"The ACLU recognizes the right of a patient to euthanasia..."--ACLU Policy Guide of 1986. They have also went to the defense of many in assisted suicide cases, and other "right to die" cases See here. In 1988 the ACLU supported a proposal in Michigan that would allow a panel of physicians to determine whether a person is terminally ill and mentally competent to choose to have a physician-assisted death.
These were all voluntary cases involving terminally ill people, so what is the problem? The problem is a moral one, and another case for the slippery slope argument. It is based on the intentions of our founders.
The ACLU attempts to promote euthanasia and assisted suicide in the guise of "the right to privacy". Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not private acts. Instead, they involve one person participating directly in the death of another. This is a matter of public concern since it can lead to significant abuse, exploitation and degradation of care for some of the most vulnerable people among us.
Oregon, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only places in the world where laws specifically allow euthanasia or assisted suicide. Oregon permits assisted suicide. The Netherlands and Belgium allow both euthanasia and assisted suicide.
"In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled.
Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry.
The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged "the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."Source
Could this happen in America? I fear we have opened a door that could very well push us in that direction.
Many of you will not like what I have got to say, but here it is; an individual has no right to take their own life. It is important to understand this. Allow me explain.
The opening refrain of the Declaration of Independence provides the necessity of an absolute standard upon which the rule of law must be based:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;..." Declaration of Independence
First of all, and most importantly, notice who the founders believed endowed us our rights. Then notice that while the right of life was granted, their is no right to choose your death.
Thomas Jefferson said, "the chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that, and you have abandoned all."
Abraham Lincoln was faced with the same issue when he questioned the institution of slavery. He said,"I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon priciple, and making exceptions to it, where it will stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?"
The individual is granted the gift of life by God. Who has the right to take it away? A legal guardian? A Court? In my opinion, the only one who has the right to take away life is the Creator who granted it. If you put that right into the hands of the individual, a panel of doctors, a legal guardian, or the judicial system, you have given up that right. God grants our rights, not the State. If the State granted rights it could take them away, and that is where the danger lies.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, they are about changing public policy so that doctors or others can directly end or be involved in ending another person’s life. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about the right to die. They are about the right to kill.
Life is not the gift of the State. To give consent to the State to be involved in the taking of human life is to grant a right to the State that does not belong to it, a license to kill. It allows the State to exercise a "right" over something that was not the State's to give in the first place. For human life belongs to God's realm, not the government's.
In order to protect any rights we must protect all rights, beginning with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Our best hope for civil liberties protection is not the ACLU, but to return to the rule of law based on the inalienable right to life endowed to all men by their Creator. The rule of law intended by our founders.
Ravings of A Mad Tech
Ramblings From Regular Ron
Is This Life?
The American Patriots
Patriots For Bush
California Conservatives 4 Truth
This is from the Liberty Council website. It is the same argument that I have made before. The significance of the influence of the ten commandments in our law should be allowed to be displayed. To do otherwise would be to rewrite history. The Seventh Circuit’s decision dismissed the plot to rewrite our history by removing all references to religion. The Ten Commandments played an important part in our history, and the government can constitutionally display it for its historical value.
"CHICAGO, IL – Last Friday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a display of documents including the Ten Commandments in the County Administration Building in Elkhart, Indiana. Elkhart County, Indiana, is represented by Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, and Erik W. Stanley, Chief Counsel for Liberty Counsel.
The Elkhart County display is identical to the one pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. It includes nine historical documents and symbols, including the Ten Commandments, flanked by the flags of the United States and Indiana. The display is entitled the “Foundations of American Law and Government” and is intended to display documents and symbols that played a significant role in the foundation of the American system of law and government.
Reaching the merits of the case, the Seventh Circuit stated, “[I]t is well within the bounds of constitutional plausibility to assert, as the County does here, that the Ten Commandments have played an important role in the development of American society and civic order.” The court also stated, “The Establishment Clause is not violated when government teaches about the historical role of religion.” The court concluded, “We see no reason why the display as erected must be purged of the Ten Commandments to survive constitutional scrutiny.” Exerpt...Read More
The ACLU, now fully in the midst of their rush to destroy America, has asked a school to drop the punishments of some highschool athletes that were caught at a party where there were several kids cited for underage drinking.
These kids and their parents, signed contracts with the school and knew full well that they were breaking the schools rules, not to mention the law, by being at a party and drinking underage.
But now the ACLU steps in saying that these contracts that the kids and their parents signed voluntarily are null and void because this party happened after school hours and off of school property. No way. They signed these contracts voluntarily, knowing that to be allowed to play in the schools sports programs they needed to keep up a certain standard of behavior.
Now they are being told, "Don't worry kids, consequences schmonsequences, you aren't subject to hold true to your words and shouldn't be held accountable for your actions that were unjustly and illegally infringed upon by those evil school administrators."
What kind of a world is the ACLU thrusting upon us?
When will this insanity end?
When the people of America stand up and say ENOUGH!!!
We need to teach our children personal responsibility.
We need to teach them that there are indeed consequences for their actions, that their word is bond, and when you give that word, either orally or by signing a contract you are expected to adhere to it.
It is not only the moral thing to do, it is the legal thing to do. If the kids had been the only ones to sign it would be null and void since children are barred by law from entering into legally binding documents. But their parents signed them also.
Which leads me to wonder, where were the parents?
I hope the ACLU doesn't get their way by threatening to sue. They gain more power every time that someone surrenders without a fight. I hope this school stands on their principals (figuratively) and tells the ACLU to head to hades.
Cross Posted at Kenders'
"Ok, what's it going to take to get you to the point of total disgust with our judiciary?
How may bad rulings? How many rulings based on liberal Marxist ideology rather than the constitution? How many based on "International Law?" How many of our rights nullified by an out of control judiciary will it take? How many times will we allow the will of the people to be overruled by the judiciary? How many times will we allow our constitution to be subverted by the Men in Black?
Are you willing to allow a handful of men in black robes to usher in the feminist/abortionist/homosexualist agenda that the liberals have failed to get enacted into law through constitutional means? Are you willing to allow the judiciary to continue overruling the will of the people as expressed through their constitutional representatives and even directly by We the People through the ballot box?
