Don't Use Progressive Insurance

Their name, "Progressive" gives them away. From an email I received today...



I knew there was something I didn't like about their commercials!

May be verified on www.snopes.com

This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. They're the ones with the clever television ads featuring the perky brunette actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the largest funders of the left in America . He's your typical rich spoiled kid who took over the company from his father and apparently feels "guilty" for his success and now dedicates himself to making it impossible for anyone else to become wealthy.

Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what's left of America 's Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, Lewis is himself an ACLU member. One of the ACLU projects he earmarked his funds for was an effort to sue school districts who have drug testing policies. In other words, this idiot wants teachers to be able to use drugs without fear of exposure. I wonder what he would think if all his own employees came to work drugged out every day.

Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key components of the socialist left. The former group is perhaps the main group used by the Obama forces to organize their activists; the latter group is a 527 political action group that essentially served as a front for the SEIU union thugs who ran ACORN. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the international socialist who finances much of the Obama political network.

It's disturbing that Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the free enterprise system. He reminds me somewhat of Armand Hammer, the former head of Occidental Petroleum who did business with Joseph Stalin and become his good friend, around the same time Stalin was executing businessmen all over the USSR .

What angers me further is the way this company is targeting television shows watched by conservatives such as Fox News. Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans so that he can destroy our country. He's banking on no one finding out who he is. I think it's time we expose this clown.

So true!

First off Progressive insurance is so fucking expensive i don't know who the hell would want it anyway, fuck that company, and fuck them again for 'Flo' i want to punch a hole in my tv everytime i see that retarded commercial....

As far as funneling money into the ACLU, you seem to forget that the ACLU is one of the few groups that is actively doing good things to protect the citizens from the government's infringement on our rights, and liberties. I don't understand why the right wingers want to bash the ACLU, they don't care about destroying religion, in fact in many cases they have protected peoples rights regarding religion. They are more concerned about protecting the people from the government than anything else.

the group most responsible for destroying what's left of America 's Judeo-Christian heritage.

Click to expand...

Here are 4 examples that i came up with in about 15 seconds of searching:

The ACLU has supported the Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School

The ACLU has intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian who had wanted to put a Bible passage in her yearbook entry

The ACLU of Nebraska has defended a Church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today asked the state Supreme Court to hear the case of a Catholic man who was criminally punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program

Judeo-Christian 'Heritage' if you want to call it that, is being eroded because more and more people are educating themselves in the fields of science, common sense, and reality, and are coming to terms with that fact that what most religions preach is, excuse my bluntness, complete and utter bullshit, as are most of the developed and educated countries of the world. And once again, this country was not founded as a Judeo-Christian sanctuary, the founder fathers were strict Secularists
sec?u?lar?ism (s k y -l -r z m)n.1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.



'Religious Heritage' is crumbling on it's own, the ACLU doesn't need to help it, just as witch-doctory was replaced with scientific medicine.


As a Libertarian I am grateful for organizations like the ACLU who have the time and money to stand up for the people that can't do it on their own, and create case law that protects all of our rights. They are usually pretty much right on in the battles they choose. :thumbsup

The ACLU, real scumbags


The Most Important United States Supreme Court Victories Involving The ACLU, Either As Direct Counsel Or As A Friend-Of-The-Court.

1920s

1925 Gitlow v. New York Our first Supreme Court landmark. Though upholding the defendant's conviction for distributing his call to overthrow the government, the Court held, for the first time, that the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the free speech clause of the First Amendment and is, therefore, applicable to the states.

1927 Whitney v. California Though the Court upheld a conviction for membership in a group that advocated the overthrow of the state, Justice Brandeis explained, in a separate opinion, that under the "clear and present danger test" the strong presumption must be in favor of "more speech, not enforced silence." That view, which ultimately prevailed, laid the groundwork for modern First Amendment law.

1930s

1931 Stromberg v. California The ACLU argued successfully that the conviction of a communist for displaying a red flag should be overturned because it was based on a state law that was overly vague, in violation of the First Amendment.

1932 Powell v. Alabama This first of the "Scottsboro" cases to reach the high Court resulted in the decision that eight African Americans accused of raping two white women lacked effective counsel at their trial -- a denial of due process. For the first time, in this case, constitutional standards were applied to state criminal proceedings.

1935 Patterson v. Alabama In this second "Scottsboro" decision, the Court sent the defendant's case back to state court on the ground that he had been denied a fair trial by the exclusion of African Americans from the jury list.

