Father Arrested For Wanting To Parent His Child--ACLU Refuses To Act
David Parker of Lexington, Mass. only wanted one thing. He wanted to be informed and be able to make a parental decision about whether or not his 6-year-old son was exposed to discussions about homosexual relationships. Because of it he was arrested.
Parker approached staff at Joseph Estabrook School in Lexington, Mass., Wednesday after his son brought home a copy of the book "Who's in a Family,'' that included characters who are homosexual parents, the Boston Herald reported.
According to the Herald report, Parker would not leave when Superintendent Bill Hurley advised him that he would not honor his request to be notified when his son is exposed to any discussion about same-sex households as part of classroom instruction.
according to wnd
Police arrested Parker for trespassing and he spent a night in jail before posting a $1,000 personal surety, Boston's WCVB-TV reported.
"Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied,'' Parker said in a statement.
Parker said school officials have continued to tell him he has no right to control whether or not his child is taught about same-sex marriage.
"What I am saying is, because of the same-sex marriage law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest of children. It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information. It is not that I don't want my child to ever learn it, it is I want to control the timing and manner,'" Parker told the TV station.
Brian Camenker, director of the traditional-values organization Article 8 Alliance, told the Herald Parker also asked that his son be pulled from discussions involving homosexuality that arise spontaneously.
According to the Lexington Minuteman, Parker spoke at a school committee meeting Tuesday and complained that schools have "unfettered ... access to children's psyches."
This truly disgusted me. Not that the school was teaching this (even though I don't think this is an appropriate 1st grade subject), but that a parent has no right to decide on what they want their children exposed to.
Without a doubt I felt that Mr. Parker's rights were being violated and I immediately looked to the ones that claim to be the defenders of liberty to help Mr. Parker. I called the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.
I called their contact number (617-482-3170) and spoke with a lady (who suprisingly wouldn't give me her name) about the issue. I asked her if the ACLU had a stance on this case and if so how can I donate to help. She placed me on hold for a few minutes and returned to advise me that the ACLU would not take a stance on this issue. She advised that she spoke with a few people and that they would not be taking ANY stance on this. She acknowledged that they knew about the case and when I inquired about why they weren't helping she advised that they wouldn't take a stance and will not be addressing the issue. I asked how I could help. She said, "I am sure his name is in the phone book, you can call him".
We then terminated our call. WAIT! I thought the ACLU was the defender of freedom. I thought they stood up for the rights of all. In fact their Mission Statement is:
The ACLU's Mission is to ensure that The Bill of Rights are preserved for each new generation. The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in the country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
To understand the ACLU's mission, it is important to first distinguish between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution authorizes the government to act and The Bill of Rights limits that authority to protect an individual's rights. The Bill of Rights are the first 19 amendments to the US Constitution that guard against unwarranted governmental control.
Furthermore, the American system of government is built on two counterbalancing principles:
1. That the majority of the people, through democratically elected representatives, governs the country; and
2. That the power of the government must be limited to ensure the individual rights of all.
Balancing both of these principles is essential to a healthy, democratic society. Yet, in every era of American history, the government has tried to expand its authority at the expense of individual rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union exists to make sure that doesn't happen, and to fight back when it does.
Yet they wont do anything about Mr. Parker's case. What hypocrisy! And you wonder why I can't stand the ACLU.
This is yet another reason why my son goes to Private School. I will be trying to get in contact with Mr. Parker to see if there is any way I can help. Parents should have a right to decide on what their kids are exposed to in the classroom. Schools are suppose to be teaching Reading, Writing and Arithmetic.
More info is available here
The school's info is here
NAMBLA & the ACLU - A Match Made in Hell
NAMBLA states that they are on an important, historic mission. They state that their mission is simple - abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with children as rape. NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group's web site shortly before the killing of Jeffrey Curley, a 10 year old boy, slain in 1997. Jaynes also had in his possession some of NAMBLA's publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari. Sicari, convicted of first-degree murder, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jaynes' second-degree murder and kidnapping convictions enable him to seek parole within the next 20 years. Was this a case of misunderstanding? Does this fit with NAMBLA’s philosophy of man/boy love that is non-violent? Hardly. Prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, and then smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. They then stuffed him into a concrete-filled container and dumped it into a Maine river. Non-violent? No. Loving? No.
The ACLU is a supporter of NAMBLA, representing the organization in the civil case related to the aforementioned murder. The ACLU is representing NAMBLA PRO BONO. Their official position: “In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.” I am repulsed. Repulsed by the idea that my children may not be able to say “…one Nation, under God” in school some future day - thanks to the ACLU - but this disgusting, vile organization is supported due to freedom of speech?
In February 2005, the FBI arrested three NAMBLA members at Harbor Island as they waited for a boat that undercover agents told them would sail to Ensenada for a sex retreat over Valentine’s Day with boys as young as 9. The FBI also arrested four additional NAMBLA members in a Los Angeles marina where they also planned to set sail to the same bogus retreat. These men are a cross-section of people you and I might interact with regularly: a dentist, a special education teacher, a substitute teacher, a handyman, a flight attendant who is also a psychologist, a paper company employee and a personal trainer. How horrific to know that a number of these men had daily interactions with children! As noted in court papers, most of these men told the undercover agent they had been sexually involved with children historically, including boys they met on the Internet and others. Looking more closely at these men, at least one of the men is a member of NAMBLA’s national leadership, a second organized their national convention in 2004 and a third has been a NAMBLA member since the 1980s. Thank God these criminals have been discovered so no more boys are harmed.
