Would the ACLU Still Defend Nazis' Right To March in Skokie?

Former Executive Director Ira Glasser discusses the past, present, and increasingly shaky future of free speech.


In 1977, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) went to court to defend the rights of American neo-Nazis to march through the streets of Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago home to many Holocaust survivors. The group defended the Nazis' right to demonstrate and won the case on First Amendment grounds, but 30,000 members quit the organization in protest.

The Skokie case cemented the image of the ACLU as a principled defender of free speech. The following year, Ira Glasser was elevated from head of the New York state chapter to the national organization's executive director, a position he would hold for the next 23 years. Now he's the subject of a new documentary, Mighty Ira, that celebrates his time leading the charge against government regulation of content on the internet, hate speech laws, speech codes on college campuses, and more.

Retired since 2001, Glasser says he's worried about the future of both free expression and the organizations that defend it. In 2018, a leaked ACLU memo offered guidelines for case selection that retreated from the group's decadeslong content-neutral stance, citing as a reason to decline a case "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." Glasser fears that, by becoming more political and less absolutist when it comes to defending speech, the ACLU might be shrugging off its hard-won legacy.

In October, Glasser spoke with Reason's Nick Gillespie via Zoom.

Reason: The incident that dominates Mighty Ira is Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois, in the late 1970s. Set the scene for that. 

Glasser: What was going on in Skokie started in Chicago. This group of neo-Nazis, maybe 15 or 20 crazies, were against racial integration, not Jews. They were anti-Semitic, to be sure, but mostly against integration of schools and housing. Most lived on one side of Marquette Park in Chicago. On the other side was a predominantly black neighborhood. The Martin Luther King Jr. Association, a civil rights group in Chicago, used to demonstrate in the park in favor of integration, so it became a place where neo-Nazis and civil rights activists would frequently clash in contiguous demonstrations. I don't remember it breaking out into violence, but it was always tense and the city was always busy policing it. So the city threw up its hands, tired of spending time and energy navigating these two groups exercising their free speech rights, and passed a law saying nobody can demonstrate in Marquette Park unless they first post a $250,000 insurance bond against the possibility of damage to the park.

The problem with the bond is that no insurance company will sell it to you. These two small groups could not afford it. Insurance bond requirements like that had been frequently used against civil rights marches in the South and had always been struck down, usually [with the help of] the ACLU, as transparent attempts to stop speech that small towns in the South didn't like.

So as soon as we saw that the city of Chicago had done that, ACLU of Illinois lawyers' ears perked up. Sure enough, the Martin Luther King Jr. Association comes marching into our office one day and asks if we'll represent them in challenging it. It was an easy call, because we had always represented groups challenging bonding requirements. We filed a suit.

A few days later, Frank Collin of the neo-Nazi group asked us to do the same thing. The lawyers said they already had this case in the courts. His response was, "You don't have it for us." They said, "No, but it will apply to you. It's the same thing. It doesn't matter whether it was filed on your behalf or the Martin Luther King Jr. Association—it's the same challenge. When we win it—as we will—it will knock out the requirement for both of you. It can't be that the requirement will only apply to one and not the other." [Collin's group was] inconsolable and wanted to know how long it would take. I said, "We'll win, the city will appeal, we'll win there, the city will appeal again. It could go on for a while. It might be a year. It might be longer."

Neo-Nazis are very impatient and thin-skinned.

Well, they are, but anybody who wanted to demonstrate for something they believed in would be irritated by the fact that the city can pass a patently unconstitutional law, basically silencing you for a year and a half while lawyers strike down that law. There's something really outrageous about that, whether you're the neo-Nazis or the Martin Luther King Jr. Association or somebody demonstrating for or against abortion, or whatever.

So Collin decides: To hell with this. He'll go to the suburbs, where many of those who are governing Chicago actually live. He writes a letter on his neo-Nazi stationery to a dozen suburbs on Chicago's outskirts announcing that he's coming there to demonstrate against integration. All except one ignored his letter, because everybody knew who he was. The only suburb that responded was the town of Skokie. They responded, because the idea that neo-Nazis were going to come where a lot of Holocaust survivors lived was like a red flag to a bull, understandably.


This is only 30 or 35 years after World War II.

This is 1977. So it's still very fresh and there are survivors living there who went through unimaginable horrors. But they got the wrong advice. They should've ignored these people, because they had no capacity to go to all these suburbs. But when Skokie said, "You better not come here. We won't let you," [the neo-Nazis] had an opportunity for publicity of the kind that they could never get.

Skokie passed three new laws. One was a law banning anybody from marching in uniform. That was later used against the Jewish war veterans who wanted to have a parade. They passed a ban on speech that the town found offensive. If that law had ever been upheld, every town in the South could have banned civil rights marches, which they found offensive. And they passed an insurance bond requirement, just like Chicago. So that did it. [The neo-Nazis] said, "We're going to protest these laws in front of town hall."

City officials in Skokie advised the Holocaust survivors to ignore them and go inside their houses when they come. Pull the blinds down, just stay quiet. Just hide. Several of them had had that advice before, when they lived in Poland in 1939. This was an unbelievably painful history repeating itself. They knew that you don't hide from this; you demonstrate against it. This wasn't Germany, this was America. National Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League came in. The whole thing escalated.

Taking this case was never internally controversial. We did a dozen or two dozen of these kinds of cases every year.

The ACLU famously supported the rights of Ku Klux Klan groups to march throughout the South.

Sure, in Mississippi. None of us anticipated the storm that occurred, because we had taken cases like these forever. They were usually mildly controversial, but the law was perfectly clear. There was no way we were going to lose this case. If we did, we would lose it for the Martin Luther King Jr. Association at the same time, and for all of the other people we represented who were fighting for reproductive freedom, gay rights, disability rights.

So we continued to do the case we had from Chicago, because that case would have determined the law for the whole state, including Skokie. And we never would've represented the Nazis, because there was no need to. Then the town of Skokie got a court order barring the Nazis on the basis of these unconstitutional laws, which we were already challenging in Chicago. So it was only when Skokie went to court that we were then compelled to represent the Nazis, because we were already representing the Martin Luther King Jr. Association on the same issue. The two cases involved the same legal principle. It was Skokie's missteps that created that case.

What were the Nazis like?

I was head of the New York Civil Liberties Union, so I wasn't involved in those details, but I had been involved in similar cases. I had talked to David Goldberger, the ACLU lawyer in Illinois who did the case, and David Hamlin, then–executive director of the ACLU of Illinois. And yeah, you sit down with the client. Some conversations are more orderly than others. David Goldberger was a Jewish lawyer from Chicago, and here he was talking to these people who regarded him as vermin. And I'm sure he regarded them as vermin.

What the public sees is, "Oh, there's the ACLU representing the Nazis." We never see it that way. We were trying to oppose the government using the insurance bond requirement to prevent free speech. For us it didn't matter who the client was, because we would use that client to strike down the bond requirements, and that would apply to everybody.

Did the other groups that you were representing understand that?

Some did. Back in New York, there was a state law that required people who wanted to run for statewide office to get 10,000 names on a petition to gain ballot access. They also had to get at least 50 names from every county in New York. One day, the Socialist Workers Party came to us and said they're trying to run a candidate for governor. They've got 20,000 names, but they don't have 50 [from every county] and they don't have the money to travel. We had the same complaints from other minor parties. So we decided to strike this down and ended up planning a lawsuit on behalf of the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Labor Party, the American Communist Party, the [neo-fascist] National Renaissance Party.

We had to get them all to sign affidavits about why they needed this law struck down and how it interfered with their ballot access. We said, all right, let's do it on the weekend. So we came into the Civil Liberties Union office in New York with representatives from all of these groups. And the lawyer has all the affidavits, and they're each signing it.

This very interesting thing happened: One by one, almost every one of them comes up to me on the side, grabs me by the shoulder, and says, "Mr. Glasser, I wanted to thank you for this. This is a great thing that you're doing to help us get on the ballot. But let me ask: Why do we have to have all these other people?" Because their position was, this was their right. Our position was this was everybody's right or nobody's right.

I used to joke that when people would say the trouble with free speech in America is that so few people support it, my response was always, "No, you're wrong. Everybody in America supports free speech so long as it's theirs or people they agree with." Even in our own membership, the perception was that the ACLU was representing Nazis, not that the ACLU was opposing a government restriction on your speech.

How did Skokie turn out?

We won the case at every level. It even went up to the Supreme Court. It was an easy case legally because these bonding statutes had been struck down a million times before.

Meanwhile, some of the people who lived in Skokie—once we won the case and the Nazis said they were coming—did what the town should've advised them to do in the first place: They organized a massive counter-demonstration. About 60,000 people were ready to come. And then the irony of ironies is, when confronted with that, Collin and the neo-Nazis never came to Skokie. Once we won that case, it also allowed them to demonstrate in Marquette Park, which was what they had wanted to do all along. They also confronted a massive counter-demonstration there that never would have happened without the case. It completely overwhelmed them; they couldn't be seen or heard. Right after that they fell apart.

You were born in 1938 in Brooklyn. You started out as a mathematician, and you got drawn into politics by the civil rights movement. What about civil rights activated you?

