ACLU: The White Supremacy Runs Very Deep, They Have No Idea

The ACLU’s national office tweeted this image, thus proving America is a white supremacist nation.

I am sure, dear reader, you can predict where the backlash went. Just read the thread that began here:

And here the ACLU realized their state of non-wokedness.

But it goes much, much deeper than that. Oh the rabbit hole has barely begun.

I wanted to know where ACLU got their racist image…did they lift it from an archived copy of Daily Stormer, or retweet it from the bowels of 8Chan where neo-Nazis share childhood photos of Hitler and illegal downloads of “The Boys From Brazil“?

So I used Google’s reverse image search, and it returned the word “Child” and these images:

All lily-white. Many of them Aryan, in fact. Definitely a bunch of white supremacists. For comparison, I then took a picture of an adorable little girl (below) and ran the same search.

Google returned “cute little black girl.”


Okay, I thought, maybe Google’s search results were skewed since I found the image of the adorable little black girl on Google. That and the little girl didn’t have a flag. So I went to Bing, and found this delightful little boy holding a flag. And yes, he’s African American, just light-skinned, like Barack Obama.

 Google results: “American children.”

Finally, I got a racially-mixed group, but no flags. And actually, it appears the kid with the green shirt showed up–what, four or five times? Or maybe he’s got a lot of kids who look just like him.

You know, racist Google, they’ve programmed their search algorithm with the white supremacist belief “they all look alike.” Because Google itself is no paragon of diversity. Mostly boys, and the same black kid used over and over, just like Google’s own efforts to paper over its devotion to the Aryan master race and the patriarchy.

At the ACLU, the white supremacy is so deeply ingrained that despite the organization’s disavowal of fair-haired, light-skinned people who want “free speech,” they themselves chose an image of a fair-haired, light-skinned Aryan as “the future that ACLU members want.”

It’s a dog-whistle for Richard Spencer and his tiki brigade. It’s a wink and a nod to the KKK. I think the ACLU should denounce itself much more harshly than Kermit the Frog…wait a second, do you know who else is a frog?

And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. With unassailable logic and bulletproof evidence, we now see how the ACLU and Google are racist pigs and Nazi sympathizers, secretly helping the “alt-right” while pretending to side with the “alt-left.”

Or perhaps, everyone should just calm down and realize that kids and muppets don’t really care about stuff that race-obsessed, sphincter-clenched adults who won’t put their smartphones down to play with their own kids so they can rant on Twitter become apoplectic about.


ACLU Tosses Second Amendment Under the Bus

The American Civil Liberties Union is a group that was founded to protect the constitutional freedoms of Americans. The ACLU website brags, “For almost 100 years, the ACLU has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Yet there seems to be one freedom that is too controversial for the ACLU to protect.

After the Virginia branch of the ACLU aided the alt-right groups that participated in the riot in Charlottesville last weekend, the Wall Street Journal reports that the ACLU will not defend the right of “hate groups” to march with firearms. The group will also consider the potential for violence when considering whether to work with potential clients.

“The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb,” said Anthony Romero, the ACLU’s executive director. “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else.”

There were many pictures of the white supremacist marchers openly carrying guns, which is legal in Virginia. At this point, it is unclear if any of these guns were fired during the riot, but photographer Zach Roberts did photograph an alt-right militant using a pistol to provide cover to the white supremacists who savagely beat Deandre Harris, a black special education teacher, with metal poles.

In an online statement, the ACLU said, “If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.”

The question is one of intent. How can the ACLU determine whether marchers are peacefully exercising their Second Amendment rights or using guns to intimidate political opponents? Without evidence, the answer to that question is in the eye of the beholder.

Until they show intent to break the law, white supremacists have the same rights as any other American. The ACLU has recognized this for decades. As far back as 1978, the group defended the right of neo-Nazis in to march in Skokie, Illinois.

