!

This was the first place I could find to e-mail your organization, so please let my letter circulate to anyone who needs the encouragement!"


Come out, come out, wherever you are!

The ACLU needs to stop hiding under the black cloak of mystery and come out of the closet. And while they are doing that, why not also tell the America people how much money the ACLU is accepting from European interests that would benefit from a secular America?

Finally, I think most Americans would like to get something straight about the young men and women who fight for America in the Middle East today, our having a son in Afghanistan.

First, they really are not fighting for America. They are fighting for America's support of Israel's right to exist. Many of them come from families of faith who love the flag and who love their country. They have had this instilled into them since birth and why the military loves to see them serve. If America didn't do this, Israel would be in harm's way, a tiny island-like country that is floating among so many that want to see her destroyed.

But currently, these same young men and women are now dying in Iraq and Afghanistan because of America's affiliation with Israel. Without America defending this Jewish State, the fundamentalist Muslims would not have attacked America; barracks, war ships, or the Twin Towers in New York City, which would now be still standing. They have warned us again and again, "We see America as a great Satin that protects Israel."

As a nation we have accepted this as part of the risk of defending other freedom-loving countries like Israel. And that is a good thing. Yet knowing this, thousands, if not tens of thousands based on recent history, of Secular card-carrying American Jewish citizens actively support the ACLU's attack on the Christian community, forcing the cleansing of it from where it has stood since the beginning of the Republic. With so many young men and women in the military dying to support Israel, their families back home steeped in Christian core beliefs, why does this membership of the ACLU bite the hand that protects them? I am missing something?


A disturbing oxymoron.

Let's get something straight, as I move onto these final and difficult thoughts about the intentions of the ACLU.

I was brought up around Jews in southeastern Florida. I have worked for Jews. I have worked side by side with Jews. My best friend, whom I call my rock and like a brother, is a Secular Jew and has been my friend since our meeting in 5th grade in the early 1950's. So don't lay a trip on me when you read the following. With America so divided, these questions must be asked as our sons and daughters in the military give their lives in the Middle East.

Secular Jews, as heard from frustrated Rabbis, are called Secular because they have abandoned their core belief in an actual God being instrumental in the writings of their Old Testament. On top of that, we had provided documentation for you on the views of a Secular Jewish professor in Virginia, who strongly supports the direction of the ACLU in removing Christian writings and symbols from any government building and the associated land it sits on.

This documentation was taken from the forward of his book, where he writes that he and his wife had explained to their young Jewish son that the writings of the Old Testament were myths, if you remember his logic being that the old Jewish scholars who wrote the words in the Old Testament didn't have the wisdom of today's science and therefore, according to the learned professor, had no idea how to explain what they had seen.

This obviously includes their writings of a promised land for the Jews after leaving the bondage of Egypt.

I take from the professor's statement that his view describes the beliefs of a Secular Jew, and why they are called Secular. Now enter the Secular Jews who are also card-carrying members of the ACLU, to whom the following is now directed.

If the mass membership of the ACLU, which includes Hollywood producers and actors, owners and managing editors of America's mainstream media including newspapers and television, many liberal university professors, and supporting organizations that are in part owned or represented by Secular Jews who don't believe in a God who gave them the promised land, then why are America's sons and daughters dying for it?

If the Secular American Jews who are members of the ACLU no longer care about the state of Israel and don't believe there was a God that gave it to them, the only race on earth that can even make that claim, then let's bring our sons and daughters home.

If the Jews of Israel, as well as the non-Secular Jews in America, are truly thankful for and concerned about America's Christian-believing sons and daughters that are dying overseas for America's support of Israel while their traditional beliefs back home are attacked by the ACLU, they need to stand up now against the ACLU. The ACLU needs to be returned to the civil rights organization it was intended to be when the Nazis first wanted to march in Skokie.

When Christian Americans discover it was the Secular Jews of the ACLU who went after their Ten Commandments, Santa Clauses, their sons in the Boy Scouts, and the little cross on the flag of the city of L.A., a lot of people are going to be shocked and then angry at the deception that has been brought upon them by the membership of the ACLU.

"Of the World's Top 100 Powerful People," 51% are Jewish

. . . and as we had noted, 70% also make up the membership at the ACLU! So what's going on? Is this a vile form of ethnic cleansing by Jews who hate Christians? Are powerful Jews today doing to Christians what Hitler wanted to do to them? If true then what lesson, if any, was learned from the Holocaust? So in the end are the Muslims right about one sect of people running America? It's a very disturbing question in this age of media control, isn't it?


Now that we have cleared the air, what could be the next agenda on the ACLU's list of removing religious symbols off of all government property? Who knows.

But we have some thoughts about what they have their eye on.


* Note:

(Comments from 2007. It was a time when judicial activism wasn't overriding the legal votes of citizens in their respective states in America on the simple definition of . . . wait for it . . . marriage. Just seven years later In 2014 multiple people would want to marry, deciding which ones would have the "baby." Others would be more blunt, simply wanting to destroy it.)

From the link of the president's desk at Princeton University, you will see what is called a "tap dance" as the president of the university carefully recommends professor Singer for a teaching position. The only other best tap dance we've seen was the one shown in the movie, "Chicago."