The most major thing was race. Racial oppression was a big deal, because you could see that everywhere. As a Dodgers fan, I was 9 years old when [Jackie] Robinson broke in, and I learned a lot about racial exclusion and subjugation. The first place I learned about Jim Crow laws was when the Dodgers went to St. Louis. That's how I found out Robinson, [Roy] Campanella, and [Don] Newcombe couldn't stay with the team in the same hotel and couldn't eat in the same restaurants. I didn't learn that in school. I learned that from [sports announcer] Red Barber, with his Mississippi drawl, broadcasting Dodgers games. That was how I came to hate it, because Robinson was my guy. When I got to the ACLU in 1967, I was 29 years old. Dealing with remedies for racial subjugation was my passion.

It wasn't until my 30s that I began to understand free speech, that the real antagonist of speech is power. The only important question about a speech restriction is not who is being restricted but who gets to decide who is being restricted—if it's going to be decided by Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Rudy Giuliani, [President Donald] Trump, or [Attorney General] William Barr, most social justice advocates are going to be on the short end of that decision. I used to say to black students in the '90s who wanted to have speech codes on college campuses that if [such codes] had been in effect in the '60s, Malcolm X or Eldridge Cleaver would have been their most frequent victim, not David Duke.

Was that a convincing argument?

It pulled people up short. They imagined themselves as controlling who the codes would be used against. I would tell them that speech restrictions are like poison gas. It seems like it's a great weapon to have when you've got the poison gas in your hands and a target in sight, but the wind has a way of shifting—especially politically—and suddenly that poison gas is being blown back on you.

Mighty Ira makes a big deal out of your relationship with William F. Buckley—the conservative co-founder of National Review who was at various points in favor of censorship—to make a point about civility and disagreement. Is civility overrated?

To a point. I've seen vigorous advocacy demonized and suppressed on the grounds that it wasn't civil. I once had somebody at the ACLU propose a new policy for us that would oppose speech that demeaned and insulted people. I got up at that conference and said, "Well, every time I open my mouth, I'm looking to demean or insult somebody because of their views, and I'm about to do it again." I proceeded to attack that, because in the hands of malevolent power, a statute like that would suppress speech in the name of civility.

On the other hand, my relationship with Buckley is a little bit misunderstood. I was brutal to him in those debates. In one, I dug out a column he had written for National Review in the '50s opposing the Civil Rights Act and confronted him on the air.

The first time I had dinner at his home, his wife Pat came up to me sort of half tongue-in-cheek and said, "Oh, I'm so glad to meet you. But how come you're so nasty to my husband on television?" I looked at her and said, "Pat, he says so many terrible things." So the civility was of that kind—in private, we could deal with each other and our disagreements in a civilized way, but it didn't diminish the vigor of our arguments or our denunciations of the other's position when we were debating in public.

I used to joke with him and say, "I think actually you're a better friend to me than I am to you, because I'm always just a little leery when we're together." He was a very kind person in private. I had dinner at his house once, and he had a cook who was not comfortable speaking English. He was fluent in Spanish—I think it was his first language, actually—and he spoke to her in Spanish and was very kind and solicitous. I found him to be that way pretty consistently, but that didn't change the regressiveness of his positions or the vigor with which I was prepared to attack them. So there's a bit of a difference between private and public. That line may be a little erased these days.

A lot of politicians, despite their public commitments, are not particularly interested in free speech. Can you talk about the 1997 case Reno v. ACLU, where you challenged speech restrictions in the Communications Decency Act?

It was decided by the Supreme Court—a decisive victory. The internet at that time was a relatively new platform for speech. Anytime there's a new platform that democratizes speech, the government gets nervous. In the 15th century, when the printing press was invented, the reaction of the English government and the Church was hysterical. England passed a law requiring anybody who owned a printing press to register it with the government as if it were a dangerous weapon. The law limited the number of printing presses that could exist and required that before you could publish a book with one of these newfangled printing presses, you had to get a government license. You had to give them the book to read, and then they would decide whether you could publish it. They also did searches of people's homes to find out whether they had any books or newspapers that violated those laws—the model for the illegal searches that happened in the colonies in the 18th century.

The government and the Church responded to the democratization of speech with a ferocity of censorship that went on for hundreds of years. By the time the First Amendment was passed in America in 1791, you're talking more than 300 years since the printing press was first invented.

When the internet was invented, it suddenly widened the number of people who had the capacity to speak, and it widened by even more the number of people who could hear what they said. The government reacted the same way: They developed schemes to censor, license, and restrict it, and that's what the Communications Decency Act was. Violations were punishable by up to two years in prison and a quarter-million-dollar fine. How many people on the internet could afford that for saying anything on the internet that was offensive or indecent? Now, of course, nobody knows what that means; it means something different to everybody. But all I'm thinking at the time is, "This is England all over again, and I don't want [enforcement by] Rudy Giuliani, against whom we had to file 27 lawsuits for violations of the First Amendment for trying to censor paintings in the Brooklyn Museum. I don't want people like [former Sen.] Joe McCarthy deciding what's offensive."

Can I just stress that it was then–Attorney General Janet Reno and Democratic President Bill Clinton—

All that proves is that free speech opponents do not organize themselves according to party. It has been true in my lifetime that conservatives have more often been against free speech. Liberals and progressives have, in my lifetime, more often been for it. But in the early '60s, the New York Civil Liberties Union represented Buckley against the [head] of Hunter College; Buckley was signed up to debate or speak, and [President John J.] Meng had banned him. The New York Civil Liberties Union, before I was there, represented him. In the very first free speech political case I became aware of, the organization represented not a neo-Nazi but a respected conservative against a liberal in a dominantly liberal university.

Next to slavery and the homicidal, genocidal destruction of American Indians, the worst civil liberties violation that occurred in this country en masse was the incarceration of Japanese-American citizens during World War II. You know which president signed that executive order? Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was a god in my parents' house because he had saved them from ruin financially. But for me, the antagonist of civil liberties and free speech is not this or that party; it's power, whoever holds it.

In 2018, a leaked ACLU memo came out where the group seemed to be walking away from the idea of viewpoint neutrality when it came to protecting speech. The ACLU now advises its affiliates to consider the content of speech and whether it advances the group's goals before deciding whether to defend the right to speak. How do you feel about that?

I'm 20 years gone from steering this ship. I don't really know a lot more about what's going on than you do. That memo did in fact introduce a content-based consideration to whether they would take a free speech case, enough so that it made me wonder, "If Skokie happened again, would the ACLU take it?" It's not politically outrageous during times like these for the ACLU to want to become more of a political organization than a civil liberties organization. That's not surprising, and there's nothing evil about it. An organization has a perfect right to change its agenda or mission, to say, "The times require us to be something different than what we were." The ACLU has taken a few steps toward doing that, I think, but they've denied it.

There are a lot of progressive political groups out there. I'm glad to have more of them, because that's my politics too. But there's only one ACLU. It doesn't matter on whose behalf the immediate client is. What matters is you have to stop the government from gaining the power to decide. It's taken 100 years for the ACLU to develop from the 30 or 40 people that started it in 1920 to the powerhouse of civil liberties that it is today. If the ACLU isn't there for speech, who will be?


I grew up in an era where your broad view of the value of free speech was culturally dominant. What has happened to change that?

I went to one of the half-dozen best law schools in the country a year or two ago to speak. And it was a gratifying sight to me, because the audience was a rainbow. There were as many women as men. There were people of every skin color and every ethnicity. It was the kind of thing that when I was at the ACLU 20, 30, 40 years ago was impossible. It was the kind of thing we dreamed about. It was the kind of thing we fought for. So I'm looking at this audience and I am feeling wonderful about it. And then after the panel discussion, person after person got up, including some of the younger professors, to assert that their goals of social justice for blacks, for women, for minorities of all kinds were incompatible with free speech and that free speech was an antagonist.

As I said, when I came to the ACLU, my major passion was social justice, particularly racial justice. But my experience was that free speech wasn't an antagonist. It was an ally. It was a critical ally. I said this to the audience, and I was astonished to learn that most of them were astonished to hear it—I mean, these were very educated, bright young people, and they didn't seem to know this history—I told them that there is no social justice movement in America that has ever not needed the First Amendment to initiate its movement for justice, to sustain its movement for justice, to help its movement survive.

Martin Luther King Jr. knew it. Margaret Sanger knew it. [The labor leader] Joe Hill knew it. I can think of no better explication of it than the late, sainted John Lewis, who said that without free speech and the right to dissent, the civil rights movement would have been a bird without wings. And that's historically and politically true without exception. For people who today claim to be passionate about social justice to establish free speech as an enemy is suicidal.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. For a podcast version, subscribe to The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

NEXT: Tom Vilsack Is the Wrong Person To Lead the Department of Agriculture

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

    1. Start now earning cash every month online from home. Getting paid more than $15000 by doing an easy job online. I have made $19715 in last 4 weeks from this job. Easy to join and earning from this are just awesome. Join this right now by follow.copy here link……..EARN MANY DOLLARS.