The problem seems to be on the Second Amendment, where the ACLU has long been ambivalent. The group historically considered the right to bear arms to be a government right to arm the militia. In 1980, the ACLU said, “With respect to firearms, the ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal regulation which substantially restricts the individual’s interest in freedom of choice.”

The freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are both enshrined in the Constitution that the ACLU claims to protect. These rights apply to neo-Nazis and Klan members just as they do to every other American. The ACLU has said that it would continue to deal with requests for aid by white supremacist groups on a case-by-case basis, but it is disingenuous to protect one right and not the other, even after Charlottesville.

No right is absolute. Just as freedom of speech does not include yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, the right to carry is subject to reasonable limits. It should be up to state and local governments to learn from Charlottesville and, if they see a legitimate need, enact constitutional legislation that restrict weapons under certain conditions. Virginia law already contains restrictions on the right to carry in certain circumstances.

If anyone, white supremacist or otherwise, abuses their right to bear arms by using legal guns to commit crimes, they should face stiff penalties. If this gunman, who used his gun to aid in the assault and battery of Deandre Harris, can be identified, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including the loss of his Second Amendment rights if he is convicted of a felony.

If the alt-right had not exercised their right to freely assemble and speak their minds, the Charlottesville riot would never have happened. In spite of that, the ACLU is not denying First Amendment aid to racist groups. Why should the Second Amendment be any different?

The ACLU Stands With Linda Sarsour

Can we really act surprised here? We’re talking about the same organization that once defended the North American Man Boy Love Association. I don’t think anything really embarrasses these people.

The American Civil Liberties Union announced on Tuesday via Twitter that they are standing with Linda Sarsour. The tweet included a year-old blog post on Sarsour titled “Muslim, American, & Intersectional: The Activism of Linda Sarsour.”

The blog was more-or-less about Sarsour’s ascension into the public eye as a Muslim activist. It was a nauseating attempt to glorify an Islamic social justice warrior who views herself as a perpetual victim of racist America.

Timing of this “endorsement” matters. Sarsour has long been scrutinized for her extremist rhetoric, but she has been in hot water more recently for comments made while giving a speech to the Islamic Society of North America convention. Sarsour called for “jihad” against the Trump administration. Following controversy after her speech, Sarsour has refused to back down from using the word – accusing conservative media of a smear campaign against her.

The ACLU has long been a foe of the Christian business community. No matter what corner of the continental U.S. you live on – if you want to sue a Christian bakery, the ACLU has your back. I could at least understand their stringent stance for the separation of church and state if it was consistent – but it clearly isn’t.

Remember: Sarsour has been on record defending Shariah Law. She has also publicly criticized state bans on Shariah Law.

Here she is PRAISING Saudi Arabia for paid maternity leave while brushing aside the fact that women in that country aren’t even allowed to drive.

So when Christians refuse to bake a gay-themed cake, the ACLU is always there for a court room battle. But when Sarsour vehemently defends a religious law that calls for the death of homosexuals, the ACLU gives her a shining endorsement.

Got it? Good.


After a Review, ACLU Declares Trump’s Order on Religious Liberties “an Elaborate Photo-Op”

When the Trump administration announced that President Trump would be signing an executive order on “religious liberties” today, it was meant to unshackle people of faith from government chains on speech, supposedly. It was also thought to be a move to overturn the contraceptive mandate on religious institutions, put forth by Obamacare.

Of course, when the news of the EO was leaked, the usual suspects – and by “usual suspects” I mean the ACLU – geared up for their big sue party.

After the details of the EO were made known, however, the ACLU changed their tune.

Yup. The ACLU, probably for the first time in a very long time, have looked at an order issued by a “Republican” president and responded with a resounding, “Meh.”

Smoke and mirrors.

In a statement released after today’s signing, the ACLU said:

“Today’s executive order signing was an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome,” ACLU director Anthony Romero said in a statement.