So what of Charles Jaynes? The Boston Herald reports that Jaynes is now battling efforts by his victim’s mother to uncover whether NAMBLA is bankrolling Jaynes’ prison canteen. There were court affidavits from two inmates claiming Jaynes engages in sex acts in the prison without discipline, shows off his victim’s autopsy and has a fat canteen account courtesy of NAMBLA. While one of these inmates has now recanted their story, questions are still present about what NAMBLA is doing for Jaynes while he is in prison. I won’t link to NAMBLA’s disgusting site, but they do have a Prisoner Program for those convicted of pedophilia. The program on their website clearly states that they do not financially support prisoners, but provides instruction on what type of information should be sent to these criminals. Here’s what NAMBLA says about those incarcerated for, what they believe, are unfounded criminal acts: “Incarceration is a terrible thing. For a boy-lover ground into the criminal justice system, it is an especially harrowing fate.” What about the fate of that 10 year old boy whose lifeless body was stuffed into a container and tossed away into the river?
Enemy Within Part III
So far in this series I have shown how the ACLU's past has revealed their support for terrorist organizations and their opposition towards methods to fight it. There are many examples of how the ACLU opposes efforts by our government to fight terrorism, and how they show support towards the enemy today.
A few examples of this are the ACLU's opposition to the no-fly list, the Patriot Act, border control, and the CFC Watch List which would require charities to check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for "terrorist activities".
But one issue in particular catches my attention. In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it's most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.
"The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that "promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state."
The Rockefeller Foundation's provisions state that recipients of its funds may not "directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity."Source
Does this strike anyone else as odd? The ACLU states that the language of the grants are too vague and could have a "chilling effect" on civil liberties. Vague? I don't know how the organizations could have been more clear. They didn't want thier money going to support or promote terrorist activity. The ACLU obviously had a problem with this.
I don't know about you, but positions like this makes me suspicious of the ACLU's intentions, and what their money goes towards. As a matter of fact, I've shown you a history of how they use their funds to defend terrorists, and they still do so today.
The United States Congress, roughly thirty years ago, passed a provision in United States Code section 1988 that requires taxpayers to pay attorneys in civil rights cases. I don't want my tax money supporting an organization that defends terrorists organizations and the sworn enemies of the United States.
Please join me in signing this Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of The ACLU
Stop The ACLU Acronym Contest
The winner get's their choice of merchandise from our Bulldoze The ACLU Store!
We would like to thank them for sponsoring this!
ACLU Vs. National Security
"Absolute" is the key word to understanding the ACLU. Its absolutist philosophies, just as any extremist view, endangers the very civil liberties it claims to protect.
In his book "Twilight of Liberty", William Donahue compares Halperins views of liberty with that of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said, "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country, by scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us: thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
"There is no doubting the ACLU's concern that there are untrustworthy public officials who will invoke national security as a cloak to cover their own wrongdoings; the pages of history are full of them. But does that mean that the only proper response is to make absolute the Bill of Rights, even in those clear-cut instances when the nation's viability is seriously called into question: It is fair to say that most who have studied the question would prefer to side with Jefferson on this matter" Twilight of Liberty pg 172
There is probably no other time that a proper balance between civil liberties and national security becomes more important than in wartime. During times of war, sometimes unusual responses are implemented, often requiring suspension of certain liberties. Of course war opens the opportunity for abuse by governments, and the ACLU are right to watch for them. However, the ACLU in its absolutist perception of freedom, only worries about one side of the equation, civil liberties. It pays no attention to the national security side of things, not only ignoring it, but in many cases working against it.
It is nothing new for the ACLU. The grew out of an organized effort to protest World War I. The only exception to their anti-war stance was World War II, and part of that is due to the investigation during this time into the theory they could be a Communist Front group.
"From 9-11 to the present day, the ACLU has vigorously opposed every governmental attempt to more effectively protect the American people’s security. It sued, for example, to prevent the implementation of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was passed in November 2001 and included a citizenship requirement for airport screeners. It organized protests against a “discriminatory” Justice Department and INS registration system requiring male “temporary visitors” to the US from 25 Arab and Muslim nations to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. It condemned the FBI’s “discriminatory” plan to count and document every mosque in the US. It protested when FBI and Homeland Security agents recently tried to track down illegal Iraqi immigrants they deemed dangerous. In Illinois, the ACLU actually set up a hotline designed to give free legal advice to undocumented Iraqis facing deportation. Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser casually dismissed Americans’ concerns about illegal immigration, chalking such sentiments up to a “wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.”
"The ACLU further claims that the Patriot Act has created an Orwellian big government of unprecedented proportions. “Under the new Ashcroft guidelines,” reads one of its disingenuous press releases, “the FBI can freely infiltrate mosques, churches and synagogues and other houses of worship, listen in on online chat rooms and read message boards even if it has no evidence that a crime might be committed.” Curiously, the ACLU does not mention that the FBI already had the authority to take these measures long before the Bush administration took power. Nor does the ACLU point out that the FBI can wiretap only after showing a court that the suspect is affiliated with a foreign terrorist group or government – the very same requirement instituted 25 years ago by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act".