1937 DeJonge v. Oregon A landmark First Amendment case, in which the Court held that the defendant's conviction under a state criminal syndicalism statute merely for attending a peaceful Communist Party rally violated his free speech rights.

1938 Lovell v. Griffin The Court held, in this case involving Jehovah's Witnesses, that a local ordinance in Georgia prohibiting the distribution of "literature of any kind" without a City Manager's permit, violated the First Amendment.

1939 Hague v. CIO An important First Amendment case in which the Court recognized a broad freedom to assemble in public forums, such as "streets and parks," by invalidating the repressive actions of Jersey City's anti-union Mayor, "Boss" Hague.

1940s

1941 Edwards v. California In this major victory for poor people's right to travel from one state to another, the Court struck down an "anti- Okie" law that made it a crime to transport indigents into California.

1943 West Virginia v. Barnette A groundbreaking decision, made more resonant by its issuance in wartime. The Court championed religious liberty with its holding that a state could not force Jehovah's Witness children to salute the American flag.

1944 Smith v. Allwright An early civil rights victory that invalidated, under the Fifteenth Amendment, the intentional exclusion of African Americans from Texas' "white primary" on the ground that primaries are central to the electoral process even though the Democratic Party is a private organization.

1946 Hannegan v. Esquire A major blow against censorship. The Court severely limited the Postmaster General's power to withhold mailing privileges for allegedly "offensive" material.

1947 Everson v. Board of Education A trailblazer: The Court found school boards' reimbursement of the public transportation costs incurred by parents whose children attended parochial schools constitutional, but Justice Black's statement -- "In the words of Jefferson, the clause...was intended to erect a `wall of separation between church and State'..." -- was the Court's first major utterance on the meaning of Establishment Clause.

1948 Shelley v. Kraemer An important civil rights decision that invalidated restrictive covenants -- contractual agreements between white homeowners in a residential area barring the sale of houses to black people.

1949 Terminiello v. Chicago Protection for offensive speech expanded with the Court's exoneration of an ex-priest convicted of disorderly conduct for giving a racist, anti-semitic speech that "invited dispute." Justice William O. Douglas, for the Court, noted that "the function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute."

1950s

1952 Rochin v. California Reversing the conviction of a man whose stomach had been forcibly pumped for drugs by a doctor at the behest of police, the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause outlaws "conduct that shocks the conscience."

1952 Burstyn v. Wilson Artistic freedom triumphed when the Court overruled its 1915 holding that movies "are a business, pure and simple," and decided that New York State's refusal to license "The Miracle" violated the First Amendment. The state censor had labeled the film "sacrilegious."

1954 Brown v. Board of Education In perhaps the most far-reaching decision of this century, the Court declared racially segregated schools unconstitutional and overruled the "separate but equal" doctrine announced in its infamous 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.

1957 Watkins v. United States Under the First Amendment, the Court imposed limits on the investigative powers of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, which had found a labor leader in contempt for refusing to answer questions about his associates' membership in the Communist Party.

1958 Kent v. Dulles The Court ruled that the State Department had exceeded its authority in denying artist Rockwell Kent a passport because he refused to sign a "noncommunist affidavit." The right to travel, said the Court, is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

1958 Speiser v. Randall Arguing before the Court on his own behalf, ACLU lawyer Lawrence Speiser won his challenge to a California law requiring that veterans sign a loyalty oath to qualify for a property tax exemption.

1958 Trop v. Dulles An American stripped of his citizenship for being a deserter in World War II suffered cruel and unusual punishment, said the Court, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

1960s

1961 Mapp v. Ohio A landmark, in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's Exclusionary Rule, first applied to federal law enforcement officers in 1914, applied to state and local police as well.

1961 Poe v. Ullman Though unsuccessful, this challenge to Connecticut's ban on contraceptive sales set the stage for the Griswold decision of 1965. In a 33-page dissent, Justice John Harlan argued that the challenged law was "an intolerable invasion of privacy in the conduct of one of the most intimate concerns of an individual's private life."

1962 Engel v. Vitale In an 8-1 decision, the Court struck down the New York State Regent's "nondenominational" school prayer, holding that "It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers."

1963 Abingdon School District v. Schempp Building on Engel in another 8- 1 decision, the Court struck down Pennsylvania's in-school Bible-reading law as a violation of the First Amendment.

1963 Gideon v. Wainwright An indigent drifter from Florida made history when, in a handwritten petition, he persuaded the Court that poor people had the right to a state-appointed lawyer in criminal cases.