Are you willing to allow our government, as upheld by the judiciary, to continue destroying our rights to free religion, free speech and free assembly?
Are you willing to allow the judiciary to continue to mock, ignore, stretch, amend, and otherwise subvert our constitution?
Are you satisfied with the judiciary removing all references to "God" or prayer from our public life? Are you satisfied with millions of our innocent unborn children being "legally" aborted, not "legal" through constitutionally enacted law, but "legal" through unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling?
Are you willing to accept the judiciary's newest trend of considering foreign law in their decisions? I mean c'mon. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution is bad enough, but ruling based on international law is absolutely traitorous!!
Are you willing to allow the judiciary to continue turning convicted criminals, pedophiles and sexual perverts loose to prey on our children? Or turning imprisoned terrorist thugs loose to wage war against our soldiers?
Are you willing to allow the Democrat obstructionist minority to control who may or may not receive an up or down senate vote on judicial nominees? Why should the liberals be allowed to block the president's constitutional nominees? They do NOT hold the majority. The constitution says the MAJORITY rules. What's going on here?
When are YOU going to get pissed? How many babies must be murdered until YOU choke? How many children raped and murdered by three time losers? How many innocent disabled women must suffer cruel and inhumane deaths without even valid legal representation? What's it going to take to get YOU riled?
Are we going to bow down at the altar of the atheist ACLU? Surrender to the feminists, abortionists, homosexualists and perverts of NOW and NAMBLA!?
Well, I'll tell you what. I'm fed up!! I'm disgusted!' Revulsed! Outraged!!
To the point that I'm going to march on Washington on April 7 to hand deliver a message to the government!!
And I'm hoping to get a few good patriots to join me. If not 15,000 or more then I'm hoping we can get AT LEAST TWO people from each chapter and each state to carry their state flags in our march and to hand deliver our complaints to their senators. Won't you please consider joining the delegation from your chapter or state?
Time to put an end to the tyranny of the minority!
Please vote with your feet to end the injustice! Join the March for Justice!
P.S. If you can't go to DC, but would like to support the March for Justice
OKDemocrat said:"Hi Jay! I like your site. It's pretty good friend. I am not a huge fan of the ACLU. I don't like extremism of any sort from any side. I am just to the left of the middle I think as are most people. Take care! Feel free to visit my site any time"!
We appreciate the support!
"I hate to admit it, but I think I understand the American Civil Liberties Union.
I think I know what this group of hateful, degenerate perverts is really about.
I think I know what makes them tick.
Some of my insight may be due to the fact that I actually once believed much of the nonsense these extremists still peddle today. I know their bogus arguments inside out.
And because I understand the ACLU, I can anticipate its next move.
That's why it didn't surprise me last week when it was reported that the Boy Scouts of America is pulling the charters of thousands of scouting units from public schools across the country in an effort to spare them from lawsuits threatened by the ACLU.
In fact, I had virtually predicted this was where the ACLU's jihad against the Boy Scouts would lead.
Last December, following the disgraceful capitulation by the Pentagon to the ACLU's demands the Boy Scouts be kicked off military bases around the world, I wrote: "Let's take the ACLU's illogic a step further. If it is unconstitutional for the Boy Scouts to use taxpayer-supported military bases, is it not also unconstitutional for the Boy Scouts to meet on any other federal, state or local government property? If so, that would exclude the Boy Scouts from meeting in 40 percent of the United States."
I wasn't necessarily thinking about government schools back then. I was thinking the bigger picture. Now that the ACLU has chosen the next battlefield – the schools – and won, I am willing to predict that the ACLU won't stop there.
If the Boy Scouts really think they can prevent more lawsuits by caving into the ACLU, appeasing the ACLU, conceding the legal and moral high ground to ACLU, the organization, for which I have tremendous respect, is dead wrong.
The ACLU is not going to wash its hands, claim victory and go home following the Boy Scouts decision to hand over the schools. Instead, the fanatics at the ACLU are going to jump for joy and start picking their next battlefield. The brown shirts at the ACLU are going to see the Boy Scouts in full retreat and prepare for a final assault.
What is the ACLU's objective when it comes to the Boy Scouts?
There is not a doubt in my mind that the fanatics at the ACLU will not rest until the Boy Scouts organization is crushed, destroyed or caves in to the demands of the secular jihadists that it drop the God thing and the homosexual thing. Then, I truly believe, many of the twisted ACLU minds would like to feed the Boy Scouts to their monster friends and clients at the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
Think about it. This is not about the law. This is not about rights. This is not about the Constitution, with the ACLU. This is about perversion. This is about diseased minds that can no longer distinguish between right and wrong. This is about evil ideologues who actually defend the pedophiles and child rapists at NAMBLA while relentlessly attacking the Boy Scouts as if it was the most feared and hated organization in the world.
This is the ACLU.
It's never going to change, which means it must be destroyed.
It won't be defeated and destroyed when its adversaries retreat in the heat of battle. I'm afraid that's what the Boy Scouts did when the group decided to avoid lawsuits by dropping charters with public schools.
Because, as I say, the ACLU is going to keep filing the lawsuits. Only the battleground changes. All that has changed is where the line in the sand is drawn. If the Boy Scouts believe the ACLU will now allow them to use public school facilities unchallenged, they are sadly mistaken. The ACLU is going to attempt to drive the Boy Scouts off all "public property." If they win that battle, they will go for the jugular and make the case that the Boy Scouts are a hate group that has no right to exist at all.
Mark my words, I know how these evil, immoral swine think.
There is no compromising with them. There is no accommodating them. There is no bargaining with them. They are playing for keeps. They are fighting to win.
And the only way to fight them is to give them a taste of their own medicine.
No quarter for the ACLU. No compromising. We must work only with one objective in mind – the ACLU's utter defeat and destruction."Source WND
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!
"The proposed state constitutional ban on gay marriage that supporters say will keep the issue out of the hands of a judge is likely headed for a courtroom anyway. Critics say they will sue to stop plans to amend the Tennessee Constitution, a day after the state House overwhelmingly approved the issue with the idea of putting it in the hands of voters in 2006.