"What the ACLU is actually rebelling against is the Justice Department’s recent removal of Clinton-era intelligence-gathering restrictions that had crippled the government’s ability to fight terrorism. These restrictions prohibited intelligence investigators from conferring and sharing information with criminal investigators, even if they were both trailing the very same suspect who was plotting a terrorist act. On August 29, 2001, for instance, an FBI investigator in New York desperately pleaded for permission to initiate an intensive manhunt for al-Qaeda operative Khalid Almihdar, who was known to be planning something big. The Justice Department and the FBI deputy general counsel’s office both denied the request, explaining that because the evidence linking Almihdar to terrorism had been obtained through intelligence channels, it could not legally be used to justify or aid an FBI agent’s criminal investigation; in short, it would constitute a violation of Almihdar’s “civil rights.” “Someday, someone will die,” the agent wrote to his FBI superiors, “and the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.” Thirteen days later, Almihdar took over the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the PentagonExerpt Front Page Magazine
One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU's absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, "Wartime Sedition Act." Before, the ACLU held that it "would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be "cooperating" with or acting on behalf of the enemy." This policy was based on the recognition that "our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States." In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, "the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement."
All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy!
As these policy changes indicate, balancing national security interests and civil liberties is not a goal of the ACLU. Its only goal is the absolute pursuit of unlimited civil liberties, with no regard to any consequence or negative impact upon our security. Not only does it ignore the issue of national security, but there are many examples I have shown where they actually work against it, even to the point of defending the enemy. The absolute tragedy is that it is not only the nations's security the ACLU's absolutist philosophy puts in danger, but the very cause of liberty itself. We've also saw recently the attitude of the ACLU to securing our borders, again civil liberties trump national security.
It pursues its radical agenda with your taxdollars.
Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off The Taxpayer's Dole
This was a Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join please
Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender's Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit's Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Cao's Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
We are trying to raise money for full page ads and eventually commercials exposing the ACLU's radical agenda. Help us out! Buy a bumper sticker!
Click Below To See Our Store!
Please stop by the ACLUBulldozer online store and pick up a bumper sticker or t-shirt. All proceeds go to advertising for a national march on state ACLU offices. Help put an end to the evils of the Most Dangerous Organization in America
Enemy Within Part II
Despite the fact that since 1999, Qaddafi has sought improved relations with Western European nations and issued a denunciation of terrorism, throughout the 1980's he was known to support many international terrorist and guerrilla organizations, including the Irish Republican Army, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and other extremist Arab and Islamic groups.
Personally, I still wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him.
"In 1985, the ACLU learned of an alleged plan by the CIA to engineer Qaddafi's overthrow. Outraged, they put together a "strenuous" public protest against this proposed action.
In a letter filled with self-righteous indignation, Morton Halperin, Director of the ACLU Washington office, expressed his opinion of that plan to Sen. David Durenberger, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with copies to everyone imaginable.
And to make sure no one was left out, the ACLU also issued a press release trumpeting it's opposition to any attempt to oust Qaddafi."Source
Enemy Within Part I
Recently the ACLU has opposed almost everything the government has done to fight terrorism. They oppose the no-fly list, the Patriot Act, and stronger border control. But this isn't anything new. During their history, the ACLU has found many strange ways to distort the intentions of our founding Fathers in order to grant immunity and protection for sworn enemies of America to carry out their assault on America.
Sometimes their support of terrorists and their activities are subtle, like their strong objection to the use of metal detectors in America's airports. Other times, it is much more direct.
"Like their representation of Phillip Agee. Agee is a former CIA employee who has revealed CIA secrets and names of CIA agents. When the state Department attempted to revoke Agee's passport, the ACLU came to his defense. Where did Agee want to go? This was in 1980, during the Iran hostage crisis. He wanted to go to Iran to help Khomeini's terrorists decipher CIA documents!"Source
Positions like these might be easier to understand if we look at ACLU Policy #117. They title this policy "Controlling the Intelligence Agencies". "Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluating foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations. Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by eliminating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.
Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries. Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records...."
Some More Reasons to Hate the ACLU
Recently I have gotten some email from supporters and even members of the ACLU here in
The first story I will discuss comes to us from the wonderful city of
Given the ACLU’s policy on drug legalization it’s pretty hypocritical of them not to defend the 17 who actually had drugs on them but then I am getting off point. Take this comment by local law enforcement and weigh it against the statement from the ACLU. “Genesee County Sheriff Robert Pickell, whose drug deputies participated in the raid, said What's Next has a history of tolerance for drug use that makes it a known trafficking area for dealers and users. Unfortunately folks this ploy by the ACLU has worked in the past, they won a similar case in
This next example comes from the Houston Chronicle and directly from the lips of an ACLU operative. The ACLU opposed some very successfully drug raids that were happening in Harris County, Texas because they tended to stick to lower income and minority areas. The rest of the article is gloating and the typical ACLU party line being spewed. I am not a member of law enforcement and I certainly don’t belong to any groups that seek to keep poor minorities down but I do recognize the reality that in most cities in this country, drugs are usually most prevalent in lower income areas which unfortunately are often home to many minorities. You don’t have to be a genius to understand that if we want to catch criminals then you have to go where they live and/or work. It has nothing to do with racial profiling as the ACLU would have you believe. If a WHITE MAN robs jewelry store and the cops start looking for a WHITE MAN in the nearby area because that is who robbed the store. That is not racial profiling, that is taking the information available and doing the job of catching criminals. It is unfortunate that so many of America’s criminals are themselves minorities and live in low income minority areas but damn if that’s where the bad guys are then that is where you go.