    2. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills yuj Required. Be Your Own Boss And Choose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Start here…….. Visit Here

    3. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills ytu Required. Be Your Own Boss And Choose Your Own Work Hours. Thanks A lot Start here……… Visit Here

    4. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job UNG to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    5. PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job CRT to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  2. “It’s not politically outrageous during times like these for the ACLU to want to become more of a political organization than a civil liberties organization. That’s not surprising, and there’s nothing evil about it. ”

    Unless the organization wants to still be respected as a primarily neutral principled civil liberties organization when it is actually an partisan utilitarian political one. It no longer has earned that kind of respect.

    1. Principles are racist!

      That is the unavoidable interpretation.

      1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..work92/7 online

    2. It’s the Iowahawk rule that’s being followed here:

      1. Identify a respected institution.
      2. kill it.
      3. gut it.
      4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect. #lefties

      1. The right does this, too:
        – born-again Christianity
        – the Presidency

          1. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy.REd I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody,

            Here is I started……. Home Profit System

        1. Please, nobody call WK a lefty shit even though he graces us constantly with takes like this.

          1. Here is how I am making 89>$ an hour… After been without work for 6 months, I started freelancing over this website and now I couldn’t be happier. After 3 months on my new job my monthly income is around 14k a month… Cause qwe someone helped me telling me about this job now I am going to help somebody else…
            Check it out for yourself ……… USA ONLINE JOBS

        2. – born-again Christianity – the Presidency

          Sarcasmic, you drunken fedora-tipper, that doesn’t even make sense.

          Who and what do you mean by “born again” anyway? Jimmy Carter?

          1. Just a couple of prominent examples:
            – The Fallwells and Liberty University
            – Franklin Graham and how he has aligned the Billy Graham crusade with right-wing politics

            1. The entirety of Christianity, from the Nestorians, to the Ethiopian Orthodox, to the Presbyterians hold John 3:3 as a central tenet to their faith.
              But we’ll set that aside and I’ll take it you’re using the phrase to refer to the self-identifier for the Jesus People movements of the late 60’s.

              Out of the last nine presidents since that time, only Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W have self-identified as “Born Again”. Carter in particular embraced that moniker.
              So that kind of pees on your theory, doesn’t it.

              Maybe you shouldn’t rely on Huffpo for your basic theology.

              Oh, and you want to know the only reason why Franklin Graham et al. now support Trump? Here’s Christians on Trump in a nutshell: “Donald Trump is going to embarrass me every day of the year, but unlike the other side, he doesn’t hate my faith, and actively seek to do me harm.”
              Basically Christians are now just supporting whichever political party seems less likely to make their faith illegal one day.

              If the left could stop scapegoating evangelicals and sounding like god-hating Soviets for a decade, they probably pick up all kinds of support from the so called “Christian right”.

              1. I grew up in the “Jesus people” born-again movement. I am intimately familiar with how so many evangelical Christians have sold out to right-wing politics, so you cannot use your rationalizations of their betrayal of their own espoused values on me.

                1. Right right, we’re supposed to care about your warped opionin contra actual evidence presented.


                2. I couldn’t stand the religious right. They wanted to impose their definition of morality on me. That’s what the left is doing now.

              2. I just skimmed through the University of Virginia IASC’s Democracy in the Dark. Looks like (at least according to poll data) evangelicals might care (politically) more about immigration than religion. As in concerns about illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration. That gives them another reason to align with Trump.

                1. If it’s true that evangelical Christians care more about illegal immigration than other demographic groups (and I’m not sure it is true), the causality may be the other way around. They aligned with the Republican Party, then aligned with caring about illegal immigration.

                  The issues that they originally cared about, used as a wedge to get them to choose sides in the Red vs Blue culture war, were abortion, prayer in schools, and “family values”.

                  1. I’m gonna need notarized testimony from a whole lot of Christians that you have a clue what they’re thinking.

                    1. You can’t argue with a mind closed to prejudice. WK thinks it’s perfectly fine to espouse intolerance for people who he believes are intolerant. He glories in the contradiction by telling himself that he does it for righteous reasons.

                      The ACLU used to understand that the best way to combat ignorance is speech.

                    2. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ…CMs Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ..Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ……….. Home Profit System

              3. In what way does Carter, Obama, or Clinton show that they “hate my faith, and actively seek to do me harm.”

                If any man ever to occupy the White House demonstrated greater respect for Christian values than did Jimmy Carter, I’ve no idea whom it might be. Obama seems a devoted family man. Even Clinton, for all his erring ways, remained a Christian when outside the spotlight.

                Trump, on the other hand, embodies the Seven Deadly Sins. His religious activities is solely limited to using the church as a political prop.

                Evangelical Christians seem to have forgotten one of history’s most oft repeated lessons about the mingling of Church and State. Religions who wed themselves to a political leader nearly always find themselves in an abusive relationship.

            2. Franklin Graham does good things. At their own expense, they set up a mobile hospital in Central Park last spring. Evil DeBlasio kicked them out for refusing to virtue signal.

              Face it, progressives are pure evil, and your opponents are largely decent people who just want your kind to leave them alone.

        3. Of all the stupid things I’ve seen today, this is the latest.

    3. Right. It’s not the change to a new agenda, it’s pretending you are still operating under the old agenda that is the problem here.

  3. Only if the ‘Nazis’ were all trans people of color.

    1. What if you identify as non-monochromatic and politically fluid?

      1. Like the T1000?

  4. I am making 10,000 Dollars at home own laptop .Just do work online 2 to 4 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do Check it out whaat i do…… Read More.

  5. Yes, I think the state CLUs and/or the overall ACLU would, because Nazis are so far “out there” that they wouldn’t be perceived as any kind of threat to the “liberal” order, and nobody in the CLUs would be thought of as supporting Nazism. By contrast, they’d be less likely to defend a closer-to-mainstream speaker’s or group’s access to the public square or forum, if those speakers weren’t part of the “progressive” consensus.

    1. Then why is the current favorite epithet, and even serious “danger” prediction, “Nazi!”?

      1. Because they know that if any self-proclaimed Nazis were to come forth in favor, they’d be ignored in terms of any serious consideration, and also that the people they’re attacking would want to distance themselves from any self-proclaimed Nazis. Basically they can’t lose by it, so they use it.

  6. Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, Trump’s “fine people” and supporters, and other members of the far right have every right to assemble and protest that others do.

    Thank Jeeby for the ACLU even though conservatives have always hated them. I still buy Newman’s salad dressings because the proceeds supposedly go to the ACLU – don’t know if that is true or not but the stuff is the best anyway.

    1. Did someone steal Buttplug’s nick? He was all anti-speech a few columns ago.

      1. He’s a fucking lefty ignoramus, probably too drunk or coked to remember what he posted two minutes ago.

        1. He also rapes young boys.

        2. Now you’re hating on booze Sevo? You goddamn social conservative square!

          What does it say about you that the drunkards and cokeheads you despise are smarter than you?

          You Mormon or something you fucking square?

    2. It is amazing that after 3 years of even the lefty fact checkers debunking this lie of good people on both sides, retards keeps spouting it.

      1. they’re only doing it to troll you at this point

        1. You’re giving them a lot of credit. Certainly, some people are doing it to troll. But I wouldn’t discount the strong likelihood that some of the people who are doing it are doing so because the lie was repeated often enough that they don’t believe the fact-checkers.

        2. No, a lot of progressive idiots still believe it because they’ve been ordered to. Progressives are good drones, ready to believe anything they are told to.

  7. I went to one of the half-dozen best law schools in the country a year or two ago to speak. And it was a gratifying sight to me, because the audience was a rainbow. There were as many women as men. There were people of every skin color and every ethnicity. It was the kind of thing that when I was at the ACLU 20, 30, 40 years ago was impossible. It was the kind of thing we dreamed about. It was the kind of thing we fought for. So I’m looking at this audience and I am feeling wonderful about it.

    Go on…

    And then after the panel discussion, person after person got up, including some of the younger professors, to assert that their goals of social justice for blacks, for women, for minorities of all kinds were incompatible with free speech and that free speech was an antagonist.

    And the connection between these two things will never, ever, be remarked upon in polite society ever, ever again.

    1. And that superficial visual “diversity” had nothing to do with (and probably opposed) differences of opinion and political philosophies.

      1. Diversity is the most important thing!

        But only diversity that’s skin-deep.

  8. It has been true in my lifetime that conservatives have more often been against free speech. Liberals and progressives have, in my lifetime, more often been for it.

    The progressives who lately have been against free speech have largely been relegated to college campuses where they can shout down a speaker or force the school into a cancellation.

    1. You left out activist groups in every city, most media providers, and at least half of all government.

    2. And the Democrat House and Senate caucuses.

    3. Twitter, Facebook, leftists in general wave hi.

      Fucking just lies and ignorance from the pedo.

      1. I mean fuck, even chipper keeps calling for thread moderation.

  9. It isn’t necessary for free speech advocates to come at this from content-neutral perspective because one of the best reasons to protect the free speech rights of groups like the Nazis and the Klan is because they almost invariably embarrass themselves whenever they open their mouths in public. If you want to hurt the cause of Nazis and the Klan, there may be no better method than putting them on camera, sticking a microphone in their faces, and letting them say what they want to say.