The ACLU of Tennessee says it will pursue litigation to stop the gay marriage ban. Right now, bans in Georgia, Kentucky and Nebraska are being challenged in court. But so far no court has overturned a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage."Excerpt Source
And it seems the ACLU is on the march for this cause in at least one other state.
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage, in reaction to the state attorney general's legal interpretation that the law prevents state and local governments from providing benefits to employees' same-sex partners."Source
Let's face it, thats what this is really all about...benefits.
"Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 -- a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- last November".
Personally, I don't usually touch on the subject of gay rights. I believe what they do in their bedroom is their business. But when it comes to state rights issues and what the people have democratically decided, it starts to affect all of as a society. Marriage of any kind is not a right that is specifically covered by the Constitution, and in my belief it is left up to the individual states to decide. If you think gays should marry, work on changing the minds of the people in that state. The ACLU has no business trying to make this a Constitutional issue.
Homosexual marriage is a state's rights issue, and should have no place in the court room. If the Supreme Court decides to hear any case involving homosexual marriage and overrule a particular state's ban, it will be an affront to the people. For that matter, I would say that any Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by the Federal Government would also trample on the rights of the states.
It's time to start asking questions of congressmen, when up for election, about their position on judicial activism, and what they are going to do about it. If their intentions are to continue with the status quo they need to be replaced.
Wow! What an incredibly elitist, irresponsible position. If you read further, you find that they would want to set it up under a system of regulated manufacture and distribution. If you thought the lawsuits against the tobacco industries were frivolous, can you imagine the lawsuits that would be filed on the manufacturers of heroine, or crack?
And as you read further on their site you will find their theory to be based on a lot of "mights". Young people "might" not be as attracted if it were not a taboo. It "might" result in less potent drugs availability.
Right now it is illegal to drink and drive, and for good reason. Alcohol affects your judgment and when you get behind the wheel of a car with an altered perception you endanger more than just yourself. The same logic goes with drugs....it affects other people.
An estimated 100,000 babies are born each year addicted to cocaine. So don't tell me that drugs only affect the user! Tell that to the little babies born addicted to crack! Tell that to a woman who is raped by her boyfriend while he is high on PCP! And in the case of legalization maybe the ACLU should tell that to the taxpayers who's insurance rates will skyrocket through the roof, and have more taxes to pay for drug rehab programs!
What age limit would the ACLU advise for the purchase of heroin?
Will the legalization of drugs reduce the crime rate? Don't ignore the fact that many violent crimes are committed through the influence of drugs. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (7/6/94) reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that "homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacological effects of cocaine." And that is just one example.
Of course the fact of drugs being illegal does cause part of the crime. However, if drugs were legal, not only would the crime rate increase because of the increased number of people who were taking drugs, but there would still be a "black market" and a motive for profit, which brings me the next point..The Black Market.
There are two theories that legalizers like to use that claim the legalization of drugs would eliminate the black market. One states that if drugs were legal they would be sold at regulated government stores. Other legalizers state that drugs would be given out to the poor addicts who could not afford them.
Some believe prices would be low enough to wipe out the black market. Buyers would, however, be heavily taxed to pay for drug education programs and rehabilitation centers. And these taxes would make it possible for criminals to undercut the official price and make their profit. The ACLU wants regulation, and the fact is that a black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available to all ages in unlimited quantity.
And again, what of the democratic process? The vast majority of Americans are against legalization of all drugs. I will accept a logical debate on the legalization of marijuana, but when it comes to all drugs being available and distributed by the government...it is simply detrimental to our interdependent society. The decriminalization of drugs would make dangerous, psychoactive, and addictive substances affordable, available, convenient, and marketable. It would increase the use of drugs. It would remove the social taboo attached to it, and it would send a message of tolerance, especially to the youth.
The fact is that we are not losing the war on drugs. "The Legalization Lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years, while cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent. Ninety-five percent of Americans do not use drugs. This is success by any standards."See More at DEA Site
Can you imagine how creative the advertisers would get in their competitive efforts to entice you to their particular brand of drug? And while you are thinking about this world the ACLU dreams of, keep in mind the ACLU's attitude towards drug testing in the workplace See Here. Then ask yourself what condition do you want your specialtist when you wheel your loved one in for heart or brain surgery? Or the air traffic controller who is monitoring your plane as it approaches landing? The soldier who is truly protecting your freedom and liberty? Something this radical would affect all of society! Aren't legal drugs killing enough people already?
This is a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst
If you want to participate you can either join the Stop The ACLU discussion group, where the weekly topic will be posted each Monday, or send your email address to me Here, and I will let you know what the subject will be. I prefer you email me so that I can add your blog to the Stop The ACLU Blogburst blogroll I will be creating.
Sites already on board are:
Ravings of A Mad Tech
Ramblings From Regular Ron
Is This Life?
The American Patriots
Patriots For Bush
California Conservatives 4 Truth
A special thanks to Loboinok in helping me with this research.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: email@example.com
Statement of Howard L. Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida
MIAMI, FL-- "Today Judge Whittemore found that even with the special law passed by Congress there is no basis to set aside the legal procedures in Florida for how these difficult, but intensely personal decisions are to be made. Both Congress and the President needlessly prolonged this tragic saga.
Decisions about whether to continue or discontinue extraordinary or even life-sustaining measures are part of a basic privacy right, and should be left to each of us when competent to make those decisions, or through a surrogate if no longer competent, but certainly without the intrusion of politicians who may not approve of our decision.
The President, no doubt, will continue to talk about a "culture of life," but what Judge Whittemore did in his decision was to defend the "culture of freedom" that each of us has to exercise control over our lives, and the circumstances of our own death.
There is a lesson for all of us in the tragic Schiavo case: if you want to exclude politicians from the end-of-life decisions you and your family must make regarding a terminally-ill loved one or, as in the case of Terri Schiavo, a family member who has suffered a catastrophic accident; if you don't want to be used as a political cause celebre by political and religious organizations - express your end-of-life views to your family and loved ones and, better, put it in writing in the form of a living will or advance medical directive."