Let’s take this a step farther, we were attacked on 9/11 by 19 male Arabs. Since then has the TSA done any special screening of male Arabs entering the country on flights from known terrorist havens, nope, not at all? When the TSA under the watchful eye of Norm Mineta was asked why they were not doing special screenings for male Arabs, the reason given was that they did not want to insult or offend innocent male Arabs. Well you know again I am sorry but if we were attacked by terrorists that happen to be male Arabs then if you want to keep us safe from another attack you better take a look at male Arabs. Apparently in its march to destroy
And the third story to make of the ACLU trifecta of “evil” is about how the ACLU with absolutely no regard for the financial well being of the
Look the law, remember the law, in
Now at the start of this very long post I promised some good news about the ACLU. Well here it is, recently the ACLU lost a case in which a previous precedent that the ACLU had in fact set was successfully used to defend a Christian group. The ACLU in losing this case has now reversed themselves on the very precedent they used to get a school district to grant access to a gay student club. Actually the ACLU has not lost anything rather they have now filed a friend of the court brief in opposition to Equal Access Act. I just love it when the ACLU shows up on both sides of an issue; it just further illustrates what an “evil” organization they are. I guess they are the ones who taught John Kerry that “both sides of the issue” trick. The Alliance Defense Fund used the Equal Access Act in exactly the same manner that the ACLU did in a similar case involving a gay student group that was denied access for after-school activities. The Case, Prince vs. Jacoby was heard by the “hated” Ninth circuit court of Appeals and simply had no choice but to follow the precedent set by the ACLU’s case. I really can’t say it any better then the ADF’s Tim Chandler so I will just quote him, "This goes to show how far the ACLU will manipulate the legal system to further their radical agenda," said
Well folks that is all for today. I know that many out their in the vast space of the BlogSphere still believe that the ACLU does good and sticks up for the little man, woman, gay, or illegal immigrate, well to you ignorant people I have just one little statement, get a clue or at least buy one. The ACLU is a leftist/socialist group that is dedicated to the destruction of the values that
THE ACLU CRACKS DOWN ON BORDER-CROSSING
But it seems that now they have a border-crosser they want to crack down on:Fox New's Sean Hannity ! I don't think I could state it any more elequantly than Michelle Malkin has on her site: "Hannity stepped across a fence for a few seconds, and now the ACLU and a Democrat state legislator want him prosecuted. If Hannity were a citizen of any other country besides America, the ACLU would be rushing to represent him pro bono as a persecuted "undocumented migrant."
The ACLU's position towards our border security is only a fraction in their total disregard to America's national security. Stay tuned this week as I reveal much more on their attitude toward's America's National Security.
Calling The ACLU
I called the my local ACLU office and the National ACLU Office today to request a copy of their official policy guide.
National ACLU Phone Call: Of course we'll skip over the ....ring, ring! I choose zero for operator after the electronic menu....
ACLU Operator: National ACLU Office, can I help you?
Me: Yes, I was wondering if there was a way I could view, or obtain a copy of your official policy guide?
ACLU Operator: Well, actually sir, the policy guide is for internal purposes only, and not available to the public.
Me: What? Well, maam, why is that? I don't understand why it wouldn't be available for the public. I've searched your website, and I was somewhat interested in joining your organization, but before I join or give my money to anything, I like to know exactly what I'm jumping into!
ACLU Operator: Ummm...well...what positions are you wondering about?
Me: Well, I would like to know All the positions. I'd really like to see the actual policy guide...I really don't understand why that wouldn't be available! Is there someone you could refer me to, that might know how to help me?
ACLU Operator: Well...ummm...uh..Perhaps, sir, you should put your request in writing.
Me: Sure! And where and to whom would I send this?
ACLU Operator: Send it to Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU at 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004.
Me: OK, I will do that...thanks!
And I shall send that letter of request! Believe me, I shall.
Now when I called my local ACLU, they were even more ignorant. After getting shuffled around, and put on hold several times...I finally left a message to the public relations operator who was "away from the desk". She called me back a little later. Very nice lady, and very mislead and misinformed.
ACLU of PA
ACLU: Yes, you were inquiring about a policy guide?
Me: Yes, I was wondering if I could somehow view or obtain a copy of the ACLU's policy guide.
ACLU: Well, um, sir...I'm not sure if there is an actual policy guide per say...but you can see our positions at our website.
Me: Yes, I've seen your website, and there seems to be some interesting positions, but before I join something I really want to know what I'm getting into completely. Can you understand, what I mean?
ACLU: Well, yes, of course sir...what policies were you concerned with in particular?