    The experience of Marine Le Pen and the National Front in France is instructive. Marine Le Pen could never build the National Front up beyond a certain level because every time they started to become popular, her antisemitic father or one of the old guard would invariably say something embarrassing and stupid to reporters or at public gatherings denying the holocaust. It’s so hard to convince average people that you’re not a bunch of stupid antisemitic racists, when your leaders won’t shut up about holocaust denial.

    If the French left had stayed up all night trying to think of a better way to help Marine Le Pen and the National Front become a mainstream force in French politics, they couldn’t have come up with anything better than what they did, which was make it illegal to deny the holocaust in public–and actually prosecute people for it. Once Marine Le Pen’s father and the old guard at the National Front became convinced that if they denied the holocaust in public, the government would definitely prosecute them for it, they shut up–and the National Front became a mainstream party–without that millstone around Marine Le Pen’s neck.

    1. Not so long ago, an American politician who wanted to differentiate himself on his anti-abortion views made a fool of himself in public by arguing that abortion was unnecessary in cases of rape because in cases of “legitimate rape”, a woman’s body naturally and subconscious rejects the fetus. There were so many things wrong with that ridiculous statement. Why would pro-choice activists want to deprive him of his right to say stupid, ridiculous, and offensive things?

      That’s what the opponents of racism are trying to do when they try to deprive Nazis and the Klan from saying the stupid and offensive things they say. The reason consumer products companies generally shy away from saying stupid and obnoxious things in their advertising is because it alienates average people. It is not necessary to support free speech from a content neutral perspective. One of the best reasons to support free speech is because you hate Nazis and the Klan so much that you want to give their stupid, obnoxious, and self-defeating speech as wide an audience as possible.

      The reason average Americans were disgusted by the Westboro Baptist Church wasn’t because we had no idea what the Westboro Baptist Church did and said. It was because the Westboro Baptist church picketed against gay marriage with signs that read horrible things like, “God Hates Fags” and because they protested at funerals for fallen soldiers carrying signs that read horrible things like, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”.

      If you’re trying to stop racists from saying racist things in public, you’re carrying water for the racists–whether you realize it or not. You’re effectively trying to rescue racists from themselves, and because you hate racists is an excellent reason to stand up for the right of racists to humiliate themselves in public with their hateful speech. Ultimately, I suspect the modern progressive left has changed because they hold average Americans in contempt and imagine that we’re neither smart nor ethical enough to be disgusted by racism. When I see a major consumers products company openly advocate racism in their advertising, I might buy that, but I don’t see any such indication that racism is popular with average Americans.

      1. “If you’re trying to stop racists from saying racist things in public, you’re carrying water for the racists–whether you realize it or not.”

        Yep. And this is true, of course, with all opinions and views divergent from one’s own.

        1. Or actual Jefferson:

          “And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.”

          1. Well, actual Jefferson was a slave-owning, rapey, white capitalist. So we should do the opposite of anything he wrote.

            1. Both ‘white’ and ‘capitalist’ are still ok with most Americans, so let’s look at ‘slave-owning’ and ‘rapey’ (which I’m pretty sure isn’t a word).
              Jefferson owned slaves in a time when it was normal, even necessary, for the owner of a plantation like his. There is no evidence that he mistreated his slaves and he freed them in his will. Cancelling him for what was accepted at the time risks you being cancelled for driving a car with internal-combustion engine.
              Jefferson had a child with one of his slaves but there is no evidence he raped her as opposed to having sex with a willing woman. Even slaves have agency. Why engage in kinky speculation about sex slaves when a willing partner is more likely? Some might say she only was willing in order to improve her lot in life, but that applies to many women today and only the lunatic fringe considers that to be rape.
              In other words: STFU.

      2. “you want to give their stupid, obnoxious, and self-defeating speech as wide an audience as possible.”
        And yet one Democrat who said such things has a good chance to become a Senator from Georgia on Jan. 9th.

      3. I suspect many people, past and present, who wish to ban speech are motivated by their definition of the sacred, and their desire to eliminate from the world any perception of offense to their ideology. Thus “exposing the stupidity of ideas” is just as offensive and dangerous as the motivation behind those ideas. What I hear from some of the current far-left zealots sounds just as puritanically religious as any censorship promoted by any faith-based group.

        1. This sounds a bit like an aspect of what I meant by the left’s contempt for average people. The racists are the enemy, and the American people are the battlefield–but the left doesn’t differentiate between the enemy and the battlefield anymore. Some on the left seem to think that we can’t be righteous unless we hate ourselves for being racist, the way the Puritans wanted average people to hate themselves for being sinful.

          1. Destroy society in order to save it.

          2. leftist ideology really has replaced religion for them. worship the Earth, bow to the high priests of science, follow the catechism. no room for differences of political opinion, or rogue scientific theories, or putting humanity first.

            The Left has finally shed the label of “liberal”, and the actuality, in every sense of the word.

      4. Leftism is the greatest threat, yet Ken thinks ceding the field to them is how to best negotiate his terms of surrender.

        1. Jeez, you are so full of vitriol that you will argue with anyone, even with someone like Ken who is in your corner.

        2. So when are you gonna go “postal”, Nadless Nardless the Nasty
          NAZI? Please keep us all “posted”!

          1. Sqrlsy dear, take your Adderall… and please don’t pee on your hands and keyboard when you’re angry at internet people anymore.

          2. Remember how the Seinfeld gang had a contest to see who was “master of their domain”? Nardz and Sevo are competing to see who can hold out the longest before going on a shooting rampage.

            1. Hey look everyone, sarcasmic is hoping people get murdered.

              So much for the high road.

              1. First, I’m not sarcasmic. Second, I’m mocking two commenters, Nardz and Sevo, who have shown terrible anger issues precisely because I don’t want violence.

                1. You’ll notice he only denies being sarcasmic, not hoping people get murdered.

                  You’re disgusting.

                2. You’re such a liar. You love it when Antifa progressives riot, rage, and murder Americans. Your kind always does.

      5. I like the cut of Ken’s jib on this one!

        Ken says…

        “…an American politician who wanted to differentiate himself on his anti-abortion views made a fool of himself in public by arguing that abortion was unnecessary in cases of rape because in cases of “legitimate rape”, a woman’s body naturally and subconscious rejects the fetus.”

        Yes, free speech for politician idiots as well as peon idiots, please!

        It makes me think of “pillcams for fetuses” as well… Y’all recall this one? How come the baby in Mommy’s tummy doesn’t get digested by digestive juices, anyway?

        Go Back to Health Class
        Anti-abortion laws are written by people with little knowledge of the reproductive process.

        1. “Furble-gerbil-blaaaap”

          1. Yes, he probably likes gerbils up his ass.

    2. “ It isn’t necessary for free speech advocates to come at this from content-neutral perspective because one of the best reasons to protect the free speech rights of groups like the Nazis and the Klan is because they almost invariably embarrass themselves whenever they open their mouths in public.”

      Very true. That has traditionally been one of the arguments for defending their free speech.

      1. If anyone has been working hard to fight free speech down here in the comments, it’s you.

        Remind me again why Canadians shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions here.

        1. Link to where I said Canadians shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions here? I’ll wait.

          I believe all you’ll find are places where I mocked you for being odd for being a Canadian wannabe pro-Trump Republican partisan.

          1. “It’s weeeiiiird that Canadians ar allowed to hold opinions on things that affect them toooo”

            1. You linked to a comment that supports what I said: all I have ever done is mock you, never advocated that you have no right to be a weirdo Canadian wannabe pro-Trump Republican.

              You are a weird person, dude.

              1. “It’s wierd that x is allowed ” is literally the definition of what he claimed you said.

                He got you.

                “You linked to a comment that supports what I said: all I have ever done is mock you”

                This a a lie. Your comment is right there where you say it is weird that it is “allowed”. Not that he does it, that “it is allowed.” That’s not mockery.

                You’re lying because you got caught.

                1. The word, allowed, does not even occur in the conversation he linked to.

                  1. I thought we were talking about how you want people murdered?

                    You’re a monster.

                    1. “Nardz and Sevo are competing to see who can hold out the longest before going on a shooting rampage.”


                  2. Why don’t you admit the truth about your desire to see Americans murdered?

        2. Yes but Dee thinks she’s righteous, so it’s ok when she does it. I mean, we’re dealing with someone who stole handles to teach us better manners. If that’s not self righteousness then what is?

    3. Ken, you’re dead wrong.

      The average person is ignorant and without wise leftists to tell them right and wrong the siren song of racism is too great for those ignorant people to reject.

      Haven’t you been paying attention, there’s over 70 million people in the US openly supporting literal Hitler Nazi scum!!!!!!!!

    4. If you want to hurt the cause of Nazis and the Klan, there may be no better method than putting them on camera, sticking a microphone in their faces, and letting them say what they want to say.

      Sasha Baran Cohen agrees.