"NOTE: The ACLU was co-counsel in the case before Judge Whittemore that resulted in today's ruling. The ACLU was also part of the legal team challenging "Terri's Law 1," enacted in October of 2003 to give Gov. Jeb Bush authority to re-insert the feeding tube. The case was struck down as unconstitutional by every Florida court; the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal." ACLU Website Source
THE MINUTE MAN PROJECT
"The Minuteman Project is a grassroots effort to bring Americans to the defense of their homeland, similar to the way the original Minutemen from Massachusetts (and other U. S. colonies) did in the late 1700s.
Accordingly, the men and women volunteering for this mission are those who are willing to sacrifice their time, and the comforts of a cozy home, to muster for something much more important than acquiring more "toys" to play with while their nation is devoured and plundered by the menace of tens of millions of invading illegal aliens."Source
This sounds like a noble cause to me. Over 950 people have volunteered for it so far. Border control, in my opinion, is something our government has neglected. I don't have a problem with immigrants coming here to work, I have a problem with them flooding over illegally. And while I don't want to see their basic human rights violated, I also think the ACLU is stepping outside the boundary of it's stated mission, which is to protect civil liberties. Furthermore, they are violating the privacy rights of the very Americans they have sworn to protect.
Despite what I believe to be noble, the ACLU has different suspicions. Somehow, they have come to the conclusion that illegal aliens have the same civil liberties as every American citizen does. The ACLU has set out to be even more noble by granting those who illegally enter our country the same Constitutionally protected rights as you and I.
While I am of the opinion that Constitutional protections are the right of all American citizens and cannot be claimed by people who are here illegally....the Almighty ACLU has deemed otherwise. And of course it is their job to protect those rights they have so generously granted.
So a fair warning to you brave Minutemen volunteers. Be careful....The ACLU will be watching you. Nothing wrong with watching, we will be keeping an eye on the ACLU too.
In order to further spread the word of the ACLU's radical Agenda we want to invite others to participate. We will be conducting a weekly blogburst every Thursday.
The way it works: Each week we will pick a general suggested topic related to the ACLU and it's extreme positions and policies. Each participating site will post a blog on that subject each Thursday.
You can also participate part-time if you wish. And the topic is only a suggestion. The important thing is to post something that exposes the ACLU's evil.
If you want to participate you can either join the Stop The ACLU discussion group, where the weekly topic will be posted each Monday, or send your email address to me Here, and I will let you know what the subject will be. I prefer you email me so that I can add your blog to the Stop The ACLU Blogburst blogroll I will be creating.
Sites already on board are:
Ravings of A Mad Tech
Ramblings From Regular Ron
Is This Life?
The American Patriots
Patriots For Bush
California Conservatives 4 Truth
By Anil Adyanthaya March 19, 2005
"THE AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union has long trumpeted itself as the protector of America's freedoms. But in a bizarre tactical decision, it has decided to abdicate that self-appointed role in exchange for membership in the shrill chorus of Bush administration opponents. The decision to file suit against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in connection with the alleged abuse of foreign detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan places the ACLU outside of its stated mission. It also places the group firmly in opposition to an organization -- the US military -- that is actually working for what the ACLU purports to be about -- the protection of American freedoms.
On its website, the ACLU says its ''job" is to ''defend the rights of every man, woman and child in this country" and ''defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States" (emphasis added). Yet, none of the eight plaintiffs for whom the ACLU is providing pro bono representation is either an American citizen or a legal (or illegal) resident of this country. The plaintiffs are all citizens of either Iraq or Afghanistan who were captured by US military forces during the wars being fought in those two countries. How then does this lawsuit advance the cause of American civil liberties?
The ACLU press release touting this ''landmark" action does not provide an answer to that question. Instead, the release suggests that the group wants to reestablish itself as the American Public Relations Union. According to ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, ''The effects of Rumsfeld's policies have been devastating both to America's international reputation as a beacon of freedom and democracy, and to the hundreds, even thousands of individuals who have suffered at the hands of US forces."
If the US military is such an oppressive persecutor of American civil liberties, then why couldn't the ACLU find a single plaintiff outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?
The ACLU does not even claim that the alleged abuses against the foreign detainees could lead to similar violations against persons in the United States. The only derivative harms cited in the press release relate to military concerns. ACLU co-counsel is quoted as saying that Rumsfeld, by his actions, ''imperils our troops and undermines the war effort."
Rather than Rumsfeld, it is the ACLU's actions that imperil our troops and undermine the war effort. Without a doubt, the abuses documented at Abu Ghraib were a disgrace and an embarrassment to anyone who believes in this country.
However, for an organization as prominent as the ACLU to claim that it is the policy of the US military to torture and abuse foreign detainees and that ''thousands" of foreign individuals have been harmed by the US military only denigrates the well-earned reputation of our troops as liberators and protectors. This distortion only increases the risks faced by our soldiers serving abroad and makes it harder for them to prosecute the war against the terrorists who threaten our nation.
While I am not an ACLU member and seldom find myself aligned with its politics, I have always respected the organization's reputation as a defender of civil liberties. However, the strength of those principles has been questioned in recent years by commentators who note that the ACLU has not defended the First Amendment rights of prolife protesters with the same zeal exercised on behalf of abortion-rights advocates". Excerpt Read More Here
By Wayne BoettcherPosted: 03/18/2005
In times past the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) usually worked below the radar. They could defend communists, threaten litigation and implant liberal judges with little fanfare. What publicity they did get from the mainstream media was the usual "all positive / no negative" treatment typically accorded all left wing organizations in this country.
Some Americans knew of the ACLU, but as more notorious than famous, a sort of giant liberal club used to batter hapless citizens into submission. Others saw them as simple, good-hearted lawyers who stand up for the little guy in a bipartisan manner, which is what they are striving for. ACLU aids this impression by occasionally helping with a small conservative case or two (as long as no major precedent is set or liberal agenda impeded.)
The ACLU is not seen as an instigator but a facilitator, helping others as they go about whatever they are doing. Yet from early on, as in the Scopes Monkey trial, they were indeed the prime movers. In that celebrated case, they advertised for a teacher willing to break the law. When they found one, they proceeded to stage a court circus such had never been seen before in American history, which set the stage for many ACLU cases to come.