Me: Well, actually, all of them. But, I read somewhere that you opposed tax exemptions for all Churches! I wouldn't agree with a position such as this, but I searched the website and didn't see your position on this. That is why I would really like to see the official policy guide.
ACLU: Well, sir, I can tell you straight up that the ACLU does not oppose tax exemptions for Churches! (She was very misinformed, as I will show you in a future post...I've gotten my hands on quite a few of their official policy statements. She didn't even know they had an official policy guide.) She went on..."The only way we would oppose any tax exempt status for a Church is if they would be in reference to the seperation of church and state.
Me: Well, I could understand that, but what I read went on to say that while the ACLU opposed tax exemptions for Churches that it helped get a tax exemption for a Wiccan.
ACLU: She went on to regurgitate some seperation of church and state garbage again.
Me: So, is there someone you could direct me to so that I could get the official policy guide?
ACLU: Well, sir...I could send you some pamphlets on our different positions and stuff. Or, if you give me your email address I could send you links to where you could find them on the internet.
Me: OK, that sounds great...lets do that.
ACLU: Is there any other concerns besides Church and State issues that you are interested in?
Me: Well, ummm....yes, I would also like to know the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment.
ACLU: Well, what in particular would you like to know on that?
Me: Well, you know? Like, ...just how many times you guys have defended it (NONE), and just what your actual position is on it....See it here
So, I went on to give her my email address...she was obviously ignorant of many of the ACLU's policies, and didn't even know they had an official policy...AND SHE WORKS FOR THEM!
That the ACLU is misinforming its own employees, or at the least not informing them with their policies...is pretty ridiculous.
And as for what I was told at the National ACLU...that their policies are not for the public, and only for internal purposes...Quiet a few red flags went up! Now, I knew going into this the run around I would recieve. In the 1988 presidential campaign, the ACLU were brought into the spotlight when Dukakis announced that he was a proud card carrying member. Bush took advantage of this and quoted several of the ACLU's positions that he disagreed with, including their policy to get rid of movie ratings, legalizing the distribution and possession of Kiddy Porn, and their opposition to tax exemptions for Churches.
Public pressure was enormous on the ACLU to release its official policy after this. They refused for a long time. They finally made it available under certain restrictions. Anyone could "view" their policies if they came to the National Office, but they could not obtain a copy, and of course there was a "nominal" fee! So, you have to pay them to see them. Apparantly, from the conversations I had with them...they have put them back behind closed doors!
Now, the ACLU has a non-profit status, and they push their agenda on each and every one of us through the Court system daily. Shouldn't they be accountable to us?
One question to ask yourself...why shouldn't the public be able to see the Official ACLU Policy Guide? I think public pressure like that of 1988 needs to be put back on the ACLU! What does the ACLU have to hide? Well, I know...very radical and extreme policies. Let's put the pressure on the ACLU to release its Official Policy Guide to the public!
Join me in my letter of request to Nadine. Write to the ACLU and demand that its policy guide be opened to the public. We have the right to know.
ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
Or just call: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 212-549-2500
To find your local ACLU go here
On a funny note...Kender called his local ACLU too, and after much runaround got hung up on when he told them he was with Stop The ACLU.Org! LOL! To see his conversation go HERE!
SIGN THE "EXPOSE THE ACLU'S AGENDA" PETITION
The ACLU and The Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Can anyone see the contradiction between the Constitution's actual text with that of the ACLU?
"Gun prohibitionists often cite this case for the proposition that the court held that the Second Amendment only protected the right of the states` National Guard to have government issued arms (i.e., the "Collective Rights" theory). This is an untruth. In fact, the court held that the entire populace constituted the "militia," and that the Second Amendment protected the right of the individual to keep and bear militia type arms."Source
So the ACLU wants to use dated cases to back up its purely politically biased policy? How about this:
"All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"We conclude that the phrase 'bear arms' refers generally to the carrying or wearing of arms. . . [The] argument that 'bear arms' was exclusively, or even usually, used to only refer to the carrying or wearing of arms by a soldier or militiaman must be rejected."
"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training." Fifth Circuit of Appeals 2001
The Supreme Court therefore views the words "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If "the people" really meant the right of states to maintain a militia, then we would be left with the absurd notion that only the states have the right to peaceably assemble, only the states have the right to be secure in their persons and property, etc. The Supreme Court's position is indisputable: the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. Also instructive is the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)
These are much more current sources to use for interpretation than one from 1939! As a matter of fact, see what the Supreme Court has said in 35 other cases on gun rights here. You will find that in an overwhelming majority of the cases they have said that the second amendment protects an "individual's" right to bear arms.
So, if you follow the rationale of the ACLU....I guess those fine pilgrims who settled this great nation had no right to hunt for food using a gun, or protect their families from wild animals and criminals! As a matter of fact I wouldn't have those same rights today!
Throughout our history Americans have never been denied their right to own a gun as an individual. Don't you think Congress would have intervened early in our history if their intentions were as the ACLU believes?
This issue isn't even about gun control, according to the ACLU we don't even have the right to own one. What more control do you need?
Any intelligent person who wants to study or debate this issue seriously should start with S. Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment. Professor Levinson of the University of Texas was a devoted liberal who set out to prove that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual's right to bear arms. To his great embarrassment, he found the evidence to be overwhelmingly to the contrary. He had the integrity to admit it, for which he deserves utmost respect. He does not like gun ownership, any more than I like flag-burning, but he recognized that the right does exist, and is an important inclusion to our rights protected by the constitution, despite whether one likes it or not.