“After careful review of the order’s text we have determined that the order does not meaningfully alter the ability of religious institutions or individuals to intervene in the political process. The order portends, but does not yet do harm to the provision of reproductive health services,” Romero added.

Get that?

A sue-happy, liberal ACLU lawyer is saying there’s nothing in today’s executive order worth suing over.

“President Trump’s prior assertion that he wished to ‘totally destroy’ the Johnson Amendment with this order has proven to be a textbook case of ‘fake news,’” Romero said.

“The directive to federal agencies to explore religious-based exceptions to healthcare does cue up a potential future battle, but as of now, the status quo has not changed,” he continued.

“What President Trump did today was merely provide a faux sop to religious conservatives and kick the can down the road on religious exemptions on reproductive health care services.”

President Trump has said numerous times that he intends to destroy the Johnson Amendment – something I’ve actually spoke against, mainly because I don’t believe campaigning from God’s pulpit and corrupting the purpose of the house of God should ever be a thing.

What he did today, however, is sign an EO that didn’t mention candidates, but “issues.” In other words, the order reasserted a right that religious institutions already have, and that is, they’re allowed to speak about “political issues” like abortion and gay marriage. They just can’t campaign for a particular candidate.

The order also mentioned the Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services and promised to “reexamine” the issue.

No, it didn’t strike down the mandate. It didn’t change anything that isn’t already in place. It just promised that administration officials would look into it, again.

So, basically, Trump signed a nearly-100 word nothingburger,

And you know it’s pretty lame when the ACLU lose their zeal for litigation.

Smoke. And. Mirrors.

The ACLU’s Split Personality Disorder

By now, you’ve probably heard that Ann Coulter has canceled the speech she was supposed to give at Berkeley today.  Even though she had expressed a determination to go through with it in spite of all the barriers the university tried to place in her way, Coulter said she had to cancel after the Young America’s Foundation–which had been sponsoring her appearance–withdrew its support, saying that it could not “jeapordize the safety of [the university’s] staff or students.”  In other words, because mobs threatened violence, and because the Berkeley town government and police refuse to do their jobs and protect people and property from that mob, an American citizen will not be allowed to excercise her First Amendment rights at an institution of higher learning that is supported by tax dollars.

“It’s a sad day for free speech,” Coulter said.  “Everyone who should believe in free speech fought against it or ran away.”

In the midst of this bad news, however, there was a tiny ray of light.  The American Civil Liberties Union, which all too often sits on the sidelines when it comes to protecting the rights of conservatives, actually expressed support for Coulter’s right to express her views without fear of harm:

Naturally, the ACLU couldn’t resist tossing in the “hateful” canard–but it is a relief to know that they can still recognize a grave threat to the First Amendment when they see it.  It just remains to be seen whether their support ends with a single tweet, or if they’re willing to take up the fight on Coulter’s behalf.  If they are, I welcome them as allies.  The best way to face down wannabe fascists in black bandanas is to present a united front, and make sure they understand in no uncertain terms that civil liberties are not a partisan issue.

But when the ACLU goes and does something like this, you really have to question if their commitment to the First Amendment only extends to the parts that they like:

Dignity Health’s Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a private Catholic hospital in Sacramento, California, is currently embroiled in a lawsuit brought on by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) after the hospital refused to perform a sex transition surgery.


According to the suit, Evan Michael Minton, a 35-year-old woman who wishes to be a man, wanted to have an elective surgery done on her that would have her vagina removed. The suit says that Minton was denied the hysterectomy because, as Minton claims, the hospital was discriminatory due to his lifestyle.

The hospital, however, tells a different story:

“At Dignity Health Mercy San Juan Medical Center, the services we provide are available to all members of the communities we serve without discrimination. We understand how important this surgery is for transgender individuals, and were happy to provide Mr. Minton and his surgeon the use of another Dignity Health hospital for his surgery within a few days.”


The hospital itself says that they could not perform the transition surgery ” in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs) and the medical staff bylaws.”

So basically, a Catholic hospital said that they could not allow the sex reassignment surgery to be performed there because it would violate its religious bylaws–but they were perfectly happy to refer the patient to another one of their non-Catholic affiliated hospitals, where there would be no conflict.

And yet the ACLU is suing the hospital anyway.

In case they need reminding, here’s what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It looks an awful lot like the ACLU is helping this patient to prohibit a Catholic hospital from freely exercising its religious rights.  And considering that Dignity Health offered the patient a convenient alternative, this lawsuit can’t have any other purpose but to steamroll religious institutions into getting with the transagenda.  Sure, they’ll probably lose in court–but not before they put the hospital through the social media grinder and make them pay a steep price for standing up for their rights.

How this squares with the ACLU’s stance on Ann Coulter is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a beef burrito.  On the one hand, they’ll defend Coulter’s right to say mean things to college students.  On the other, they’ll crush Dignity Health’s right to not perform a surgery that violates its religious charter.  Both rights are guaranteed under the First Amendment.  How is it possible that the ACLU can hold both these stances, which directly contractict one another, at exactly the same time?

It’s a state of confusion that would give that guy from Split a run for his money.

ACLU Ruins Christmas for Knightstown

The town of Knightstown, Indiana, has removed the cross from the top of the Christmas tree in its town square permanently as a result of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The Indianapolis Star reported:

“Knightstown officials say a cross atop the town’s Christmas tree will be removed because the Henry County community could not win a lawsuit from the ACLU.”

The Knightstown Town Council posted on Facebook regarding the removal of the cross:

“It is with regret and sadness that the Knightstown Town Council has had the cross removed from the Christmas tree on the town square and is expected to approve a resolution at the next council meeting stating they will not return the cross to the tree.”

The ACLU sued the town over an illuminated cross at the top of the Christmas tree in the town square. The cross has been at the top of the tree for several years, but this year, it caused a town resident “irreparable harm.”

The law suit stemmed from a resident of the town, Joseph Tompkins, who was “forced to come into direct and unwelcome contact” with the cross every time he drives through town.

Maybe take an alternate route?

Alas, this contact with the cross has caused him “irreparable harm,” and the only way to even attempt to make it better is to have the cross removed and pay Tompkins monetary damages.

Little does Tompkins know, the worst kind of “irreparable harm” actually comes from hell – the result of not coming in contact with the cross.

The law suit documents note the Latin cross “is the preeminent symbol of Christianity, representing the instrument of the crucifixion of Jesus.”

Well, duh.

It goes on to say since the display is religious, it should not be located on town property, and that its presence in the town square violates the First Amendment.

So let’s go back to civics 101 and review the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

You see, in colonial times, there was a law establishing the Church of England that required people to pay religious taxes and even attend church services. The government had their fingers in religion – all the way down to choosing the clergy. Therefore, the Founding Fathers established the First Amendment, agreeing upon disestablishment – meaning that the national government could not create a state religion – hence the “Congress shall make no law.”

Could someone please explain to me how this cross in Knightstown’s town square is equivalent to a Congressional Law?

On a related note, if the cross has caused Tompkins “irreparable harm” – I’m wondering how he got past the Christmas tree. The Christmas tree tradition was started in Germany by devout Christians. The harm he’s sustained has to be hard to avoid this time of year, as “Christ” is explicitly in the word “Christmas,” which is common to see this time of year. Never mind the fact that the holiday is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Sure makes me glad I’m not prone to “irreparable harm” from symbols of religions I don’t identify with.

I’d love to see one of the Knightstown churches get that cross from town council and put it on display for all to see.

Planned Parenthood hypocrites demand your tax dollars to ban pro-life speech

On August 31, the California legislature sent a bill to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk that could throw whistleblowers and pro-life investigators in jail. Written by Planned Parenthood, it has been opposed by The Los Angeles Times and the ACLU – two prominent organizations that back abortion – on free speech grounds.

Days later, President Barack Obama proposed a regulation that would, according to Huffington Post, “permanently” prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood. The regulation says that states may not take away Title X birth control and abortifacient funding – most of which goes to Planned Parenthood – from any groups over philosophical or ideological differences, such as the scientific truth that abortion kills unborn children.

In other words: If you’re a taxpayer who might want your tax dollars to not fund abortion-inducing drugs and devices, you’re out of luck. This is unlike “about 9,000 providers” who lost state funding in the last couple of decades, according to Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Casey Mattox. Mattox told Congress that while “in most of these cases, they’re completely uncontroversial,” only Planned Parenthood receives federal protection, “a privilege that other providers don’t get to have.”

These are just the latest efforts by Planned Parenthood and its well-funded allies in government to restrict free speech by pro-life Americans. Planned Parenthood has backed the Obama administration’s HHS Mandate that requires nuns, priests, religious health and educational institutions, and for-profit business owners and employees to pay for abortion-inducing drugs and devices. The mandate lost in the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2014 Hobby Lobby case, and was knocked down to lower courts by the Supreme Court earlier this year.

Yet Planned Parenthood stands by it, demanding that private citizens use their private dollars to pay for things they morally oppose.

Bubble and barrier zones that limit pro-life advocates’ ability to make their case while on public property are in place across the country, with Planned Parenthood’s backing, while no such restrictions apply to abortion workers and volunteers. In fact, in Chicago, Planned Parenthood donated birth control and abortifacients so its supporters could stand on Hobby Lobby’s private property and distribute these items.

Additionally, a number of cities and states around the country have attempted to force pro-life pregnancy care centers to recommend abortions. The California version of this law has been supported by Planned Parenthood, which has hypocritically joined NARAL in opposing pro-life investigations while using NARAL’sinvestigations” to target pro-life speech.

Planned Parenthood’s cherry-picked sensitivity to free speech infringements aren’t limited to undercover investigations. The group sued Ohio to retain state funding, with its lawyers declaring eliminating funding would constitute harm to Planned Parenthood’s free speech. The same is true in Utah, and elsewhere.

Author’s Note: This piece was originally published at Hot Air.

Dems Defend Constitution For Terrorists, But Trash It For Gun Owners

Back in January, when Sen. Ted Cruz was a presidential candidate, he introduced S.247, the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which has all but died in committee. The ACLU and other liberal organizations decried this as trampling the 14th Amendment and “due process.” Yet despite the ACLU opposing using terror “watchlists” to deny gun purchases, Democrats want to press forward with squashing that particular Constitutional right.

Cruz’s bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify what expresses an American citizen’s “intent” to relinquish American citizenship. For example, pledging allegiance to ISIS, or going overseas and meeting with terrorists, or supporting them financially.

The 14th Amendment protects Americans from having their citizenship stripped by the government. But those who ally with terrorists don’t deserve to call themselves Americans. Plus, law enforcement, such as the FBI, needs a tool to stop homegrown terrorist citizens from carrying out “lone wolf” attacks besides simply trying to catch them in the act.

Allowing them to prove the act of relinquishing citizenship and taking their passports goes a long way toward addressing the real problem–radical Islamists recruiting Americans to carry out “lone wolf” attacks on their fellow citizens.

Back in January, liberals trashed Cruz and S.247, saying it “would allow bureaucrats to strip citizenship from U.S. citizens on the dangerously vague grounds of ‘assistance’ to a terrorist group.” But they are A-okay with the same bureaucrats stripping Second Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights from law-abiding citizens so those who assist terrorists can be protected.

Those lawmakers who are camped out on the floor of the House of Representatives, singing Kumbayah and eating smores (or checking Twitter) are hypocrites to the core. They don’t care about American citizens’ rights. They care about politics and looking like they’re some kind of revolutionaries.

They are fools.