The process is very simple: Outline the liberal agenda and define the goal. Get together a team of lawyers and researchers to put together the legal argument. Find out what pliable left wing activist judges are available to help your cause. Finalize the press releases and slanted information for mainstream media and public radio and TV news. Only then does the ACLU find a defendant and plaintiff to fit the pre-packaged case. The unfortunate victims are caught unawares; having no idea the ACLU spent so much time and energy beforehand they are not nearly as prepared.
The target at which to fire back at is not clear. After all, the ACLU is not claiming responsibility! They claim to be just helping some poor person, who has been hand picked by them to be just one offended citizen or small put upon group. It's hard to picket or write letters to someone like that. Yet national policies and laws are affected.
Why does the ACLU go about changing and creating laws of the nation using the court system? In the United States of America, laws are supposed be made by elected officials, not appointed judges. Why don't they simply lobby the House, Senate and Administration to change the laws in the proper manner like everyone else? Well, often they do but the ACLU knows that there are big problems using the legal, approved method of changing laws.
One difficulty is getting politicians to listen to their crazy ideas. (Politicians are notoriously simple minded and gullible but bear in mind the ACLU has extremely wacky beliefs!) Another major barrier is the people of America. They tend to get excited and oppose the ACLU agenda whenever they have a chance. And they get plenty of chances when a bill is passing through Congress or about to be signed by the President. Better to sneak it in through the courts.
Sneak is the operative word with liberal agendas. They don't want you to know what is going on until it's too late to stop it. And they've been very successful in getting many laws enacted through the courts, no matter how extremist. Often they don't need a lawsuit, just a threatening letter to change policies. Once a policy is changed in enough companies or government departments, the policy becomes a "de facto" law. Confirming it through a court case becomes merely a formality.
A few dedicated and learned opponents like Dr. James Kennedy have been exposing and protesting the ACLU for years. However, they have had a tough time getting others to listen. Battling liberal media and their political friends is no easy task. However, with the advent of the internet, talk radio and cable news networks, the news monopoly of the past has been broken. Opposition to ACLU methods and cases are growing. Lately the attacking ACLU attorneys have gained a new generation of foes who are actively seeking ways to curb their power.
Fighting in the courts are many different legal organizations like the American Center for Law & Justice and . There are too many to list them all here but check out my links page under the title: . As more and more of these groups form, the ACLU find itself stymied time and time again. Contributing to these organizations is a great way to stand up for America! Now more organizations are forming to expose the ACLU. The methods and agendas of the liberal lawyers are now becoming less and less a mystery to the average American.
One recent website is called StopTheACLU.org, formed by the intrepid Nedd Kareiva. Trusting in God to help, Kareiva's new organization has grown by leaps and bounds and already plans a rally in Illinois. Their official blog, StoptheACLU.blogspot.com, is challenging the ACLU on intellectual, spiritual and moral grounds daily and coming up with new ideas and ways to battle them. Although atheists try every trick in responding in the comment section, the responses, clarification and articles against the ACLU philosophy and practices in this blog fairly shout common sense to the world.
As we learn more about ACLU history, practices and agendas we also learn more about American History that was never taught in liberalized public schools. The great blessings of America have made us complacent. ACLU attacks continue against Boy Scouts, Christians and all freedom loving Americans, but more citizens are becoming aware - and active. What can we do? Plenty! Contribute, learn, join a rally, start a rally. Write your Congress. Visit the Stop the ACLU blog, read and write comments. Spread the word to friends and family. Together we can find a way to defeat the ACLU agendas as we all stand up for liberty - and for America!
Wayne Boettcher is the owner of AmericanProtest.net
Related links:Stop The ACLU - new site!
Stop The ACLU Blog
American Protest Links Page - ACLU links right at the top!
Scopes trial 'perverted' by movie versions - (WND)
The ACLU Compromises American's Civil Liberties
The ACLU does not support one measure that the U.S. government has taken to counter terrorism and protect the citizens of this nation. First, let's take a look at the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9/11 as a means to redefine the new threat to America and to protect it's citizens. The ACLU opposes the Patriot Act citing that:
"without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to
access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student
records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done".
This is of course, not true. The ACLU has a way of twisting the truth to meet their own ends. Yes, the FBI can access this information more easily than in the past. But the ACLU cites that they can do so "with no probable cause" which is not true. Why would the FBI be interested in looking at your library records if there were no probable cause to suspect your involvement in terrorist activities? They wouldn't. The FBI doesn't have the time to simply look at an individual's private records just for the "thrill of it" which is basically what the ACLU wants you to believe. If you're not involved in promoting or advocating terrorism then what do you have to fear? So the question now becomes, exactly whose civil liberties are the ACLU trying to protect with it's opposition to the Patriot Act? The answer- terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.
Next we'll take a look at the ACLU's opposition to the government "no fly" lists. Two years ago, the ACLU in California filed suit in opposition to the government's "no fly" lists. They cited that a few individuals had been mistakenly identified on the no fly list and that the list jeopardized the civil liberties of those individuals listed. The government assembled the list and distributed it to airports around the country. The list named individuals recognized as having involvement with terrorist regimes. Certainly with a list of this magnitude there are bound to be some discrepancies. While some individuals were stopped and had to undergo additional searches, it was due to the fact that their names matched others on the list who actually were believed to be involved in terrorism. A representative of the ACLU was cited as saying:
"This case is about innocent people who found out that their government
considers them potential terrorists."
Yet another method that the ACLU used to twist the fight on terrorism to it's own end. The individuals in the suit weren't placed on the list because "their government considers them potential terrorists." Their names simply matched names of other potential terrorists. I don't know about you, but I'd rather someone be delayed a few minutes at the airport than risk another 9/11.
Late last year, the ACLU made an issue with airport security measures. In an effort to provide safety to airplane passengers, the TSA began authorizing full-body frisks in certain situations. Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program, was cited as saying:
"This is unquestionably an issue of infringement upon civil liberties."
Some individuals had complained, claiming that they were "groped" during the process. The TSA said that in most cases, the pat down would be conducted by someone of the same gender, obviously to limit claims of "groping" and sexual harassment. Ann Davis, TSA spokesperson, said that the increase in security was a response to airplane crashes in Russia which resulted from terrorists strapping bombs on themselves and boarding the aircrafts. The changes were also recommended by the 9/11 Commission Report as a means to check for explosives. The ACLU opposes these additional security measures.