  10. “I used to joke that when people would say the trouble with free speech in America is that so few people support it, my response was always, “No, you’re wrong. Everybody in America supports free speech so long as it’s theirs or people they agree with.” Even in our own membership, the perception was that the ACLU was representing Nazis, not that the ACLU was opposing a government restriction on your speech.”

    But what about groups that are just as eager to throttle their own (tribal) speech, in the name of Jeebers, BLM, Safety Culture, or some other delusional puritanical ideology? How do you get a person to even recognize freedom of speech for others when they reject it for themselves.

    1. ” How do you get a person to even recognize freedom of speech for others when they reject it for themselves.”

      If you give such folks enough rope, and some time, they will, most likely, hang themselves with said rope.

  11. “There are a lot of progressive political groups out there. I’m glad to have more of them, because that’s my politics too. But there’s only one ACLU. It doesn’t matter on whose behalf the immediate client is. What matters is you have to stop the government from gaining the power to decide.”

    Sorry, but Glasser reveals himself to be either foolish or deceptive. In this decade in the US, “progressive” means promoting the power of government to decide. If he wants to prevent that, he might just have to rethink his politics.

    1. He knows about the current backlash, but he has fought his battles and is passing the baton. What are we all going to do about it?

  12. “Would the ACLU Still Defend Nazis’ Right To March”

    I guess we’ll find out in January when Trump supporters gather in DC to protest the electoral collage vote

    1. Nazi – the acronym for National Socialism.. Ya right; Trump supporters push for National Socialism… /s

  13. According to Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky, the First Amendment should not protect racist speech.

    From a Koch / Reason libertarian perspective, this analysis is extremely useful. Since our fundamental, non-negotiable issue is open borders, we could say calls for “border enforcement” are inherently racist. It would therefore be illegal for anyone to oppose unlimited, unrestricted immigration.


    1. That’s as solid an argument as found in any Boehm column.

  14. In the meantime, you have Cuomo signing a bill to ban “symbols of hate” on government property such as swastikas and Confederate flags despite his reservations that such a ban “might” be unconstitutional. (There’s no “might” about it.)

    It used to be that defending the right to free speech almost always involved defending horrible people saying horrible things because – by definition – nobody objects to unobjectionable speech, they only object to objectionable speech, yet now the calls for restricting the right to free speech are coming from people who object to literally every fucking thing and how can you take them any more seriously than the boy who cried wolf? If they want to say that speech is violence, beat the shit out of them for saying that because they’ve just committed a violence against you.

    1. “In the meantime, you have Cuomo signing a bill to ban “symbols of hate” on government property such as swastikas and Confederate flags despite his reservations that such a ban “might” be unconstitutional. (There’s no “might” about it.) ”

      A quick thought of the day, swastikas are also Buddhist symbols( and a few other religions). Been watching a bunch of old 70’s martial arts movies lately and they are every where in those movies.

      1. And quite a few “Native American” tribes.
        When I was very young, my parents bought a house built in 1902. Two of the chandeliers had a band of swastikas around them rim of the shade. It seems to me that was made before the 1930’s.

        1. Plus the US Army’s 45th Infantry Division:

          The old patch, which got changed during WW2 for obvious reasons, is supposedly quite rare.

          ‘Old pawn’ silver jewelry will occasionally be decorated with ‘whirled logs.’

    2. okay, what did the people who put up the Confederate flags hate? centralized government tyranny?

  15. “Would the ACLU Still Defend Nazis’ Right To March in Skokie?”

    The ACLU won’t even defend the civil liberties of Republicans, Conservatives or Libertarians anymore.

    Similar to Reason, the ACLU has devolved from civil liberties advocacy to become left wing activists.

    1. Liberty for Some!

      But not really, since to be a good Party member requires strict compliance with ideology.

    2. I remember the ACLU rushing to stop the green party from being kicked off of ballots by democrats. Wait… that didn’t happen.

  16. You don’t like that the ACLU has abandoned both its principles and its mission to protect free speech and civil liberties? Well too bad.

    According to TeenReason standards the ACLU is a private organization and can be as SJW and pro-censorship as it wants.

    If you don’t like it you can go bUiLd yUor oWn ciViL liBeRTiEs uNiON.

    1. All true. You know what else a libertarian can do without being a hypocrite: criticize how some private party is behaving.

      1. I like criticizing people for being squawking douchebags.

      2. Pretty sure you haven’t limited it to “criticizing”, sarcasmic. You’ve full out endorsed deplatforming.

        1. Hey, quit yer fighting now, children! Be GOOD, and full of Trumpsmas Joy!

          To lighten and brighten the mood, I now bring you…

          A Trumpsmas Message of Hope, Peace, and Joy

          In these times of divisive troubles, we all need a little unifying Lift, yes? So I present to you, a Timeless, Empowering Story of Trumpsmas Joy!

          And it came to pass, that The Lord Trump descended from the penthouse of The Trump Hotel at Mar-a-Lago. He ascended the flag-draped speaker’s podium, and had an acolyte apply some touch-up bronzer. He ascended the Mount of Olives, and of Pineapples, and of Anchovies. Then He spake unto the assembled mass of 5 million:

          “I come unto ye to bring messages of Joy and Peace! Do NOT be confused by the lamestream media, nor by the Demon-rats, who speak of many strange wonders! They speak of many YUUGE lies, and of half-truths! Some say that I am the Son of God! Some say that I am the Son of Man! Some say that I am the Great White Father! Or the Great Pumpkin! Or the Great Whitish-Orangish Pumpkin-Father! But I am none of those things! I come to be before you, as an Humble Man, with MUCH bigness to my humbleness… You may simply call me the Chosen One! Even the lamestream media knows this! The American voters, the REAL, legitimate voters… The NON-Demon-rat ones, have overwhelmingly chosen MEEE! THAT is why I am the Chosen One!”

          He paused, momentarily, there on the top of the Mount of Olives, and of Pineapples, and of Anchovies, as thunderous applause deafened everyone for miles around. He tried to wave down the crowd, for silence. But in their jubilation, the crowd spontaneously broke out into a chant! “Dominos Pizza-Pie REEEquiem, Dominos Pizza-Pie REEEquiem, Dominos Pizza-Pie REEEquiem”, they chanted, over and over, and yet over, again! Sensing their spiritual and bodily hungers, The Lord Trump discreetly ordered a single, solitary pizza and a basket full of anchovies, which arrived nearly instantly. Then The Lord Trump broke off pieces of pizza, and dished out the anchovies, which somehow managed to feed the crowd of five million!

          With their hunger now sated, The Lord Trump was finally able to calm the masses, and silence their cheering, so that He could, once again, be heard. The Lord Trump spake once again, saying unto them, “Behold, now begins a time of troubles! The Dark Lord has bin bidin’ his time, which has now come! I will be swallowed up by the Penthouse of The Trump Hotel at Mar-a-Lago, for 4 years of dark nights and troubled days, and I know, you will miss Me terribly! But then the Boulder of Voter Fraud will mysteriously be shoved aside, and I will emerge once more! Trust bigly in Me, but bigly JUST in Me!!!”

          The Lord Trump waited for a long time, for the applause to die down, and then continued, “While I am gone, the Faithful shall honor Me on the last Thursday of each November, giving Thanks that I have shown Good Americans The Truth and The Way. You shall slay the Great Pumpkin, and eat of the Pumpkin Pie, saying, ‘This is the Body of The Lord Trump. Eat it with Joy and Gladness’. Then you shall drink of the cranberry juice, saying. ‘This is the Blood of The Lord Trump. Drink it with Anticipation of the Defeat of the Forces of Evil, of the Demon-rats’. This, do in honor of MEEE!”

          The applause was overwhelming and unstoppable, so The Lord Trump escaped in His Helicopter, to the Penthouse of The Trump Hotel at Mar-a-Lago, leaving the crowd to festering in the gathering stormy weather. There were no busses provided for the crowds, but that was OK by them, for they were full of Great Trumpsmas Joy!

          1. The Great Pumpkin is now coming on January 6th! Watch the skies!

            1. Why would someone call you a lefty shit… so weird.

              1. Remember, sarcasmic is totally not a Democrat. Pinky swear.

          2. “Scrabble-dabble-Trump-orangemanbad-freeble- 12 more pages – brop-fruup-dingle”

        2. By “deplatforming” I’m guessing you mean respecting the right of private parties to decide what they want to host on their privately-owned website.

          1. No. He means deplatforming. His words weren’t difficult. Using collusion to block payment processors, Web hosts, etc.

            This has been explained to you with examples so many times lefty shit.

            1. Hey whining crybaby… I pay (PAY! With MY money! I OWN!) for my own web site at Go-Daddy. I say some VERY sarcastic and un-politically-correct, intolerant things about cults like Scientology there (and Government Almighty as well). I am QUITE sure that a LOT of “tolerant” liberal-type folks at Google etc. would NOT be happy with the types of things I wrote! Yet, if you do a search-string “Scienfoology”, Google will take you STRAIGHT to MY web site, top hit! #1!


              Your whining and crying is (just about ) UTTERLY without basis!

              WHERE is your respect for property rights?! I learned to respect the property rights of others, before I was in the 1st grade! Didn’t your Momma raise you right?