1964 Escobedo v. Illinois Invoking the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Court threw out the confession of a man whose repeated requests to see his lawyer, throughout many hours of police interrogation, were ignored.

1964 New York Times v. Sullivan A victory for freedom of the press. Public officials could not recover damages for defamation, ruled the Court, unless they could prove that a newspaper had impugned them with "actual malice." A city commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, had sued over publication of a full-page ad written by civil rights activists.

1964 Jacobellis v. Ohio Justice Potter Stewart's famous statement, that although he could not define "obscenity," he "knew it when he saw it," crowned the Court's overturning of a cinema owner's conviction for showing "The Lovers," by Louis Malle.

1964 Reynolds v. Sims An historic civil rights decision that applied the "one person, one vote" formula to state legislative districts, and that was regarded by Chief Justice Earl Warren to be the most important decision rendered during his tenure.

1965 U.S. v. Seeger In one of the first anti-Vietnam War decisions, the Court extended conscientious objector status to those who do not necessarily believe in a supreme being, but who oppose war based on sincere beliefs that are equivalent to religious faith.

1965 Lamont v. Postmaster General A unanimous Court found unconstitutional, under the First Amendment, a challenged Cold War law that required the Postermaster General to detain and destroy all unsealed mail from abroad deemed to be "communist political propaganda" -- unless the addressee requested delivery in writing.

1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Among the 20th century's most influential decisions. It invalidated a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives on the ground that a right of "marital privacy," though not specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, is protected by "several fundamental constitutional guarantees."

1966 Miranda v. Arizona This famous decision established the "Miranda warnings," a requirement that the police, before interrogating suspects, must inform them of their rights. The Court embraced the ACLU's amicus argument that a suspect in custody has both a Sixth Amendment right to counsel and a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

1966 Bond v. Floyd The Court ordered Georgia's legislature to seat the duly elected state senator, Julian Bond, a civil rights activist denied his seat for publicly supporting Vietnam War draft resisters. Criticizing U.S. foreign policy, said the Court, does not violate a legislator's oath to uphold the Constitution.

1967 Keyishian v. Board of Regents A Cold War-inspired law, requiring New York public school teachers to sign a loyalty oath, fell as a violation of the First Amendment. The decision, capping off a series of unsuccessful challenges to both federal and state loyalty and security programs, rejected the doctrine that public employment is a "privilege" to which government can attach whatever conditions it pleased.

1967 In re Gault The most important landmark for juveniles, it established specific due process requirements for state delinquency proceedings and stated, for the first time, the broad principle that young persons have constitutional rights.

1967 Loving v. Virginia A civil rights landmark that invalidated the anti-miscegination laws of Virginia and 15 other southern states. The Court ruled that criminal bans on interracial marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and "the freedom to marry," which the Court called "one of the basic civil rights of man"(sic).

1968 Epperson v. Arkansas The Court ruled that Arkansas had violated the First Amendment, which forbids official religion, with its ban on teaching "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals."

1968 Levy v. Louisiana The Court invalidated a state law that denied an illegitimate child the right to recover damages for a parent's death. The ruling established the principle that the accidental circumstance of a child's birth does not justify denials of rights.

1968 King v. Smith The court invalidated a "man in the house" rule that denied welfare to children whose mother was living with a man, unmarried. The decision benefited an estimated 500,000 poor children, who had previously been excluded from aid.

1968 Washington v. Lee Alabama statutes requiring racial segregation in the state's prisons and jails were declared unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio After the ACLU's 50-year struggle against laws punishing political advocacy, the Court now adopted our view of the First Amendment -- that the government could only penalize direct incitement to imminent lawless action -- and invalidated, in one fell swoop, the Smith Act and all state sedition laws restricting radical political groups.

1969 Tinker v. Des Moines A landmark lift for symbolic speech and students' rights. The Court invalidated the suspension of public school students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, writing that students did not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

1970s

1970 Goldberg v. Kelly Setting in motion what has been called the "procedural due process revolution," the Court ruled that welfare recipients were entitled to notice and a hearing before the state could terminate their benefits.

1971 Cohen v. California Reversed the conviction of a man who allegedly disturbed the peace by wearing a jacket that bore the words, "Fuck the draft," while walking through a courthouse corridor. The Court rejected the notion that the state can prohibit speech just because it is "offensive." 1971 U.S. v. New York Times The Pentagon Papers, a landmark among prior restraint cases. The leaking of the Papers to the press for publication by Daniel Ellsberg, a former Defense Department official, did not, said the Court, justify an injunction against publication on national security grounds.