Thank God for the NRA, and thank God that the ACLU has not been active in pushing it's interpretation of the second amendment. Let's hope it stays that way. In parting I leave you with some quotes.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves....all men capable of bearing arms....".....Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, Additional Letters, from the Federal Farmer, 1788
"The advantage of being armed...the Americans possess over the people of all other nations.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison,Federalist No. 26
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-- Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." --Thomas Jefferson
Right Wing News ask the Question 1: "What, in your opinion, is the root cause for the liberal's anti-2nd Amendment movement in the US?" -- Good_Ol_Boy
Petition To The ACLU To Change This Policy
This was a Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join please Email me!
Sites Already on Board::
Respublica
Ravings of A Mad Tech
Kender's Musings
Gribbit's" Word
Cao's" Blog
Ramblings From Regular Ron
Freedom-Of Blog
Is This Life?
The American Patriots
Patriots For Bush
California Conservatives 4 Truth
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Def Conservative
NIF
Extreme Right Wing
Obiter Dictum Blog
PBS Watch
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
An American Housewife
American Dinosaur
Conservative Dialysis
Jack Lewis.net
The Wide Awakes
Freedom Of Thought
Conservative Angst
Stop The ACLU
Common Sense Runs Wild
Red State Rant
Angry Republican Mom
We are trying to raise money for full page ads and eventually commercials exposing the ACLU's radical agenda. Help us out! Buy a bumper sticker!
Click Below To See Our Store!
Please stop by the ACLUBulldozer online store and pick up a bumper sticker or t-shirt. All proceeds go to advertising for a national march on state ACLU offices. Help put an end to the evils of the Most Dangerous Organization in America
ACLU Clamors for Student Sensitivity Training in Kentucky
That's right, we have to tell them what to think and say, don't we, Lili? If this is what I think it is, something like a student wearing a Straight Pride T-shirt, it would seem this is simply a smear against conservatives as we're seeing on College Campuses across the nation. With the help of the NEA and even law enforcement, conservatives are labelled "terrorists" and schools even call the police on them."It's the settlement, which includes the training, that's at issue here. The students risked a lot to put themselves out there to make Boyd County a safer place, and they're very troubled to think that the programs would not be sustained," said Sharon McGowan, a staff attorney for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
The settlement mandates that the anti-harassment training emphasize sexual orientation. The suit by the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund claims that violates the rights of students opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons.
"Simply telling students they shouldn't harass or attack others is not the same thing as telling them what they can think or say," said Kentucky ACLU staff attorney Lili Lutgens in a statement.
From a Christian Attorney at Concerned Women For America
ACLU threatens suit if school students aren’t forced to watch gay tolerance film.
School officials in Boyd County, Kentucky, face the threat of an ACLU lawsuit if they don’t force all middle and high school students to attend sexual-orientation and gender-identity “tolerance training.”
Meanwhile, a Christian legal organization, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), has promised to fight for the right of parents to let students opt out of an hour-long tolerance training video.
The story began in 2002, when a group of students at Boyd County High School sought to form a Gay-Straight Alliance club. The school is located in the northeastern corner of Kentucky, a conservative community in coal mining country, close to the borders of Ohio and West Virginia.
After the school denied the request, the ACLU contacted the school in September 2002. In late October 2002, the school’s decision-making council held an emotional hour-long meeting, at which many parents voiced their concerns. In a 3-2 vote, the council approved the club.
The next Monday, nearly half of the school’s 990 students stayed home from classes for one day to protest the decision. Soon thereafter, local ministers organized a protest rally, in which hundreds of persons participated. Members of Citizens for Community Values, a group promoting Judeo-Christian values, urged school officials to set up programs that teach tolerance without approving homosexual activity.
In December 2002, the Board of Education decided to ban all school clubs, an option allowed under the Federal Equal Access Act. The Act requires only that schools treat all non-curricular clubs equally.
The following month, the ACLU brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The court heard oral arguments in March 2003. There was evidence indicating that the school district, despite banning all clubs, had allowed certain student groups to continue meeting.
In April 2003, U.S. District Judge David L. Bunting ordered the school district to let the Gay Straight Alliance group meet and use school facilities. After the ruling, school officials and the ACLU entered into a consent decree in which the district agreed to conduct an annual tolerance training session for middle and high school students, with the hour-long video covering sexual orientation and gender identity. The decree failed to include a provision whereby parents could exempt their children from the training session.
What the ACLU hadn’t factored into its plans was the determination of many parents of Boyd County to decide what is best for their children.
In the 10 months since the settlement was reached, 105 of 730 middle school students opted out of the training video, as did 145 of 971 high school students. On the day scheduled for tolerance training, 324 students didn’t show up for school.
James Esseks, litigation director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, argues that parents should not be allowed to exempt their children from tolerance training. According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, Esseks said, “If parents don’t like it they can home school, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school.” The ACLU is threatening to take the school district to court a second time if the district doesn’t force all students to attend the tolerance training.
“Once again the ACLU’s intolerance of parental rights and religious convictions belies their hypocritical claim to ‘defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country,’” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel.