              1. I would have a tiny bit of respect for you if you finally committed suicide.

                So do it.

                1. Shitsy Shitler, drinking Shitsy Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…

                  He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
                  Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
                  Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
                  Has no thoughts that help the people,
                  He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
                  On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
                  Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
                  Kool-Aid man, please listen,
                  You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
                  Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
                  The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!

                  A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil

                  Hey Shitsy Shitler…
                  If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
                  Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
                  You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!

            2. “ Using collusion to block payment processors, Web hosts, etc.”

              I have never expressed support for such activities. You often argue with a White Knight who has opinions that exist only in your head.

              1. Who do you think you’re kidding.

                …and no, I’m not going to bother hunting down one of your idiot statements. Everyone here already knows what you’re all about.

                1. “Everybody here” meaning your Trump worshiping, OANN-swallowing clique.

                  1. Rightist Trump worshippers have a TINY bit of a legit gripe about how domain control works (I think… I am NOT an “expert on everything” like JesseSPAZ claims to be), and blocking payments to certain parties. This is Government Almighty’s fault as is so often the case. Rather than just go and fix THOSE small problems alone, thought, the idiot clique here wants to burn down the whole house, along with a few tiny problems here! “Whole house” including section 230 especially!

                    Hey man, my toaster oven is broken! Let’s burn down my whole house, and I’m sure that the insurance company will pay up! Everything will be newer and better! Everyone’s insurance payments will go up, you say? Who gives a shit about THEM?!?!

                    1. Somehow they think putting government in charge of whether social media platforms are treating conservatives fairly is going to work out well for people with far right political opinions.

                    2. White Knight nails it!!! Far righter-wingers thinking that NEW Government Almighty powers being used for THEIR special benefit is an extremely deluded belief, though, to be sure!

                    3. You’re the guy who eat his own poop right?

                    4. Some folks are intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent enough to competently discus ethics, morality, and politics. Others? They literally know how to talk shit, and little if anything else!

                    5. Rught but you ARE the guy who eats his own poop?

                    6. “Dear Abby” is a personal friend of mine. She gets some VERY strange letters! For my amusement, she forwards some of them to me from time to time. Here is a relevant one:

                      Dear Abby, Dear Abby,
                      My life is a mess,
                      Even Bill Clinton won’t stain my dress,
                      I whinny seductively for the horses,
                      They tell me my picnic is short a few courses,
                      My real name is Mary Stack,
                      NO ONE wants my hairy crack!
                      On disability, I live all alone,
                      Spend desperate nights by the phone,
                      I found a man named Richard (Dick) Decker,
                      But he won’t give me his hairy pecker!
                      Dick Decker’s pecker is reserved for farm beasts,
                      I am beastly, yes! But my crack’s full of yeasts!

                      So Dear Abby, that’s just a poetic summary… You can read about the Love of my Life, Richard Decker, here:
                      Farmers kept refusing to let him have sex with their animals. So he sought revenge, authorities say.
                      Decker the hairy pecker told me a summary of his story as below:
                      Decker: “Can I have sex with your horse?”
                      Farmer: “Lemme go ask the horse.”
                      Farmer: “My horse says ‘neigh’!”
                      And THAT was straight from the horse’s mouth! I’m not horsin’ around, here, no mare!

                      So Richard Decker the hairy pecker told me that, apparently never even realizing just HOW DEEPLY it hurt me, that he was all interested in farm beasts, while totally ignoring MEEE!!

                      So I thought maybe I could at least liven up my lonely-heart social life, by refining my common interests that I share with Richard Decker… I, too, like to have sex with horses!

                      But Dear Abby, the horses ALL keep on saying “neigh” to my whinnying sexual advances!
                      Some tell me that my whinnying is too whiny… Abby, I don’t know how to fix it!

                      Dear Abby, please don’t tell me “get therapy”… I can’t afford it on my disability check!

                      Now, along with my crack full of yeasts… I am developing anorexia! Some are calling me a “quarter pounder with cheese”, but they are NOT interested at ALL, in eating me!!! They will NOT snack on my crack!

                      What will I DO, Dear Abby?!?!?

                      -Desperately Seeking Horses, Men, or ANYTHING, in Fort Worth,
                      Yours Truly,
                      Mary Stack / Tulpa / Mary’s Period / “.” / Satan

                    7. Ok but you are the guy who eats his own poop?

                    8. He IS the guy who eats his own poop. However he is also a scatalogical gourmet, who likes to sample the delicacies of other people’s poop too.

                2. Indeed we do. He’s too gutless to take a stand for his evil beliefs.

  17. By the way, you know the rule about headlines framed as questions – the answer is “No”. It’s why Nat Hentoff quit the ACLU, their defense of the Nazis cost them so much in terms of membership and contributions that they declined to support the Nazis in further litigation, deciding this was not a hill they were willing to die on. Which of course raises the age-old question of: If you’re not willing to die on this hill, what hill are you willing to die on? And the answer is of course: No hill. There is no hill we are willing to die on. Life is too dear and peace too sweet that it is to be purchased even at the price of chains and slavery. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or not, just don’t give me death.

    1. Liberty or death refers to actual death. The “ACLU dying on a hill” refers to contributions drying up too the point where their attorneys prefer to go into private practice, “sweet life” is never at risk. Not the same thing.

      1. Noy-Boy-Toy-the-Internet-Freedom-DeSTROYer does NOT recognize the freedom to use “figures of speech” freely! It is against the “muh principles” of Noy-Boy-Toy!

        That an ORGANIZATION (like the ACLU) would “die on a hill” for lack of donations? Machs nix! That this very chat board right here would give up “sweet life” because Noy-Boy-Toy-the-Internet-Freedom-DeSTROYer got His Precious Way, and had Section 230 destroyed for HIS Precious Punishment Boner? That’s OK, too!

        December.18.2020 at 11:31 pm

        “Yeeble-heeble, brimbles, pork-blork, yada-yada, etc.”

        “Yes, comment sections like this will go away and that is a good thing because…” Because of unpredictable crap that MIGHT happen, in the fever dreams of Noy-Boy-Toy-the-Internet-Freedom-DeSTROYer!

        1. “Mooble-babble-herpity-derp”

          1. Yibble-hibble Base Bumber Sevenbreem to Glorble Gooper:

            You sound as if you might possumibly bee an intelligrunt bleeing. Could you please attempt intelligrunt cummunications with Noy-Boy-Toy-the-Internet-Freedom-DeSTROYer? Maybe you could accumplish whut I couldn’t… Could you PLEASE explain that it would NOT be a good idea, for us to destroy all of our UFOS, flying saucers, flying tea-cups, and flying toilet plungers and what-not, on the wild-ass ASSUMPTION (assumptions make asses out of you and me, you know!) that our flying what-nots will IMMEDIATELY be magically replaced by something FAR better?

            Yibble-hibble Base Bumber Sevenbreem over and out!

            1. “Crooble-creep- But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Επιγονοι [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog” -gabble-le-gupp.”

  18. Hyacinth Macaw the largest of all the species parrots in the world.

    With an impressive length of 100 cm, the Hyacinth Macaw is the largest of all the species of parrots in the world. They live in the open air and the savannah meadows of northern Brazil. Their population has declined in recent years. Today, there are less than 5,000 Hyacinth Macaws in the world. Habitat decline and hunting are major threats to the Hyacinth Macaw.

    In addition to its large size, this species is famous for its striking plumage with bright yellow rings around the eyes. Due to this striking color, it is also called “Macau Blue”. They also have a beautiful long tail and curved black plume.

    With the right training you can become a great pet. To make these parrots feel comfortable, you also need to give them plenty of space. They are very playful animals, but they do not learn words as easily as some other members of this family.

    But beware! No one can guarantee that they will not bite you even with proper care and training. Hyacinth Macaw can also be extremely strong when they are in a team.

    Hyacinth Macaw the largest of all the species parrots in the world.

    1. WK is a far more impressive bird.

  19. 18th century: Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and reasonable people have to accept seeing and hearing offensive material.

    21st century: Not seeing or hearing anything offensive is a fundamental right, and reasonable people have to accept restrictions on speech.

    1. 22nd century: What was speech?

      1. ^THIS………………………….

      2. I prefer an alternate future……. “What were progressives”.

        1. My preference: “Remember when everyone realized that “progressives” really hate progress, and we started calling them commie-luddites?

  20. The ACLU was founded by socialists to advance their agenda. Taking up controversial cases was simply part off their PR strategy, not proof of a long term, principled commitment to civil liberties.

    Furthermore, even if the ACLU had been principled once, organizations get invaded and taken over by progressives and leftists over time.

    1. Or organizations can be invaded by rightists and fascists over time. No matter who takes over, they think their opinion is correct and deserves free speech, and their horrible opponents don’t deserve the same. Horribilizing our opponents is a standard technique to shut down free speech, Civility does not mean we can’t say things that offend, but that we should allow each other grace.

      1. Your fantasies aren’t relevant

      2. Many previously non partisan organizations have been taken over by leftist ideologues (i.e. progressives) and identity politics.

        But I don’t recall any organizations that have been “invaded by rightists and fascists”. How about providing an example or two.

