« Nagin Has Good News and Bad News For Bush | Main | Golden Globe Award For Terrorist Propaganda »

Thanks for the links. Scary organizations fighting America from within isn't it?

Van Helsing,

A good place to start would be to overturn the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act of 1976, where the ACLU gets reimbursed by the taxpayer for the anti- American activities.

"A good place to start would be to overturn the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act of 1976, where the ACLU gets reimbursed by the taxpayer for the anti- American activities."

Dear MG3: Here's 42 USC s.1988:

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

(a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.
(b) Attorney's fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.
(c) Expert fees
In awarding an attorney's fee under subsection (b) of this
section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of
section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion,
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.

Please point out the section that requires the taxpayers to subsidize fees...

mojo sends

"A good place to start would be to overturn the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act of 1976, where the ACLU gets reimbursed by the taxpayer for the anti- American activities."

Dear MG3: Here's 42 USC s.1988:

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

(a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.
(b) Attorney's fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.
(c) Expert fees
In awarding an attorney's fee under subsection (b) of this
section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of
section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion,
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.

Please point out the section that requires the taxpayers to subsidize fees...

mojo sends

"A good place to start would be to overturn the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act of 1976, where the ACLU gets reimbursed by the taxpayer for the anti- American activities."

Dear MG3: Here's 42 USC s.1988:

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

(a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.
(b) Attorney's fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.
(c) Expert fees
In awarding an attorney's fee under subsection (b) of this
section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of
section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion,
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.

Please point out the section that requires the taxpayers to subsidize fees...

mojo sends

Wow... sorry about the triple post. I am not sure why you're comment section glitched like that.

But back to the topic at hand...

VanHelsing, you specifically state: "...based on this organization's attempt to defend us from future 9/11s by monitoring communications between people in this country and overseas terrorists."

How do you know they are monitoring terrorists?

mojo sends

nomojo:

Didn't read a single word you wrote. All I know is it's another confirmation you're a loser. Get a life.

It'd have been a great program -- if they spied on terrorists. But the FBI is even complaining about how poorly the program was run, how not a single terrorist was ever targeted, and how it wasted valuable resources in the war on terror.

That's the FBI saying that -- not the left.

Didn't read a single word you wrote. All I know is it's another confirmation you're a loser. Get a life.

I have a life...pretty good one, too.

But let's get back to the topic. I'll make this easy...

1. How do you know they're targeting terrorists?

2. Where in 42 USC §1988 does it require the taxpayers to subsidize lawyers?

How typical is it that you twinks run this kind of ignorant smack, but can't back it up when someone asks even a rudimentary question...

mojo sends

vanojo,

Show me in my post where I used the word "require". The fact is the ACLU has access to and has accessed taxpayer funds for their anti-American activities.

Glad to see your post's don't have even a hint of narcissistic arrogance. (rolling eyes)

"Show me in my post where I used the word "require". The fact is the ACLU has access to and has accessed taxpayer funds for their anti-American activities."

Sure, so did not use the word "require." My bad. However, I would then ask why you are whinging about 42 USC §1988? You are the one who brought it up, not me...

Next, it is not a fact that the ACLU is engaged in "anti-American" activities," but I suspect you care little for that. And to the extent they are eligible for some compensation from whatever source (and I am still not sure what source you are talking about), then it is something that any other law firm would be entitled to.

But I suspect you might be complaining about the Legal Aid Corporation, a government chartered company, that exists to provide legal assistance to the poor and indigent.

Yeah, it makes sense people here would be angry that the less fortuante would have access to the court system... arrgghh, the angst you must be feeling...

mojo sends

vanmojo,

Having done a lot of volunteer work for the poor, the indigent, for kids with special needs, etc., I'm curious how you can just make the leap that I would be against such a thing. Methinks you're projecting angst there, mojo.

As for the ACLU, well, let me see......
Founded by a communist, is against any security measure our country has in place to combat terrorism, is promoting a secular progressive society (supports NAMBLA, tries to prohibit any mention of religion in the public arena, etc.) You get the idea.

If you are a secular progressive, then you are not a traditionalist. A traditionalist is one who supports and promotes America the way it was founded and how it was intended to be. In other words, a true American. If you oppose that ideal, you are by definition anti-American. It really is pretty simple, but I suspect you care little for logic.

What the heck is whinging?

MG3 said:

"As for the ACLU, well, let me see......
Founded by a communist, is against any security measure our country has in place to combat terrorism, is promoting a secular progressive society (supports NAMBLA, tries to prohibit any mention of religion in the public arena, etc.) You get the idea."

First, you present nary a scintilla of evidence to support your contentions that the ACLU was founded by a communist or is "against terrorism."

But that is not that troubling. What is troubling is your assertion that:

"If you are a secular progressive, then you are not a traditionalist. A traditionalist is one who supports and promotes America the way it was founded and how it was intended to be. In other words, a true American. If you oppose that ideal, you are by definition anti-American. It really is pretty simple."

Why do you think being a "secular progressive" is mutually exclusive of being a "true American"? You argue that a traditionalist supports America the way it was founded. So, do you support slavery? Do you support children working in factories? Do you support women being excluded from the workforce and vote? Do you support a 7-day work week? Do you support Jim Crow laws and segregation?

These are all "traditional" parts of America that so-called "anti-americans" have fought against.

Do you think the founders intended for America to be a slave nation? If so, do you still think that's a good idea? You are a traditionalist, right?

True American indeed.

The ACLU fights for Civil Rights. Civil Rights are at the core of American ideals. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees YOUR right to stink up the world with free speech. Do you know who fights to protect that right? You guessed it: THE ACLU

Fighting for the right to vote and equal opportunity in education and employment are the highest Americaqn goals.

Too bad Fox News has brain washed you into thinking otherwise.