1971 Reed v. Reed A breakthrough women's rights decision that struck down a state law giving automatic preference to men over women as administrators of decedents' estates. For the first time, the Court ruled that sex-based -- like race-based -- classifactions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

1971 U.S. v. Vuitch The Court's first abortion rights case, involving a doctor's appeal of his conviction for performing an illegal abortion. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to convict, but expanded the "life and health of the woman" concept to include psychological well-being, and ruled that the prosecution must prove the abortion was not necessary for a woman's physical or mental health.

1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird Extending Griswold, this decision overturned the conviction of a reproductive rights activist who had given an unmarried woman in Massachusetts a contraceptive device. The Court held that allowing distribution of contraceptives to married, but not unmarried, people violated the Equal Protection Clause.

1972 Furman v. Georgia In this seminal case, the Court found that the "arbitrary and capricious" application of state death penalty statutes violated the Eighth Amendment's stricture against cruel and unusual punishment. Hundreds of executions were held up while states tried to fashion new laws that would pass constitutional muster.

1973 Frontiero v. Richardson Another victory for women's rights. The Court struck down a federal law that would not permit a woman in the armed forces to claim her husband as a "dependent" unless he depended on her for more than half of his support, while a serviceman could claim "dependent" status for his wife regardless of actual dependency.

1973 Holtzman v. Schlesinger A dramatic lawsuit, brought by the ACLU for a New York congresswoman, to halt the bombing of Cambodia as an unconstitutional Presidential usurpation of Congress's authority to declare war. After a federal order to stop the bombing was stayed on appeal, the ACLU sent a lawyer across country to the remote vacation hideaway of Justice William O. Douglas -- who vacated the stay and, though later overruled, succeeded in halting the bombing for a few hours.

1973 Roe v. Wade/ Doe v. Bolton One of the Court's most significant decisions, Roe erased all existing criminal abortion laws and recognized a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. In Doe, the companion case, the Court ruled that whether an abortion is "necessary" is the attending physician's call, to be made in light of all factors relevant to a woman's well-being.

1974 U.S. v. Nixon This test of Presidential power involved Nixon's effort to withhold crucial Watergate tapes from Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. In the only amicus brief filed, the ACLU argued: "There is no proposition more dangerous to the health of a constitutional democracy than the notion that an elected head of state is above the law and beyond the reach of judicial review." The Court agreed and ordered the tapes handed over.

1975 Goss v. Lopez A victory for students' rights that invalidated a state law authorizing a public school principal to suspend a student for up to ten days without a hearing. The Court ruled that students are entitled to notice and a hearing before a significant disciplinary action can be taken against them.

1975 O'Connor v. Donaldson The Court's first ruling on the rights of mental patients supported a non-violent man who had been confined against his will in a state hospital for 15 years. Mental illness alone, said the Court, could not justify "simple custodial confinement" on an indefinite basis.

1976 Buckley v. Valeo Freedom of speech and association won a partial victory in this challenge to the limits on campaign spending imposed by amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act. The Court struck down the Act's restrictions on spending "relative to a candidate," and its required disclosure of $100-plus political contributions.

1978 Smith v. Collin The peculiar facts of this, one of the ACLU's most controversial First Amendment lawsuits ever, attracted enormous attention: American Nazis wanted to march through a Chicago suburb, Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The ACLU's challenge to the village's ban on the march was ultimately upheld.

1978 In re Primus An ACLU cooperating attorney -- a sharecropper's daughter and the first black woman to finish the University of South Carolina Law School -- was reprimanded for "improper solicitation" by the state supreme court after she encouraged some poor women to challenge the state's sterilization of welfare recipients. Exonerating her, the high Court distinguished between lawyers who solicit "for pecuniary gain"and those who solicit to "further political and ideological goals through associational activity."

1980s

1980 Prune Yard Shopping Center v. Robins A victory for freedom of expression. The Court rejected shopping mall owners' claim that their property rights compelled reversal of the California Supreme Court's requirement that a shopping center allow distribution of political pamphlets on its premises.

1983 Bob Jones University v. United States The Court rejected two fundamentalist Christian schools' claim, supported by the Reagan Justice Department, that the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty forbade the denial of income tax exemptions to educational and religious institutions that practice racial discrimination. Instead, the Court held that the IRS is empowered to set rules enforcing a "settled public policy" against racial discrimination in education.

1985 Wallace v. Jaffree This important church-state separation decision found Alabama's "moment of silence" law, which required public school children to take a moment "for meditation or voluntary prayer," in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

1989 Texas v. Johnson This First Amendment invalidation of the Texas flag desecration statute provoked the newly inaugurated George Bush to propose a federal ban on flag burning ormutilation. Congress swiftly obliged, but the Court struck down the law a year later in United States v. Eichman -- in which the ACLU also filed a brief. Both rulings were big victories for symbolic political speech.

1990s

1990 Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health The Court's first "right-to-die" case, in which the ACLU represented the family of a woman who had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than seven years. Although the Court did not go as far as the ACLU urged, it did recognize living wills as clear and convincing evidence of a patient's wishes.

1992 R.A.V. v. Wisconsin An important First Amendment victory.A unanimous Court struck down a local law banning the display, on public or private property, of any symbol "that arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey A critical, though less than total, victory for reproductive freedom. While upholding parts of Pennsylvania's abortion restriction, the Court also reaffirmed the "central holding" of Roe v. Wade: that abortions performed prior to viability cannot be criminalized.

1992 Lee v. Weisman The Court ruled that any officially-sanctioned prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause.

1992 Hudson v. McMillian The Court upheld a Louisiana prisoner's claim that three corrections officers had violated his Eighth Amendment right to be spared cruel and unusual punishment by beating him while he was shackled and handcuffed. The Court held that the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain is an appropriate standard in prisoners' Eighth Amendment cases.

1993 J.E.B. v. T.B. In this women's rights victory, the Court held that a prosecutor could not use peremptory challenges to disqualify potential jurors based on their gender.

1993 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah A religious freedom victory for unusual, minority religions. The Court held that local ordinances adopted by the City of Hialeah, banning the ritual slaughter of animals as practiced by the Santeria religion, but permitting such secular activities as hunting and fishing, violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

1993 Wisconsin v. Mitchell The Court agreed with the ACLU that Wisconsin's "hate crime" statute, providing for additional criminal penalties if a jury found that a defendant "intentionally selected" a victim based on "race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry," did not violate the First Amendment because the statute punished racist acts, not racist thoughts.

1994 Ladue v. Gilleo Unanimously, the Court struck down an Ohio town's ordinance that had barred a homeowner from posting a sign in her bedroom window that said, "Say No to War in the Gulf -- Call Congress Now!"

1995 Lebron v. Amtrak Extended the First Amendment to corporations created by, and under the control of, the government in the case of an artist who argued successfully that Amtrak had been wrong to reject his billboard display because of its political message.

While all that is also true, the bs they jump on and support tarnishes their image bigtime.

The old "one oops wipes out a 100 atta boys"

A nice little example, the ACLU does not belive it should be illegal to posses child porn! Tis is from their site:

The ACLU does not support pornography or child porn. However, we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing certain books or films, even pornographic ones, should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring ?bad or offensive? ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. As the saying goes, ?one man?s art is another man?s pornography.? As for child pornography, the ACLU supports the right of the government to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors.


And:

The ACLU has often been criticized for “ignoring the Second Amendment” and refusing to fight for the individual’s right to own a gun or other weapons. The ACLU, however, has not ignored this issue. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times. We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

Do you want a doctor or dentist who is HIV positive working on you? Do you think it's your right to know? The ACLU say's it's more important to keep HIV positive docs working than to tell you.

From the ACLU:
The ACLU supports increased AIDS treatment programs and education about AIDS. In the case of doctors and dentists, the ACLU supports rigorous standards for disease control in handling medical equipment. That is what prevents the spread of AIDS. The ACLU opposes forced testing of people for AIDS as unnecessary, wasteful of scarce resources, and of extremely limited public health value. Force testing of doctors and dentists for AIDS will be used to discriminate against HIV-positive doctors and dentists. It feeds public hysteria about the disease without working to halt its spread.

This one is hilarious!

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...r_nose_ring_worn_for_body_modification_relig/

The ACLU also supports the wearing of a mask on your photo id in the name of religious freedom! LOL

LiveLeak.com - ACLU Supports Burkas And Veils In Photo ID's.

Dave Wettlaufer said:

Do you want a doctor or dentist who is HIV positive working on you? Do you think it's your right to know? The ACLU say's it's more important to keep HIV positive docs working than to tell you.