        And in fact, “rightists and fascists” are just condescending terms that lefties call libertarians, conservatives, Republicans and everyone else who they disagree with.

      3. You should read up on the long march through the institutions sometime and see what side it comes from.

      4. lol… rightists and fascists — as if those two weren’t actually completely opposites.

      5. Or organizations can be invaded by rightists and fascists over time.

        I don’t know of any examples where conservatives have taken over a progressive or socialist organization and changed its mission or objective; can you think of any?

        I agree that fascists can and do take over organizations; that’s not surprising since they are anti-democratic extremists whose ideology is a branch off communism/socialism.

        On the other hand, socialists and progressives have made the takeover of institutions and using moderate causes as cover an explicit, well-documented part of their attack on liberal democracies; Marcuse (Counterrevolution and Revolt) and Alinsky (Rules for Radicals) have documented this well. Can you give any equivalent examples from conservatives?

        No matter who takes over, they think their opinion is correct and deserves free speech, and their horrible opponents don’t deserve the same.

        That’s incorrect. Libertarians and most conservatives believe that everybody should be permitted to speak because truth does not need to fear public discussion or disagreement. Socialists and progressives want to impose limits on speech because their ideologies are irrational and depend on imposing compliance and ignorance on the population.

  21. Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically,visit the given link.

  22. Ah but the left doesn’t need to protect free speech anymore. They are in control of the levers of power and plan to stay. Also they have learned they don’t need laws they just find out who you are and cancel you. Call your employer and get you fired. Deplatformed and cut off from your finances. They are a mob. They swarm in violent groups to oppose you if you try to vote them out.

    Sorry but dreaming about the past litigation means nothing. The left aims to silence you permanently. They aren’t concerned about case law. It will never go in front of a judge they don’t control. Want a vaccine? Nope not brown enough. Same with education and soon jobs. Oh you want to work? Nah we’ll just hire people from elsewhere who’ll work for less.

    1. Hey now. wk above thinks deplatforming never happens. Why would he lie to push a lefty narrative???


    Disrupting white capitalism with @BLMLA. The shopping center in Marina Del Rey is packed with people.

    The malls are still open because our elected officials care more about protecting capital than anything else. #FuckCapitlaism #BlackLivesMatter

    1. Well, there you go. You’ve FINALLY posted something where Black Lives Matter is officially involved.

      And what are they doing in the video? Rioting, breaking into people’s houses. Nope — standing around with placards.

      1. They were officially involved in that Christmas Lights protest that you lied about and said that they weren’t.

        1. Link to whatever you are talking about? I don’t know what the “Christmas Lights” protest supposedly discussed is.

          1. “Nardz and Sevo are competing to see who can hold out the longest before going on a shooting rampage.”


            1. Yes, they are. They are both very angry people.

              1. I am so happy that you finally admit and agree that your own post is disgusting.

              2. You are the angry one. Filled with hate and envy, just like every other progressive. This world would almost be a paradise without your kind trying to enslave the rest of us.

      2. It looks like they are blocking traffic pedestrians from going where they want.

        Is that ok, Dee?

        1. Blocking traffic in a parking lot? It’s a pretty minor offense. And not evident from the video that they resisted moving out of the way when asked.

          1. “It’s a pretty minor offense”

            Who made you the arbiter of that?

            1. Me. I’m the arbtrar of my own opinions and value judgements.

              1. Which doesn’t answer the question because as can be seen no one asked about the “arbtrar” of your OPINIONS.

                1. Liberals think they are the center of the universe.
                  Allowing things depends on if THEY like the people who are doing it. If it was Trump supporters it would be more than a minor offense.

          2. Ironic that a super open borders advocate thinks violating peoples freedom of movement when it’s BLM doing it is a minor issue.

            1. That’s just his opinion maaaaan

            2. Wow, that was a stretch!

              1. Not really. But this is one of those times not being smart is a real disadvantage to you.

      3. God damn the mendacity from you. Videos have been posted with local BLM leaders and you’ve denied it. Fuck off piece of lefty shit.

        1. There was like one video of some BLM leader saying (not doing) offensive things in some park in England. And one other similar video.

          And about a hundred videos so far of random rioters and goons, with no evidence presented that why had any affiliation with Black Lives Matter other than things such as the t-shirts they were wearing.

          1. There was the situation posted last night where there identified themselves as BLM woth chants and you denied they were BLM and provided no evidence.

            1. They were chanting “Black lives matter!” How does that make their activities something that was officially organized by Black Lives Matter?

              1. If that’s your claim you need to supoort it. The evidence that they are is the chants.

                1. Nope, I don’t have to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that Black Lives Matter organized their activities.

                  1. So you can’t prove your claim that tjhey aren’t BLM got it

                    1. Of course I cannot. It is proving a negative, which is logically impossible.

                    2. “Of course I cannot”

                      We know. But yet you continue to assert it.

                      “It is proving a negative”

                      It is actually quite possible to prove they are official BLM fuckwit. No it is not asking you to prove a negative just because it has “not” in the word.

                      JFC you have nothing and know it. You don’t even know what proving a negative is.

                  2. “organized their activities”

                    The chants and t-shirts prove it.

                    Now prove they aren’t.

                    1. He can’t. His move is to simply no sell evidence as though he is the arbiter if what is evidence, while asserting they aren’t BLM and providing no evidence at all.

                    2. Have those shirts and chants been notarized? Otherwise Dee don’t give a shit.

                    3. No one is allowed to decide for themselves that the evidence they see means something unless it id authorized by WKasmic.

                    4. “”The chants and t-shirts prove it.””

                      If people were in Trump shirts chanting Trump things, I don’t think I’m out a limb by claiming WK would say they are Trump affiliated.


    ANTIFA: Fighting the “oppressor” by “oppressing” the “oppressed”.
    “Group who agrees with the Washington establishment, mainstream media, corporate elite, and big tech executives thinks they are fighting fascism”


    US media will not report this but the rest of the world is


    A must read for anyone that cares about science and, well, life itself and us ever getting out of this horrible covid fog.

    1. I care about science, probably more than anyone here. I read the first sentence and could immediately tell it was trash. To anyone who cares about science do NOT read this article.


    “That’s a sad, sad state of affairs.”

    A former judge from #Wisconsin, who is now representing the #TrumpCampaign in the state, told lawmakers that intimidation by the left has prevented lawyers and judges from accepting and hearing #VoterFraud cases.


    You need better representatives for the vaccine because the people out there pushing it also openly hate us and wish we were dead.

  29. While reading this thread, an ACLU pop up ad (boasting that the ACLU sued Trump) keeps popping up on my computer screen.


    WaPo prints cartoon straight from anti-semitic Nazi propaganda.

    Dehumanizes @realDonaldTrump supporters as rats.

    1. Read the comments to that Tweet. After that, I’m not feeling the spirit of reconciliation that Biden is supposed to be bringing to the Left.

      These people aren’t going to stop hating you because their guy is now in the Oval Office.

      1. I am shocked; shocked.

      2. My favorite: “Nazis ate breakfast. I doubt this means we can’t eat breakfast.”

        Dehumanizing politician adversaries by calling them rats is just part of a healthy balanced diet!

      3. After the last four years, the left better get ready for Hell. There will be no ‘reconciliation’.

        1. Get started, then.

          It’s increasingly obvious that many of the mechanisms that would stop things like voting fraud or violent rioting—or even talking about them in the media—aren’t being done because of fear of left-wing violence. Justice Roberts’s alleged statements about not wanting to cause riots being a good example. Since violence isn’t being punished, and therefore excluded as a means of causing political change, if the Right wants to be taken seriously in this brave new world, they’re going to have to make judges and reporters as afraid to piss them off, as those people are of pissing off the Left.

          Which is a fucking tragedy, but I didn’t make the rules to this game. When people like, e.g., Chuck Todd, or Governor Brown, have their heads literally explode as they go to work, then I’ll believe the Right is just as serious as the Left in trying to advance their views.

          Horrible situation we’re in. It isn’t getting better, either.


    REVEALED: ‘Simple Math’ Shows Biden Claims 13 MILLION More Votes Than There Were Eligible Voters Who Voted in 2020 Election via @gatewaypundit

    1. Not a problem to common core math.
      He thinks it’s right, so it is right.

      1. So that’s why the left have been pushing 2+2=5 all year.

    2. Do you really expect me to believe this? It was probably Donald Dump who stole the votes because he knew how unpopular he was. Remember: accuse your enemy of what you are doing. That’s what you people are doing, as usual. Amazing the lengths you people will go to defend an Orange fasco-rapist.

  32. Glenn Greenwald continues to be my least favorite journalist. Here’s his latest attempt at a “gotcha!” video.

    Watch this! What Dems (with Biden, Hillary, Kerry, Obama) were saying about Russia: after Georgia, after Russia militarily supported Assad, after Pussy Riot was jailed, after Kremlin critics and dissident journalists were poisoned or killed:

    Ummmm …….. yeah? Downplaying the Russian threat was exactly the correct approach when Democrats did it in 2012. They could not possibly have predicted that 4 years later Russia would hack the election and install a Kremlin asset as President of the United States.


