Friday, June 03, 2005

I'll show mine if you show yours

According to the Sun-Times, a federal judge has ordered the US to release Abu Ghraib videos to the ACLU.

Quelle surprise! A federal Judge siding with a leftist organization.

The executive director of the ACLU, Anthony D. Romero, was quoted as saying, ''These images may be ugly and shocking . . . [but] the American public deserves to know what is being done in our name''.

How about the ACLU opening its files to the public? Can we see what they're doing "in our name"? And, can we see precisely which groups and individuals are most heavily supporting them?

Lately, what I've seen most is that they've been doing their darnedest to relieve us of the burden of working an honest job, standing up for ourselves against people who call us names, and a lot more that leads to the undoing of the country. All those cases of lawsuit-building victimhood for simply not rising above everybody based on their difference... creating an even more helpless bottom rung of society, and continuing to generate class hatreds and the incumbent violence.... All those lawsuits against Christians trying to exercise their right to freely express their faith... undermining two parts of the First Amendment in one swell foop.... And let's NOT go to the Mexican border, where they seem to think that non-citizens have more rights to this land than the rest of us, and the rest of us have no right to defend what is ours!

Yeah, I'm impressed with their "it's for your own good" attitude. Just like I'm impressed by any other socialist jackasses.

Update: From lgf's article on this"John Steele" comments (scroll down to #151) :

"...I doubt that anyone here wants the truth supressed. But they do want the truth not the fake but accurate nonsense that the ACLU and the MSM deals in.

The facts are that the abuses in the photos and videos that the left lives so much:
- did occur;
- they happened one time, on one shift on one day involving that one group of soldiers;
- they did not happen every day as the press likes to imply --- note they never say they did but they go out of their way not to disuade people from drawing that conclusion;
- they represent a breakdown in command and have and are being punished;
- the press did not break the story as they like to trumpet -- they reported on months old official Army documents. - - the only reason the press ran with it was because they got photos from one of the families who were unhappy that there little Janie or Billie was about to be punished for screwing up (The press, our motto: If it bleeds it leads')
- they were not systemic, condoned, policy, ongoing, ordered by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, blah, blah blah as the left contends. "

I couldn't have said it better, myself.

No comments: