ACLU – You Suck Hairy, Shit-Crusted Donkey Balls

On the way home from dropping my little boys off at school, I cried hearing the story of Sgt. Jared Monti, who will receive the nation’s highest military honor posthumously, today.  Read about Sgt. Monti here. Fresh on the story of Sgt. Monti, I discovered this whirlwind of bullshit spouting from the ever-rancid anus of the ACLU.

Visit donttearmedown.com

I can’t help but wonder at how Sgt. Monti might have appreciated the simple, generations-old sanctuary for veterans in the middle of the desert had he lived.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

6 responses to “ACLU – You Suck Hairy, Shit-Crusted Donkey Balls

  1. Gretchen

    The ACLU is an f-ing disgrace. The ACLU can try to fool the masses by claiming that they represent the civil liberties of everyone, but they prove time and time again that they’re nothing more than a mouthpiece for the left. They’re only for civil liberties when they serve their own purposes.

  2. Rebecca

    Hey Betsy! I checked out the ACLU’s latest article update about the case. As always, different sides “highlight” different aspects of the truth… i guess the cross was on private land originally, then the land became public and that;s when it became a federal war memorial? What I couldn’t tell yet is whether the ACLU would support replacing the single cross with something more broad, or if the lawsuit is requiring that the whole memorial be removed and that;s that (ACLU article suggested the former). I can research that, but thought you might already know. My sympathies are initially with the ACLU’s side (vets of other religions) but I realize they’re not making many friends among the majority of americans by doing this.

    • betsyboss

      The way I see it, that symbol was there long before the land became federal, and, therefore, should remain. I don’t believe it’s the essence of the memorial site that is in question, just the cross symbol itself. If it were a Star of David created by recovering Jewish vets after WWI, for example, I would want that to remain as well. For me, it is a matter of history and respect for those that placed it there and those that still find meaning in it. There are lots of religious symbols on federal lands and institutions. Are they really so offensive? Really? Enough is enough. I find it ironic that the ACLU-ish left, which fancies itself more tolerant and open than the right, in fact displays a rabid, disrespectful intolerance of others albeit veiled in the name of consideration and “liberty.” Please. The ACLUs brand of tolerance and liberty is truly a grotesque bastardization of both terms.

      • Rebecca

        Well, we don’t see eye to eye exactly on the ACLU. Almost nothing rises to the “offensive” bar for me, but I do wish to live in a country where the federal government doesn’t endorse any religion at all with its actions or symbols; and the only way to keep moving toward that is to have a watchdog or two who isn’t afraid to annoy the majority for whom it’s not really an issue. If I were more up on the specific workings of that branch of the ACLU I might agree that they’re a bad watchdog. Anyway, I agree that it’s more of a historic monument than a typical modern war memorial, since it wasn’t originally created by the feds or by a group that ever claimed to be speaking for all vets. A plaque explaining its origins (including the fact that it’s not meant to represent all vets) would probably have sufficed and avoided the ACLU making a PETA-esque controversy about something so insignificant.

  3. KB

    I heard about this story this AM. Just another thing to add to my growing disgust!

  4. betsyboss

    Ha! No, we certainly don’t see eye-to-eye on the ACLU. Our federal government certainly does not endorse any religion; however, this country never has been and never will be atheist. For the ACLU ilk to wish to not only erase this country’s spiritual history (GASP! There’s a 200 year old 10 Commandments display in a tiny, southern courthouse!!) but also to drive a spiritually diverse and dynamic country into some phoney facade of atheism so as to spare the “discomfort” or whatever to whoever is meaningless garbage. It is a group with an agenda, hardly an unbiased watchdog of the people.

    As for this particular case, it has the potential to create a very unnecessary, very slippery slope. I pray that the Supreme Court recognizes this. Oh shit. Sorry to anyone I may have just made uncomfortable. Sue me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s