What is the ACLU's stance on controlling illegal aliens entering into the U.S.? Well, according to Worldnet daily, a group of volunteers patrolling the Mexico/U.S. border will be shadowed by representatives of the Arizona ACLU. The ACLU's Ray Ybarra was quoted as saying:
"We will be there to make sure they're not abusing anybody's rights."
Whose rights are those? The rights of illegal aliens? I thought this was the "American Civil Liberties Union." Don't get me wrong, I don't condone abuse of anyone but why does the ACLU need to get involved here? This has nothing to do with the American people's civil liberties. Yet another political statement from an organization set on destroying any effort to protect the United States and it's citizens.
These are but a few instances in which the ACLU has fervently opposed defending this nation's citizens from terrorism. The ACLU, an organization which claims to seek the protection of the civil liberties of the American people, is doing just the opposite. They seek to compromise not only the civil liberties but the very lives of the citizens of this nation.
The Tennessee Republican predicted his bill and its House counterpart will pass both chambers this year. The legislation has bipartisan support.
The bill says no federal law, directive, rule, instruction or order should limit any federal agency from providing support to the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, including meetings held on federal property.
The legislation is a direct response to an ongoing lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union that says federal support of the group, including about $2 million annually for the National Scout Jamboree, violates the Constitution's provision mandating separation of church and state." Read More
This month, the initiative to codify the 71-year-old city logo that includes a Christian cross qualified for the November ballot with over 4,500 verified signatures.
After hearing months of debates between Redlands citizens who believe using a cross on the logo is exclusionary and unconstitutional and those who say the logo represents the city's heritage, the council agreed that the only way to find a majority opinion is a vote.
The council could also have adopted the ordinance or delayed their decision by commissioning a staff report on the ordinance's impact.
"I support the motion," Council Member Jon Harrison said. "I think it's the best option to put this to bed sometime in future."
In March 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union threatened the city with a lawsuit, saying the use of the cross violated the constitution's establishment clause. The council responded by authorizing the removal of crosses on logos that adorned city buildings, letterhead and vehicles.
Since then, grassroots coalitions have lobbied the city to fight the ACLU, seen by many as a bully trying to push an anti-religious agenda.
"They will continue their revisionist tactics, striving to force the position of the few on all," the Rev. Don Wallace, representing the Save Redlands' Seal Executive Committee, said Tuesday. "Now is the time to stand and resist this agenda and Redlands is the opportunity. Our Constitution, our history demands nothing less. Yes, freedom is worth fighting for."
Resident Scott Siegel, who pioneered the initiative, obtaining more than 5,900 signatures with a handful of collectors, was pleased with the council's decision.
"Now it becomes a battle of truths," Siegel said, referring to predictions about whether the city would win a lawsuit against the ACLU and how much that lawsuit could cost.
At its 3 p.m. meeting, the council retained the Pacific Justice Institute and Peter Lepiscopo as special counsel for legal advice on the issue. Lepiscopo is offering his services pro bono, but the city would still be liable for the ACLU's legal costs if the city loses a lawsuit.
City Clerk Lorrie Poyzer estimated the cost to put the initiative on the ballot at $40,000 to $50,000. A lost legal battle could run the city $300,000 to $1 million, City Attorney Dan McHugh has said.
ACLU representatives have said they will sue if the initiative passes or if the city adopts the ordinance.
"When outsiders attempt to force their belief system on a free people, free people should respond," Wallace said. "Redlanders have responded through an overwhelming number of signatures on this ballot initiative."Source
"Terri Schiavo is facing a death sentence. A Florida court decision clears the way for her feeding tube to be removed by her husband – triggering a torturous process that will result in death by starvation and dehydration.
The facts of Terri’s case are clear: She is aware of her surroundings and is able to communicate. Her condition is neither terminal nor untreatable. She is not in a coma. She is not on a respirator. In fact, her parents believe she can regain functions that she has lost with therapy.
Terri’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, are trying to save the life of their daughter. We were privileged to represent them at the Supreme Court in an effort to keep their daughter alive. And, now we are working with her attorneys in Florida to assist in any way possible as the legal efforts continue.
But the fact is – time is running out. While we are exploring all legal avenues, we are asking Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the state legislature, to take whatever action is necessary to save the life of Terri Schiavo."Per ACLJ
Add your name to the group of 13491 people who have already signed using the Internet!
I'd also like to take the moment to welcome our newest contributor Rob.
"The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." -- Thomas Jefferson
One of the most powerful weapons at the ACLU's disposal is that of judicicial activism. Considering that the ACLU is an elitist organization lacking in respect to the democratic process, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised with the methods it uses to achieve its goals. But few seem to be aware of the power behind the quiet, behind-the-scenes, high profile cases filed by the ACLU. "If the ACLU is truly concerned about issues of constitutionality, it would do well to consider the patent unconstitutionality of judicial activism whereby the Court preempts Article I, Section I, granting all legislative powers to Congress-not the Court. Because of this now-common departure from constitutional mandate, the legislative and judicial branches of government have been reversed."ACLU:The Devil's Advocate
So, is the ACLU really America's Defender of Civil Rights? Well, at least the part of the Bill of Rights that it happens to agree with. I won't deny that new liberties can't be added by the people through a democratic process; only that it should not be done by the Court through it's own biased interpretation of cultural values. But that is exactly what happens in today's time.
The Founding Fathers never meant for federal courts to turn into judicial tyrannies. In fact, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton wrote that "The judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power." Most liberals, of course, claim that the courts have judicial supremacy and can overturn laws as well as impose their social agendas at will. This is a myth.
In 1819, Thomas Jefferson, who probably had a fairly good grasp of how our government was to function, said: "If this opinion [of judicial supremacy] be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]." Yet, today, the federal courts have basically become judicial tyrants, overturning laws passed by state legislatures and Congress and legislating a radical liberal agenda. This is not the proper role of judges. Their role is to interpret laws, not create them. Congress must put an end to this usurpation of power by judges." Source
Many liberals will argue that the intentions of the founding father's may not apply in "today's changing times". They argue that the founding father's had slaves, and women were not in equal standing. This argument is flawed...for ignoring the original intent in favor of causes opposite of the majority's morals, by pointing out moral flaws in our founding fathers only defeats it's own purpose. Apart from morals, there is nothing wrong with slavery. Apart from morals, nothing would be wrong. If morality is a factor that the liberals want to use, their immoral agenda would quickly be out of business. Liberalism's political agenda is no more based on morals than the evil of slavery.
I would argue that the founding father's intentions do matter. I especially like the intention that our nation's laws would be decided through a representative democracy, and not elitist judges. As a matter of fact, I would argue that most advances in civil liberties took place through either the legislative branch or the executive branch. I won't deny that the judicial branch didn't play it's part such as in Brown vs. the Board of Education, where they successfully desegregated schools, but the major victories for civil rights were enacted by the other two branches.
Let's start with racial equality. Without denying that many people struggled behind the scenes to influence the important milestones in our moral development, the major acts that made them part of American culture were enacted through the legislative and executive branches.
Abraham Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves from all of states who seceded. This was enacted by the executive branch.
In 1865, the U.S. Congress ratified the 13th amendment, abolishing slavery. An act of the legislative branch.
In 1868, the U.S. Congress passed the 14th amendment, granting blacks full citizenship. An act of the legislative branch.
1960, President Eisenhower signs the Civil Rights Act of 1960.
1964, Congress passes Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination in public places, schools, lodging, federal programs, and employment
1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the 1968 Housing Act, prohibiting discrimination in sale, rental, or lease of housing.
As you can see in the racial equality area of civil rights that the legislative and executive branches were the ones responsible for the major changes. Again, I don't deny influence from the judicial branch, but it clearly kept within the boundaries of its delegated powers of interpretation.
What of the argument of women's rights? Again, in was Congress that passed the 19th amendment.
Law or the making of law is supposed to be restricted to the legislative branches of government, the House and the Senate. Judges are supposed to keep their rulings within the bounds of law(the Constitution). They are not supposed to implement their own opinions in the course of trials. Yet they do so consistently in direct violation of their oaths, and the law. They invent words, paragraphs, and meanings that do not even exist in the Constitution.
The ACLU and liberal, renegade judges have been using the courts for the last 40 years to transform America into a Godless society. Think about the damage they have done to our Christian Heritage by banning prayer and Bible reading in public school, outlawing the Ten Commandments from public places, and telling the Boy Scouts that they can't mention God in their oath or prohibit openly homosexual Scout Masters.
And all the while, the legislative branch is not innocent. It sits aside, and does nothing to intervene.
So is this judicial tyranny a legitimate thing for America to fear? You bet it is!
Thomas Jefferson had this fear from the beginning. "The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them."Quote
"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,....that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed."
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal...knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."Quote
Sadly the democratic process of making law through elected representatives has been trampled under foot. Instead the "Supremacist" Court has required lower courts to ignore the plain meaning of the words of the First Amendment, and fabricated an irrational understanding of those words that does the exact opposite of what the establishment clause forbids-allow the federal courts to interfere with religious expression in the States.
One thing we can do is to get involved to put a stop to it!
So what can we do to stop this? We could take the advice of a founding father, that was not adhered to in our history.
"Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct at regular periods under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative houses."Quote
As great as this suggestion sounds to me, I also think it would be impossible in today's times. The democrats oppose our President's Supreme Court nominees for a reason...because they know that a judge that actually stays within the bounds that the Constitution grants them, will be a stumbling block for their agenda. They know that the true focus of power in our government lies within the federal bench.
Mostly the power is in the hands of our elected officials in Congress. "Congress has the constitutional right to tell the federal courts what cases to hear and not hear. Congress can prevent the courts from banning our acknowledgment of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, our motto, and our National Anthem. Congress should prevent judges from citing foreign law to change U.S. laws and customs. Congress can stop the abuse of letting a single federal judge overturn the votes of five million Americans in a statewide referendum. Americans should reject the notion that a 5-4 or a 4-3 decision by federal judges can become "the law of the land" and overturn centuries of American law, culture and custom. Congress should make better use of its constitutional power to impeach judges. Congress should stop the nonsense of making states, cities, counties and schools pay the attorney's fees when they file suit against Ten Commandments monuments or the Pledge of Allegiance. Thousands of school districts and local entities of government are pots of gold for the ACLU, which plans to collect attorney's fees for all its lawsuits to ban God from every public place and school".Source
Congress has the power to put a stop to this, so ask them to do so. Elect representatives with traditional morals and values. Go here for a list of questions to ask every candidate for U.S. Congress. Let your voice be heard! Here are some links to get you started.
Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of The ACLU
Judicial Restraint Petition
Petition For Removal From The Federal Judiciary
Take Back America Petition
Stop Judicial Tyranny Website
AFA Petition To Stop Judicial Tyranny
Sign letter to Congress
I found this soundbyte over at Cao's Blog! See her post here. I thought you all would find it interesting, so I cross posted it here. Thanks Cao!
Bill O'Reilly speaks the truth, calling Americans to stand up against the ACLU. Hear for yourself how they seek to put America in danger by protecting terrorists. He has declared war on the ACLU, and is asking for lawyers to help him sue the ACLU! Bravo Bill!
Listen Here. Click on the icon on the left to turn the volume up.
According to the ACLU's website, the Boyscout's oath, in which members vow their allegiance to God and country, resolve to help others and commit to keeping themselves morally straight, is grounds for legal action.
To defend against the ACLU it would cost the schools thousands. So, in order to save the schools from this financial draining, the Boyscouts have decided to pull scout units from schools as a matter of stewardship.
They are asking organizations such as churches to take up the charters of scouting units that have been removed from public schools and other governmental organizations.
The ACLU's threat also included other government organizations such as police, fire department and recreation departments. We all remember last fall, when the ACLU's threat to sue the DOD caused the Pentagon to drop its sponsorship. The ACLU has sued the Boy Scouts 14 times over the past 25 years!
In my opinion the Boy Scouts are a positive influence to society, instilling morals and good citizenship to our youth. They don't deserve the war the ACLU has waged on them. They deserve our respect, and our help. Urge your churches to get involved!
Please contribute to the Boy Scout's Defense Fund!
Every time I start to think I may run low on material, the ACLU comes to the rescue! This information is thanks to a friend of mine, Liz! You can see the actual news article by following the link in the title.