From the ACLU:
The ACLU supports increased AIDS treatment programs and education about AIDS. In the case of doctors and dentists, the ACLU supports rigorous standards for disease control in handling medical equipment. That is what prevents the spread of AIDS. The ACLU opposes forced testing of people for AIDS as unnecessary, wasteful of scarce resources, and of extremely limited public health value. Force testing of doctors and dentists for AIDS will be used to discriminate against HIV-positive doctors and dentists. It feeds public hysteria about the disease without working to halt its spread.

Click to expand...

More people have gotten HIV from blood transfusions than directly by a doctor BY FAR, in fact i'd be willing to go as far as to say that you can't find one case where a docotor that is HIV+ has infected a patient. believe it or not, it's actually not easy to contract HIV, it has to be full blown blood to blood, and as for sexual contact it's still difficult for a man to catch during conventional sex with an infected woman, however the vice versa is not true, an infected man has a much better chance of spreading the disease to woman, this is because the virus has to get "inside" the body to porous tissue to make it into the bloodstream. When have you ever seen or heard of a doctor with a cut and bleeding hand working on a patient EVER?????



They are against testing because they are against publishing of any list of anyone's private medical records, and i have no problem with that. What if doctors refused to work on patients that had HIV for fear of catching it? it's an irrational argument. Because the virus is much more difficult to catch than the public thinks.

OK, so you don't have a problem with an HIV pos doc workin on ya, I do.

What about the other stuff I posted?

ACLU Supports Burkas And Veils In Photo ID's.

CLOSE [X]
A Florida judge rejected a woman's request to have her face covered by a veil in the photograph on her state driver's license, siding with the state Friday that a favorable ruling could be exploited by terrorists.
-
The 18-page ruling was issued in Orlando.

"Although the court acknowledges that plaintiff herself most likely poses no threat to national security, there likely are people who would be willing to use a ruling permitting the wearing of full-face cloaks in driver's license photos by pretending to ascribe to religious beliefs in order to carry out activities that would threaten lives," Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe said in her ruling.

Sultaana Freeman, a Muslim, had testified that a state order requesting that she remove her veil -- a hijab, which covers all of her face except her eyes -- infringed upon her right to observe her religion, to which she converted in 1997.

Her attorney, Howard Marks, vowed to appeal the ruling.

"This is just round one in a long legal battle," Marks said. "Obviously, we're quite disappointed with the ruling."

Freeman, wearing a black hijab, refused to comment to reporters. Her husband, Abdul-Maalik Freeman, said his wife would fight the decision.

"She's not lifting the veil. This is a religious principle," he told CNN-affiliate WKMG. "We don't quit. We have a no-quit attitude. We're doing it the appropriate way. We're not doing it the malicious way, the vicious way. We're doing it through the court system."

-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
ACLU: "Ruling counter to religious freedom"
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------

Thorpe ruled that though Freeman held a sincere religious belief that she should wear the hijab in front of all strangers, she did not prove that "the photo requirement itself substantially burdens her right to free exercise of religion" or that the momentarily lifting the veil in a private room for a photo taken by a female officer would be such a burden.

On the other hand, the judge said in the ruling, the state did show that "having access to photo image identification is essential to promote" the state's "compelling interest in protecting the public."

Freeman initially was allowed to wear a veil in her driver's license photograph, as she was allowed to do for a license she got while living in Illinois, but was asked to retake the photo to show her face. When she refused, the state revoked her license.

Lawyers for the state argued that the case touched on public safety issues, saying a driver's license showing only a covered face would hinder law enforcement officials.

State Attorney General Charlie Crist praised the ruling.

"Judge Thorpe clearly made the correct decision," he said in a written release. "While we are respectful of any person's religious practices, this case was solely about safety and security. It was not about religious freedom nor the right to pursue happiness, but instead the privilege to drive a car."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida expressed concern.

"The government's tendency in the aftermath of September 11th has been to restrict numerous freedoms merely for the sake of restricting liberty, rather than to make us truly safer," Florida ACLU Executive Director Howard Simon said in a written release.

"Today's ruling runs counter to the most basic principles of religious freedom that give everyone -- including members of minority religious communities as well as majority Christian faiths -- the right to practice and worship as they choose."

Freeman's attorneys had argued that state officials didn't care that she wore a veil in her Florida driver's license photo until after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- an allegation the state denies, The Associated Press reported.

Freeman was photographed without a veil after she was arrested in 1998 on a domestic battery charge, AP reported.

She and her husband cited religious reasons for hindering child welfare workers who tried to look for bruises on two twin girls Freeman and her husband were fostering, the child agency workers told investigators, according to police records quoted by AP. Authorities removed the children from the home.

