No Boy Scouts: The ACLU defends NAMBLA.

National Review Online ^ | February 27, 2004 | Deroy Murdock

[lentulusgracchus]

Concerning the RC's report on its problem priests, did you see "Uncle Bob" Bennett on The Newshour with Margaret Warner Friday night? He put on a masterful display of speaking at length while saying the absolute minimum possible. His was a tour de force of "ummm" and "ahhhh", hemming, hawing, backtracking and bafflegabbing.

That's why they pay Uncle Bob the big bucks!

[lentulusgracchus]

How is that for a theory?

Well, it draws a picture of intelligent malice directed against the character of the American people. To discover its source, ask the question the CIA always teaches its people to ask: Cui bono? Who benefits?

My answer is twofold:

1. The totalitarian Socialist meme and its supporters (the Left).

2. Artisan personalities (i.e. artsy-fartsy people) who can't stand, or have very little patience with, concepts of law, tradition, and the organic nature of society, and particularly its little idiosyncratic rules about not polluting kids or not spreading social diseases.

It is not a huge contradiction to say that the artisan personalities (in H'wood they predominate) who support the Left would be much more miserable under an authoritarian or totalist regime than they are at present. They just can't stand any kind of authority.

[lentulusgracchus]

The ACLU is not fighting for principles that I happen to believe in.....

The ACLU is fighting for a World Order of international Socialism -- the ideals of the old COMINTERN. Not surprising considering their origins, and not surprising, either, that as you say they would support anything that harms American political, legal, moral, and social institutions.

To build Socialism, you must first destroy what exists, without fear or favor.

[lentulusgracchus]

I just read in Michael Savage's book the "Enemy within" that Ruth Bader Ginsberg was Chief Councel for the A.C.L.U.

She argued the plaintiff brief in Roe vs. Wade. The Left has always put their spear-carriers on the Court whenever they got the chance -- Thurgood Marshall is another case in point.

But nominate someone like Robert Bork, and watch what happens!

If Hillary gets in, you can count on seeing Janet Reno on the Supreme Court bench (if she's well enough), Mario Cuomo, Charlie Schumer, William Wayne Justice, Evan Wolfson (formerly of Lambda Legal), Dianne Feinstein, Morris Dees of SPLC, Eleanor Smeal -- all the great ones. She'll go for the ideologues.

Come to think of it, someone pass a note to William Rehnquist -- if Hillary gets in, no two Justices had better be on the same airplane any more!!

[Diva Betsy Ross]

"It is not a huge contradiction to say that the artisan personalities (in H'wood they predominate) who support the Left would be much more miserable under an authoritarian or totalist regime than they are at present. They just can't stand any kind of authority"

True-they can't stand authority, but here is also something to think about... if you allow your self to be a slave, you have no need for self responsibility. You are not responsible for any of your actions, because you are just following orders.

IMO The left mistakenly thinks if they can get their guys in power ( socialists) the authority will tell have them do what they already want to do. The misunderstanding is that they are just pasties to the socialists who will say anything enticing to get the power.

The socialists play to the lowest common denominator.. they find the weak of spirit, with no courage and tell them everything is fair game- be who you want, and we will take care of you... they are just slaves, and IMO these kinds of people can only function when someone else holds all the cards.

They just don't want the guy holding the cards to tell them to think for themselves and pay their own dues, and BTW, do so at the same time for the rest of your lives.

[little jeremiah]

Nothing that says one can't or shouldn't be an instrument of karma. The laws of the universe call for responsible action on our part as well. We can't sit back and do nothing, or we're part of the problem and deserve punishment as well. Kind of like collaborators, or people who "look the other way", they are guilty too.

The only reason the "gay" activists and their handmaidens have gotten this far is because those who knew better (or should have) were looking the other way. Maybe changing the channel, making nice with "gays" so as not to cause trouble, pretending to be "goody-goody" and not condemn anyone (maybe so they won't condemn me), politicians playing footsie, who knows.

I have a good friend who has been very active in the pro-family movement and he and his family have, over the years, been threatened with death and bodily harm numerous times, had their cars damaged, had his business closed down, and so on. It takes guts to stand up to this evil. Now is the time for us to stand up, either that or we'll be bending over. The "gay" activists aren't going to be satisfied until our children are in their grip from kindergarten on.

[King Prout]

you are undoubtedly correct in your last paragraph.

[King Prout]

"...they are just pasties..."

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Goo done huh?

[King Prout]

yes. goo done

[Diva Betsy Ross]

heeheehee!

[Barnacle]

I am convinced that there are more problems that have to be uncovered in the Catholic Church. One of the biggest problems with the report as is stands is that it is based on uncorroborated information from the 195 bishops in America. It is plain to see that in a few of diocese, the bishops themselves are the root of the problems. There is no way that their reports can be reliable. Much more is going to have to be done by non-diocesan entities to get to the truth in those cases.