The president of the university provides us with a quote in her letter from professor Singer published in the Wall Street Journal in the late 1990's, where the professor writes, "Our increased medical powers mean that we can no longer run away from the question by pretending that we are 'allowing nature to take its course."

This kind of language always amazes me, the ACLU using it for all kinds of tactics, too. Let's put this into the text of everyday English, "here is what they meant to say."

The university president published that sentence probably because professor Singer believes that parents of babies, who are born with a difficult abnormality, should have the right to kill them . . . sorry . . . to "terminate them" within 30-days of birth. (We keep forgetting to use the softer word, like "now we lay me down to sleep . . . ")

That is what the president seems to have been trying to say but just couldn't get around to it. I think the headlines of the New Jersey Star-Ledger at the time had the word pariah in it to describe professor Singer's addition to Princeton's staff. Now, however, I think it has now joined the chorus of "Amen."

But don't be surprised. Even the German's were able to get teachers, bakers, and piano teachers to sing as they shot their captives standing in pits. So anything is possible, even a love for professor Singer's ideas.

But what was not mentioned in the president's letter, and what the NJ newspapers know today, is that professor Singer also advocates human sex with non-humans. You know non-humans . . . dogs, cats, wild pigs, sheep . . . non-humans. Professor Singer was reported to have said, "If a dog can let you know it has to go out, it can tell you other things, too."

Thank you, Princeton University, for adding this professor to your Human Values or Human Ethics Department at your fine University of the Absurd.

** Note:

Dr. Robert S. Alley is Professor of Humanities, Emeritus, at the University of Richmond, where he taught the Religion Department for 30 years. He served on two occasions, 1986 and 1989, at the University of Virginia as Visiting Professor of Rhetoric. He was voted Professor of the Year in 1993 by the Richmond College Student Government Association. He is the first recipient of the Virginia ACLU Bill of Rights Award - 1994. He received his BA in Political Science at Richmond in 1953. He earned his masters and doctorate degrees from Princeton University in Religion and History. Alley has authored and co-authored books on religion, government and education. (See Web link for attribution.)

*** Note:

I had worked on a videographer's book for the Scouts over a decade ago, knowing Spielberg had supported one of their jamborees in the late 1980's. The Scouts later had to produce a second edition of the manual, removing Spielberg's name from the Merit Badge book. I discovered this in 2003, almost ten years later.

I have a request for Steven Spielberg.

"If you really care about kids, why not come down to earth from your cloud at Dreamworks and visit Barbara Curley or the mother of Jesse Dirkhising, and ask these women how they feel about their young sons being murdered by older men."

Then ask them how they would feel about an advocating men leading young boy's in Scout troops? Ask Barbara Curley has she feels about the ACLU defending the organization that helped to murder her 10-year old son. "Too busy working on a movie?" as one Boy Scout had complained? We hope not, noting the coming storm.

People were offended by the Catholic Priests, but the priests never killed their victims. We need to also ask Mr. Spielberg why he supports NAMBLA's agenda having sodomy with young boys and the ACLU's new agenda to allow 14-year old boys to give permission to have sex with male adults, which is currently the law in Canada. If he carries an ACLU card, we already have our answers, "thank you." That would put a whole new spin on Dreamworks and what agendas some of the profits might support.

Mr. Spielberg surely knows that the Boy Scouts accept advocating boys in their troops as long as the boys don't discuss sexual issues, as is the case with any boy who wants to be a member of the Scouts. Mr. Spielberg knows this, having been a Scout, and we hope was never sodomized in the woods during a camping trip. The Scouts don't want advocating homosexuals as leaders of their troops because groups like GLAAD and NAMBLA want these men to be able to advocate their sexual lifestyles to other straight Scouts. That seems to be the agenda.

The ACLU knows that. GLAAD knows that. NAMBLA knows that. So why doesn't Steven Spielberg know that? He obviously does.

If you don't believe it, go see the politically-correct cartoon movie,"Shark's Tale," positioned as a wonderful animation for kids. Really? The subtle message in Shark's Tale is like taking the German propaganda machine and bringing it to a whole new level of indoctrination, spoon-feeding American children right in front of their parent's open eyes, as the parents buy the tickets that help Hollywood finance the soft sell that is spun at their child.

Go see Shark's Tale for yourself, and notice the cross-dressing Shark whose father is a Mafia boss and is shown as just not getting it, his son a very sensitive fish. You wouldn't see these scenes explained in the trailer.

"You've been had," mom and dad by the islands of Manhattan and Hollywood. Oh, what studio made Shark's Tale?

**** Note:

If you're wondering what it is like to negotiate with the ACLU, it takes about five minutes and sounds something like this:

“We don’t have real jobs. People with more money than sense give it to us to sue people like you. People like you have streets to repair, schools to run, and police and fire departments to pay. Do exactly what we want, now, or we will tie you up in court until Judgment Day, or at least until every school, firehouse, and police station in the county has to be shut down to pay your legal bills.”

(Click on the above link for entire story along with quote's attribution.)




"Freedom is Knowledge"