How can she drive with a friggin halloween mask on?

Dave Wettlaufer said:

This one is hilarious!

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...r_nose_ring_worn_for_body_modification_relig/

The ACLU also supports the wearing of a mask on your photo id in the name of religious freedom! LOL

LiveLeak.com - ACLU Supports Burkas And Veils In Photo ID's.

Click to expand...

Well Dave, the Church of Body Modification is in fact a full fledged, federally recognized, tax exempt, religious institution so the ACLU is not supporting or defending the actual wearing of nose rings to school, but rather defending the rights of the members of a Bonafide religion to follow their beliefs in public.... So in the eyes of the law a nose ring is no different than a necklace or earings with a Christian cross, or star of David.... Does that makes sense? One religion can't be given any special treatment over another....

It's not about the actual case at hand, it's about defend the laws so that they can't be bent further down the road with unintended consequences.....

Dave Wettlaufer said:

OK, so you don't have a problem with an HIV pos doc workin on ya, I do.

What about the other stuff I posted?

Click to expand...

Well you have the right to ask your doctor if he is HIV positive before he works on you, you also have the right to state that you don't want anyone that is HIV positive working on you, and as a patients right that has to be respected. So you are already protected and there is no reason to have special laws for such specific scenarios. :thumbsup

Look, I'm not stupid. I know how to read. I just find it ridiculous.
They are most likely using this angle to get over, but even if it's legit it should not be needed. Who gives a damn what jewelery someone wear's? Why not fight it on a legitimate basis or common sense instead of a silly made up religion? Should all people with piercings and ink be contacting the ACLU because their employer's have them remove their piercings or cover their ink while they're working?


From that "religion":
Statement of Faith

As followers of this faith, it is our purpose to educate and inspire, to share ideas, and to help each other achieve our dreams. We strive to unify and strengthen our mind, body, and soul so we can overcome any challenges we may encounter. We assert and protect our rights to modify our bodies and to practice our rituals.

We believe our bodies belong only to ourselves and are a whole and integrated entity: mind, body, and soul. We maintain we have the right to alter them for spiritual and other reasons.

Affirmation of our living, breathing, physical beings is paramount to our self-identities and helps us define who we are. The Church of Body Modification promotes affirmation and growth of a more expansive perspective of our physical and spiritual being.

Nothing in that requires religious protection. There is nothing illegal in it.
It's like they are forced to use religion to be granted the right to have ink and piercings.

Racey said:

Well you have the right to ask your doctor if he is HIV positive before he works on you, you also have the right to state that you don't want anyone that is HIV positive working on you, and as a patients right that has to be respected. So you are already protected and there is no reason to have special laws for such specific scenarios. :thumbsup

Click to expand...

I guess I see a bit of irony that a doc or dentist is not required to have an HIV test yet a stock clerk at Target needs to be tested for drugs.

What about MoveOn.org? Nothing but a far left power group!
http://www.moveon.org/

or ACORN and the SEIU? None of these groups are good for the USA. I admit that not everything the ACLU does is negative but what about ACORN and the SEIU?

or NAMBLA!?!?

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Rage/NAMBLARAGEPAGE.html

Dave Wettlaufer said:

What about MoveOn.org? Nothing but a far left power group!
http://www.moveon.org/

or ACORN and the SEIU? None of these groups are good for the USA. I admit that not everything the ACLU does is negative but what about ACORN and the SEIU?

or NAMBLA!?!?

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Rage/NAMBLARAGEPAGE.html

Click to expand...

I already said Progressive was a piece of shit company in my opinion

I was only defending the ACLU, not anything else, and that in my opinion the fact that Progressive's head donates to them actually slightly raises their status in my eyes, it doesn't detract from it.

Moveon.org, ACORN, SEIU, i don't give two shits about any of those dipshits :thumbsdown


As for the NAMBLA Suit, it's once again off target, it would be no different than the ACLU defending the Ku Klux Klan or The Black Panthers every time white on black crime took place that had no direct tangible link to those organizations. Both of those organizations may be pieces of shiz with a z, but that doesn't mean they are responsible every time white on black or black on white crime takes place

lol.....sorry...you know how I get! lol

Dave Wettlaufer said:

lol.....sorry...you know how I get! lol

Click to expand...

:champagne: All good brother :thumbsup

rant, rant, rant :blah:

An ACLU lover - good grief!