Strong opposition has been raised by the Defenders Voice, a community group formed to protest the consent decree. Headed by a local minister, the group argues that the ACLU should not be allowed to tell parents what their children must learn.
The ADF recently stepped in to help Defenders Voice, pledging to sue the district unless it adopts an opt-out policy. ADF lawyer Joe Platt stated that mandatory training on tolerance for homosexuals violates the rights of parents and students who believe homosexual activity is immoral.
It is interesting to note that the state of Kentucky allows parents to opt out from school requirements for child immunization based on religious beliefs, yet the Boyd County school district has not allowed a religious exemption from a mandatory pro-homosexual tolerance training session.
In the Boyd County High School dispute, we see an attack on the right of families to guide the moral upbringing of children. Meanwhile, according to the Louisville Courier Journal, the Gay Straight Alliance at Boyd County High has fallen by the wayside due to lack of student involvement.
Anne Downey is a Christian attorney who practices law with her husband in New York state. She is a member of the Christian Legal Society, an Alliance Defense Fund "ally," and is volunteering her services to CWA's Legal Studies Department.
ACLU Vols Toking It UP?
Michelle Malkin reports, "I've contacted the ACLU of Arizona for comment. Also am tracking down the person who took the photos. I've been informed that the Cochise County Sheriff's Office has the pictures and has received a complaint, but is unlikely to take action."
Here are the pics...you be the judge!
Others blogging about this:
The Blue State Conservatives
Confederate Yankee
Wizbang
Discarded Lies
The Immigration Blog
Kill Righty
All of these blogs are new to me and are being added to my blogroll!
Proof that the ACLU hates the American Military
Once again the ACLU has proved by its actions that it is firmly an Anti-American organization that seems to be dedicated to the destruction of the morals and values that our great country was founded on. The ACLU has taken the case of a man who is offended that on his trips to
Here is a snippet from the article on this travesty.
The cross, two pipes strapped together and mounted on a rock outcrop in the remote
Although there had never been a complaint about the veterans memorial cross in more than 70 years, the ACLU seized the opportunity to file a federal suit to destroy it as a violation of the Establishment Clause – and to seek attorney fees under the Civil Rights Act.
It has collected $63,000 in attorney fees so far, although neither it nor the plaintiff, Frank Buono, has any actual attorney fees. Buono is a retired Forest Service employee who moved to
The federal court in
The fact that the ACLU found a judge to go along with this latest attack on the Christian foundation of this country should surprise no one since this story takes place in the People’s Socialist Nation of California. For 70 years there were no complaints about the cross and would have been that way for another 70 years if not for some wacko getting the feeling that he could sue and win because the ACLU has given “hope” to the horribly oppressed in
The ACLU has seen fit to raise the ante in their mission against
I take some offense to Mr. Terrazas comment. First of all, joining the military is a much greater decision the picking a college. Choosing a college is not a life or death decision and the attempt to equate it to choosing where you going to be drunk for 4 or more years does a great disservice to all who proudly serve. The recruiter’s job is to get people to sign up for the military and as with many things it is a sales job. The explanation of the ramifications is the responsibility of parents and the suggestion by Mr. Terrazas that the recruiter should do that is an example of how parents pass the buck when it comes to dealing with their children. The move to restrict access to both college and high school students from military recruiters has been an on going battle for the last few years. This action by the ACLU only serves to weaken our military and as a direct result, our national security.
HELP US EXPOSE THE ACLU'S RADICAL AGENDA AGAINST AMERICA!
A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing!
A Covert Mission
A look at the ACLU website is both misleading and disturbing—“To Keep America Safe and Free”. But take a closer look … and becomes frighteningly clear that the ACLU is to be feared. Instead of keeping America safe, they are aggressively working to strip all vestiges of our religious foundation, law and liberty from our nation.
And how are they achieving their goal?
By twisting the First Amendment into something it was never meant to be, and seeking out vulnerable targets—in small towns, cities and states across America.Just look at what is happening with the Ten Commandments. In dozens of cases the ACLU has succeeded in stripping the Ten Commandments from public view. In Alabama, the ACLU attacked Chief Justice Roy Moore, one of the most respected justices in the nation, who had erected a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse. He not only lost, but now is being sued by the ACLU for legal fees!
Click here to read more about the real agenda of the ACLU.On virtually every issue that has to do with morality and spiritual heritage, from issues such as the Ten Commandments, School Prayer, Faith-based initiatives, The Rights of the Unborn, and protecting our children from the onslaught of pornography, the ACLU has stood against us—proving that their interests are only in keeping God from America.
URGENT CALL TO ACTION
Unless Americans take decisive action to put expose the ACLU’s true agenda,We will most certainly lose our rich religious liberty! That’s precisely why we need your support!The Center For Reclaiming America is launching an aggressive effort that includes delivering 100,000 signed petitions from outraged citizens from across the nation who want our legislative leaders and key media outlets to know the true agenda of the ACLU!In addition, The Center will expose the ACLU’s agenda through a national television campaign and vital research projects—all designed to spread the truth about the ACLU’s destructive ambitions. Here’s how YOU can help:
SIGN THE "EXPOSE THE ACLU’S AGENDA" PETITION.