    1. Same fools who draw red lines in the sand in Syria and then back away. If the Russians or Chinese were smart they would ramp up cyber threats and economic attacks on the US as Biden will be extraordinarily weak. They will have more opportunities to get terror cells across the southern border armed by Chinese made weapons purchased by Mexican cartels. Either of those two or the Iranians can sneak WMDs across and cause mass damage. I am not hopeful Biteme can understand this and it’s obvious our intelligence and fbi apparatus is not going to figure it out in time.

      Heck a Chinese made coronavirus that’s kills almost no one sparked mass panic and loss of jobs and economic freedom. This is gonna be an ugly decade I fear.

      1. “This is gonna be an ugly decade I fear.”

        If this trend continues, you’ll be a serf at the end of it.

        The part I don’t understand, and it’s frightening, is why Biden had to be installed [I]now[/I]. The Left is winning the demographic war in the US, and they were still while Trump was in office. There wasn’t another Trump in the wings in 2024 to motivate the faithful, and it’s quite likely the Democrats were going to win that election fairly. Given that, what was so important that it couldn’t wait four more years, and let the frogs’ water get a little hotter?

        Was it that China’s leadership didn’t think they could hang onto power for another four years of Trump?

        1. Populists/anti-technocrats and nationalists/anti-globalists had been on a winning streak over the past decade: Trump, Brexit, Crimea, Assad, yellow vests, Hong Kong, Orban, Poland, Italy, etc…
          The Global Socialist party needed to kill the uppity middle and working class before Trump’s economic policies and geopolitical reorganization (aka relative peace in the mid east) could establish beyond doubt that liberty was to be desired over establishment elitist technocracy.
          So they seized upon, or came up with, the next “new” coronavirus to come out of China.
          They went all in, counting on their unprecedented-in-human-history concentration of power to crush The People and usher in Global Socialist totalitarianism.

        2. I would prefer that progressives are cleansed from America at the end of it.

      2. If the Russians or Chinese were smart they would ramp up cyber threats and economic attacks on the US

        If they start doing this and it has anything to do with them seeing your comment, I’m going to be really PO’d.

        1. Lol
          That’s a good one

  33. Himmlers 1943 speech describes evacuation and extermination of Jews in Germany, as it could easily be said about allied invasion forces, by any means possible.

    But you may choose to interpret “extermination” literally as proof of a holocaust.


    Take these Jewish leaders speeches as literally.

    “We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany”.
    David A Brown, national chairman, united Jewish campaign, 1934.

    “The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany …holy war against Hitlers people”

    Chaim Weismann, the Zionist leader, 8 September 1939, Jewish chronicle.

    The Toronto evening telegram of 26 February 1940 quoted rabbi Maurice l. Perlzweig of the world Jewish Congress as telling a Canadian audience that” The world Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years”.

    Still zero physical evidence of a holocaust.

    1. Looks like a Brian Stelter sock.

      1. Look who’s triggered by their bogeyman.

    2. We got a sick man here!

      1. There are many hateful bigots here.

        Hatred being denial of the truth and bigotry being refusal to consider arguments.

        Sound familiar?


    TDS killed more than Covid.

    Everything about corona has been twisted to make Trump the bad guy, even if that means destroying our country.

    1. Covid would have been a lot better without so many people who are deranged about Donald Trump. Very true. We should have built a wall around every MAGA rally.


    LEAKED: ‘This is not a time for you to be investigating.’ Video shows Michigan official instructing workers to count ballots fraudulent ballots


    The new “yasss you go girl” hero of leftist Twitter is a mouthpiece for a regime that runs slave labor camps and squashes protesters with tanks.

    So progressive!

    1. Sounds like the content of one of Donald Trump’s quiet afternoon daydreams.

      I bet that Chinese person hasn’t killed as many Americans as Trump.

  37. I don’t watch Fox news on the Teevee, but this popped into my feed today. I didn’t even know this happened.


    A Wisconsin man who was convicted for sexually assaulted his own young child will receive tax-payer funding for a sex change and will be moved to a women’s prison.


    Thank you @MBearof4 & you’re right, this is what real journalism looks like. @tracybeanz is REAL NEWS.

    All Americans need to remember that we, taxpayers, own all these election machines (Dominion, ESS, HART, etc).



    Nuclear systems, and defense entities were all hacked but your local board of elections is fully protected from any fraud or abuse.

    Also, people defraud in business and in tax so often that multiple entities investigate it, but your local BOE has no abuse or issues at all.

    1. ^ this is the democrat message.

      1. The Democrat message is “Shut the fuck up and stop trying to steal the election, you treasonous baby.”

        Biden doesn’t have to prove there are exactly 468 angels on the head of a pin before he gets to take power.

        Stop letting Trump’s mental illnesses rub off on you. It’s hard enough to avoid all the other diseases he spreads.

        1. I suppose you objected to the “Russia hacked the election” mene going around for the past four years.


    BREAKING – Italy confirms a first patient has been infected with the new UK strain of #COVID19 in the country.

    1. Lockdowns and masks work!

      1. Probably Trump did it.

      2. Is the problem that you don’t understand what viruses are? I think that might be the problem. The problem is so bad, in part, because Trump and his psychopathic followers thought this virus only went after Democrats. It’s why you don’t put morons in charge of things.

    2. The New Improved Corona Virus!

      Just when there was the chance that people could start turning down the panic level.

      1. Take a look at the latest scientific literature on the genome of this new UK CoV vs SARS-COV2. It’s a giant number of mutations away from what we’d expect from normal drift, and more than you’d expect from just Mother Nature screwing with it.

        COVID-19’s release was likely an accident from incompetence. This UK bug? I’m not sure.

        If the UK bug’s differences are due to human manipulation of its genome, and human facilitated in its dissemination, then something absolutely massive needs to happen to those responsible. It would be a hell of a psyop directed at China, if some third party were responsible for the manipulation, and wanted the US to lash out.

        1. A tendency to believe conspiracy theories probably stems from a misfire of logic due to an over-reliance on the assumption that human agents are our biggest threats rather than nature. I imagine to our caveman ancestors, that was very much the case.

          I looked up a report on the mutated UK virus. They hypothesize that the large number of mutations is due to evolution within a chronically infected individual. (Where selection pressures are radically different from the virus’s normal environment, including the use of convalescent plasma as treatment.)

          These circumstances are rare, but given a widespread enough pandemic, inevitable. It’s one reason among many it was a bad idea to let people get infected in large numbers. Hopefully the vaccines will still work.

  42. They wouldn’t even defend their right to call themselves Nazis, most likely.

  43. I was there getting ready to go to the park when we heard that the Nazis called off.

    I have never been able to find out exactly what went down. Was it just those 20 blubbering idiots realizing that tens of thousands of really pissed off jews were waiting for them? The Jewish Defense League was active at the time. Perhaps they had a flat tire and couldn’t make the drive. The Blues Brothers?

  44. The Nazis weren’t supposed to actually take power. Free speech is all lollipops and unicorns as long as it doesn’t have consequences.

    “The more they speak the more people will realize they’re stupid!”

    Not the case, it turns out.

    1. What consequences would they be, boy?

    2. The Nazis weren’t supposed to actually take power.

      The Weimar Republic had strong restrictions on free speech, which they tried to use to rein in fascists. Obviously free speech restrictions didn’t work.

      Furthermore, the Nazis ran on a platform almost indistinguishable from that of AOC and her fellow “democratic socialists”, and they were so popular that they became the biggest party in Germany in demoratic elections; in what way weren’t they “supposed to take power”?

      “The more they speak the more people will realize they’re stupid!” Not the case, it turns out.

      Well, many people fall for fascist ideology; just look at yourself. Nevertheless, restrictions on free speech are not the answer; they didn’t work in Germany and they won’t work in the US.

    3. The Nazis weren’t supposed to actually take power.

      Uh huh. Germany’s choice was not between freedom and Nazism. It was between Nazism and communism. It was a choice between evils, with no lesser evil in sight.

  45. I’ve made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do for more information simply open this link thank you….☛

  46. Joe Biden announced Job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you can work with your own working hours    ……. ☛…Usa Online Jobs

  47. Today’s ACLU wouldn’t defend the right of a white person to BREATHE in Skokie.

  48. One could make a strong argument that if 1930’s Germany had a “constitutional” oath of office, where officials pledged supreme loyalty to a constitution that protected individual liberties (like the U.S. Constitution) and enforced by judges, the Nazi political party would have gained power in the first place.

  49. The Nazi march in Skokie was arranged, funded, and organized by a US DOJ agency called LEAA. In other words, tax dollars were used to pay for astroturfing “nazis.” They were really just hired actors through defense contractors. The reason was to weaken the ACLU by creating a scandal. At the time, the ACLU was winning all sorts of civil liberties lawsuits against the DOJ, and the Skokie thing reduced its funding base.

  50. I am making 10,000 Dollars at home own laptop .Just do work online 2 to 4 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do Check it out whaat i do……. USA PART TIME JOB

  51. The ACLU has become just another woke organization. They actually campaign for censorship, led by this guy:

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.