There are so many reasons to hate the ACLU it's hard to know where to start. The ACLU:

* Defends our enemies (numerous times, continuously)
* Is against the AZ immigration law
* Is in favor of abortion
* Is in favor of euthanasia
* Is against the death penalty (it's OK to kill babies & ill people but not criminals)
* Works against national security
* Fights the 2nd amendment
* Advocates open borders

The list goes on and on.

The good news for you ACLU lovers is they have a HUGE war chest (cash reserves) - much of it comes from donations but a significant amount comes from the federal goverment when they win cases OUR money is used to pay the ACLU.

Do some research and learn about what the ACLU has done and is doing.

And while you're at it check out this group: The Alliance Defense Fund. The ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and direct litigation. We defend Our First Liberty – religious freedom – by empowering our allies, recognizing that together we can accomplish far more than we can alone.

MMD said:

An ACLU lover - good grief!

There are so many reasons to hate the ACLU it's hard to know where to start. The ACLU:

* Defends our enemies (numerous times, continuously)

Click to expand...

I'm for every accused person getting the best defense they can, everyone deserves a fair chance and a democratic trial

* Is against the AZ immigration law

Click to expand...

In the sense of the "vhere are your papers" police state slope

* Is in favor of abortion

Click to expand...

Me too.

* Is in favor of euthanasia

Click to expand...

Me too. DOUBLE TIME!

* Is against the death penalty (it's OK to kill babies & ill people but not criminals)

Click to expand...

Ok, I'm with you on this, even though it's a pretty minor issue (106 new death sentences handed down in 2009)

* Works against national security

Click to expand...

You know who else had great national security? Communist China and the USSR.

* Fights the 2nd amendment

Click to expand...

Not really. They have no active role in 2nd amendment issues, end of story, they have determined it to be
"The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_...law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

* Advocates open borders

Click to expand...

When you say open borders it sounds like they are for tearing down the fences and literally opening up the borders, with the ACLU 'Open Border' refers to illegal search and seizure at the border, no different than any other law enforcement agencies right to search and seizure.

The list goes on and on.

The good news for you ACLU lovers is they have a HUGE war chest (cash reserves) - much of it comes from donations but a significant amount comes from the federal goverment when they win cases OUR money is used to pay the ACLU.

Click to expand...

Yeah exactly the plaintiff or prosecution is required to pay for the defense/legal counsel of the prosecuted in certain types of cases, the government can bring charges against someone and literally bankrupt them and if they win or not the person's life is over (a certain case comes to mind that i posted a few days ago) so you are god damned right they better pay up if they bring a weak case against someone. Think twice before you start busting out frivolous prosecutions

Do some research and learn about what the ACLU has done and is doing.

And while you're at it check out this group: The Alliance Defense Fund. The ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and direct litigation. We defend Our First Liberty ? religious freedom ? by empowering our allies, recognizing that together we can accomplish far more than we can alone.

Click to expand...

ADF? aren't they the religious cooks that are going all haywire fighting against gay/lesbian marriage and rights? Yeah I could pretty much care less about them..... gay and lesbian marriage is about the furthest thing from my mind, let them have their right to marry, there are way more important issues to stand up against in this time of ever more present government involvement in our personal lives.

The ACLU can claim they don't take a stance on guns but in fact they do.

"The ACLU has often been criticized for ?ignoring the Second Amendment? and refusing to fight for the individual?s right to own a gun or other weapons. The ACLU, however, has not ignored this issue. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times. We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today?s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

So, according to the ACLU the 2nd amendment applies to states and not individuals because we have really badass weapons now?

Maybe they think it's the Bill of States Rights!

Dave Wettlaufer said:

The ACLU can claim they don't take a stance on guns but in fact they do.

"The ACLU has often been criticized for ?ignoring the Second Amendment? and refusing to fight for the individual?s right to own a gun or other weapons. The ACLU, however, has not ignored this issue. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times. We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today?s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

So, according to the ACLU the 2nd amendment applies to states and not individuals because we have really badass weapons now?

Maybe they think it's the Bill of States Rights!

Click to expand...

Yes Dave, i do not agree with their view on the 2nd amendment, but if you read their statement, and look at any and all case history, they do not take an active role in 2nd amendment issues, they don't try cases dealing with 2nd amendment, they do not get involved, they do not feel that they fall under the scope of civil liberties (thankfully).....

:boobeyes:

Where are your papers?? Hell, we all must produce "papers" anytime we're stopped...License, registration, and proof of insurance....So how is asking an illegal for "papers" any different???..... That one won't fly at all......

Ray