Now I understand why the ACLU defended NAMBLA
by Jeff OBryant
According to this piece from WDBJ7, a former youth coach and ACLU leader has been indicted on child porn charges.
Maybe one day Americans will wake up to the dangers of allowing the ACLU to slither into and out of our courts. Of course, there are other perverts who seek child pornography that have nothing to do with the ACLU. But I can’t help but make the connection in my mind from this to the ACLU’s defense of the “rights” of NAMBLA.
Did You Enjoy this Post? Subscribe to Right News and Views. It's Free!
May 12th, 2007 at 5:25 am
WARNING: The following Does NOT represent my opinion of Catholicism but is designed to demonstrate the inanity of this post:
According to a Fox news story last month (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr27/0,4670,PriestAbuse,00.html) Catholic priest Louis Rogge, 76, of Joliet, Illinois has pled guilty to sexually abusing two teenaged boys during the 1990s.
Maybe one day Americans will wake up to the dangers of allowing Catholic priests to slither into and out of their pulpits. Of course, there are other perverts who abuse children that have nothing to do with the Catholic Church. But I can’t help but make the connection in my mind from this to the way the Catholic Church mishandled their sexual abuse scandal by moving accused priests from location to location while trying to keep a lid on it.
Epilogue: This is ugly isn’t it? Innuendoes and smears always are.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Warning- the following is the truth!
One big difference between the ACLU and the Catholic Church is you won’t find the Pope defending these sickos in court. But the ACLU will.
Epilogue: The truth is ugly.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:26 am
You suggested that the arrest of the ACLU leader somehow helps you “understand why the ACLU defended NAMBLA.”
How can that be unless you believe the actions of one group member somehow speaks for the whole group? That is innuendo.
Then you use this illogic to suggest that the ACLU should be prevented from “slithering into or out of our courts.” Your “ultraconservative blog” certainly presents an odd notion of liberty.
Hey, maybe we could just round up all the ACLU lawyers — heck, for that matter all card-carrying members — and throw them in prison along with Nancy Pelosi. Right?
May 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
The ACLU didn’t defend NAMBLA’s right to have sex with boys, they blocked an attempt that would have put the organization on trial instead of the two men responsible for the death of a young boy. The ACLU contested that only those who committed crimes or were present at the act or involved in the conspiracy to commit a crime can be put on trial. Therefore NAMBLA cannot be put on trial for the actions of its members.
Although I believe every NAMBLA sicko should be buried alive in soil soaked with acid and allowed to choke on the fumes of their own decaying body, it’s also extremely important to prevent a legal precedent from allowing individuals from being persecuted because of association with another however abstractly.
Otherwise, we would have to put every member of the Antioch Bible Church away for the murder of that man last year whom was not a homosexual but “acted and dressed gay” according to his killers. They cited Reverend Ken Hutcherson’s anti-gay sermons as one of the reasons they killed the man, and were both members of the Church. Would it even be fair to shut down the church after this? No. That’s what the ACLU was getting at.