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.
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.
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.)