Court Zero's Petition To Stop Taxpayer's Funding Of The ACLU!
WHEREAS, the American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU) has shown itself to be hostile to religious expression by private citizens and the civil rights of people of faith; and WHEREAS, the ACLU has declared war on the Boy Scouts of America, the military of the United States, Christmas displays, public buildings that display the Ten Commandments, and many other American traditions;
Liberty and Justice For All
and WHEREAS, the United States Congress, roughly thirty years ago, passed a provision in United States Code section 1988 that requires taxpayers to pay attorneys in civil rights cases;
and WHEREAS, the ACLU has abused that law to make untold millions of dollars simply by suing boy scouts, school children, military academies, cities and towns, with the goal of punishing any who dare to exercise their First Amendment right to religious freedom and expression;
and WHEREAS, the vast majority of taxpayers do not want to be forced to pay the ACLU to sue their neighbors and friends in the ACLU's efforts to strip America of all signs of faith;
and WHEREAS, the Establisment Clause of the First Amendment was not contemplated when USC section 1988 was passed;
THEREFORE, the People of the United States call upon their Congress to amend USC section 1988 so that hostile special interest groups such as the ACLU can no longer be granted taxpayer money to attack Americans and their institutions. We, The People, call upon our elected representatives to amend USC section 1988 so that fees are not awarded to the ACLU or any other plaintiff in Establisment Clause cases. We wish for the Free Expression Clause to implicate at least the same financial incentives as attacks upon faith currently have.
Progressive Policies Cause Starvation
Russia was the breadbasket of Europe until progressives seized power in that year and started instituting policies to "share the wealth." For the next 70 years until socialism collapsed, Russia was a net importer of food, always on the brink of famine.
In the 1930s, Stalin instigated a calculated famine in the Ukraine to rid himself of approximately 10 million political enemies. His crime was protected by the progressives at the New York Times and on the Pulitzer Prize Committee (they control both institutions to this day).
Because soft progressives cover for hard-line progressives like Stalin, Castro and other political monsters – preferring to demonize George Bush and John Ashcroft instead – these atrocities continue.
The left's inability to understand the most basic economic fact – that people need an incentive to produce – has caused the unnecessary deaths of tens of millions of people – mostly poor – in the last 75 years. But thanks to a politically corrupted media and educational system, their pig-headed pursuit of socialist fantasies goes on.
A few years ago when Robert Mugabe, the leftist dictator of Zimbabwe, began his race war against white farmers to the cheers of progressives here (including such luminaries of the social justice cause as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton), I had a correspondence with a black journalist friend of mine who writes for all the leftist news outlets that pretend to care about black people but really care only about their destructive left-wing agendas. I suggested that he might get his friends to protest Mugabe's bloody racism and brain-dead Marxism before poor black people began starving in Zimbabwe as a result of these criminal policies aimed at the most productive segment of Zimbabwe's economy.
Naturally my friend defended the murders and thefts as "social justice" and turned a blind eye to the racism since it was only directed against whites, whose parents of course had been "imperialists." In this he was expressing the majority of world progressive opinion, for example that of the dictatorships and radical organizations that attended the Orwellian U.N. Conference Against Racism in Durban in September 2001, an orgy of racist attacks on whites and Jews.
America and Britain, which led the world in ending slavery and even attempted (futilely) to end it in Africa, were put in the dock at the U.N. and held up for "reparations" while the Muslim Sudan, which maintains slavery today, and the League of Arab States, whose ancestors enslaved more black Africans than all the Europeans and Americans put together, were not. Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, whose Arab citizens have more rights than Arabs in all the Arab states, was attacked for racism, while the Arab states which forbid Jews to set foot on their territory were not.
Now the progressive chickens are coming home to roost in Zimbabwe. On Christmas Eve the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page news story on conditions in Mugabe's Marxist police state. The title of the Journal story said it all: "Once a Breadbasket, Now Zimbabwe Can't Feed Itself." Corn production – the staple diet – has declined by two-thirds in the last three years and 6 million Zimbabweans are on the verge of starvation.
U.S. Ambassador Tony Hall nearly got it right when he said, "Zimbabwe stands alone as an example of how a country can be ruined by one person." Actually, Zimbabwe is one of many such countries, and it was not ruined by one person but by one person supported by a global movement of arch reactionaries who call themselves progressives and who have killed 100 million people in the last century in the name of "social justice" and learned nothing in the process.
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
David HorowitzTuesday, Dec. 30, 2003
My Comments!
We have all just experienced a woman starved to death right under our noses, right here in America. Conservatives did everything in their power to try and save her life, we stood in horror along with her parents as leftist judges ordered her feeding tube removed so that she could be starved to death. Liberals sided with her husband who was behind this scheme, because liberals support the taking of innocent human life, they've been doing it legally since 1973.
This is always the end result of communism (marxism)! Progressives see nothing wrong with killing innocent people, they call it 'Social Justice', which is nothing more than injustice in the name of so-called progress! These same individuals however oppose true justice (Capital Punishment), they will stand up and save the life of covicticted murders, but line up to take the life of innocent people, butt backward bunch of commies, Hypocrites!
I will say it again, ABOLISH LEFTISM!
For the sake of soceity, we must!