A 43-foot tall cross that was erected atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California 50 years ago to honor our Nation’s veterans faces imminent removal unless we act now. An ACLU-backed atheist has waged a 15-year court battle to force removal of the famous cross, and a federal court has ordered the city of San Diego to remove it. One option remains.
Federal law known as the Antiquities Act authorizes the President to designate landmarks and structures as national monuments and make the property on which the monument stands federal property.
President Clinton used this law to establish numerous new national monuments during his term.
In addition, the Historic Sites Act allows the Secretary of the Interior to designate certain sites national historic landmarks and bring them under the care of the National Park Service.
Just recently, on Veterans' Day, a new plaque was added to the Mt. Soledad Memorial to honor President Reagan, further strengthening its status as a monument worthy of national protection. Thus, it is fitting that the President formally designate Mt. Soledad as a national memorial park for veterans, and save it from destruction at the hands of the ACLU. President Bush can save the historic cross from another ACLU-backed removal by designating Mt. Soledad a national monument.
The Antiquities Act authorizes the President to designate landmarks and structures as national monuments. President Bush must make the Mount Soledad cross a national monument.
EMAIL, FAX or PHONE Gov Arnold, and every Republican California legislator to contact the president today asking GWB to launch this initiative:
CA WEB SITE
EMAIL, FAX or PHONE every Republican US Senator and Representative:
US GOV WEB SITE
While its main focus is exposing the ACLU's radical agenda, the book is fairly critical of both extreme ends of the political spectrum.
Saving the Western Culture from Extinction
Preserving Moral Boundaries for the good of society
This nation is divided over major moral issues. Conservatives want to maintain the traditional moral boundaries that have long since stood as a guide for all of society, and liberals want to tear down those boundaries because they see them as standing in the way of progress.
There are reasons for maintaining the moral underpinnings, removing them, or weakening them will cause society to collapse, and the society will be no more. This has happened in every other society when immorality has become normalized, and deemed as acceptable. We as a nation must not allow these time tested bulwarks of moral code to be eroded, and washed away.
We are now witnessing the battle over marriage and the family as those with less than ideal motives, fight to weaken the family structure, this will lead to a culture of death. The sexual revolution of the 60’s brought about the lifestyle of ‘free love’, or shall we say casual sex. This mindset of “If it feels good do it” has darkened the moral conscious of the inhabitants of the land, and led America down a path to obliteration. Those who practice the behavior of homosexuality have come out into the open and flaunted their sexuality, demanding that their lifestyles be accepted, and forcing this damaging behavior on everyone else, to the detriment of society.
history reveals that nations decline and eventually die when sexual immorality becomes rampant and the traditional family is discarded in favor of group sex, homosexuality, infidelity, and unrestrained sexual hedonism. Carl W. Wilson, Sociologist
Pre-Marital sex became more and more acceptable in society resulting in many young women ending up as single mothers. Pre-marital sexual relations lead to the transmission of many Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD’s), but that has not stop people from doing it. It is a sad state of affairs when people make their priority, their personal gratification, instead of their safety and overall welfare. People are more interested in making themselves feel good for a short time, versus the danger they put themselves by their behavior. "It is much more difficult to believe that someone truly loves you when he or she passes you an STD, instead of virginity, as a wedding gift!"
Liberal Communism is the leading anti-family force among us today, it’s irreverence and denial of the existence of God, causes those who follow in the footsteps of dead socialists from long ago, to also have a seething hatred for the moral absolutes that has long since held society together. Communism leads the way to immorality, the breakdown of the family, and anarchy. There is very little difference between the previous attacks on marriage and the family by socialists in Russia, and socialists in America today. Socialists reject the Biblical model of marriage and family, and seek to replace it with alternative marriages and family, knowing full well the damage these things will do to our society.
The Subversive Family: An Alternative History of Love and Marriage, Jonathan Cape, London 1982.
The truth is out there, and it is not hard to locate. The truth is that children are better off when they are raised in a home with a mother and a father. Americans should resist any radical change to the structure of the family unit, and the structure of one man /one woman marriage. Children raised in homes with two adults of the same sex have been shown to develop problems. “We’re going to find out with same-sex couples just what we found out with divorce. The children are at higher risk for problems."
Same-sex or homosexual marriage as it is often called, would open a door to a whole new set of problems for society as the radical homosexuals are after much more than marriage licenses. The facts are that homosexuality is not compatible with the monogamous order to normal heterosexual relationships, in fact homosexuals are noted for their infidelity, in other words they prefer variety, over monogamy" the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage."
Gay author Gabriel Rotello, "Let me simply say that I have no moral objection to promiscuity…I enjoyed the '70's, I didn't think there was anything morally wrong with the lifestyle of the baths. I believe that for many people, promiscuity can be meaningful, liberating and fun."
Their goal is to undermine the traditional family once and for all making it obsolete within the western culture, as they have in other cultures already.
"But what motivates them is the hope of 'eventually undoing the institution of marriage altogether,' by delegitimizing age-old understandings of the family and thus (in the words of one such radical) 'striking at the heart of the organization of Western culture and societies.'"
As we saw earlier in this article, the other members of the far-left are aiding in this war against the family, together they hope to usher in a new season of enlightenment, the new communist utopia. There are many reasons why the traditional family is the best solution for children, and why same-sex homes are not the best answer for the welfare of children. children raised in homosexual households are about 4 to 5 times more likely to lead a homosexual lifestyle,
The ACLU is helping to spread disinformation concerning homosexual relationships, and the welfare of children. One would think that a group that claims to be out to protect the civil liberties would protect the interests of children, instead of the special interests of homosexuals activists? But as always the ACLU is on the WRONG side of this issue as they are on most issues. The evidence is overwhelming that homosexuality is harmful to children, for it endangers their well being, but that is besides the point according to the ACLU and their gay friends.
Let’s look at the real effects of what so-called alternative families have done to societies.
In Scandinavia, the damage done to that society by homosexual marriage is unbelievable, but it shows us why we as a nation must not allow this to happen here. Traditional marriages are becoming a thing of the past. More harm has been done to their society through the legalization of homosexual marriage, and their culture has paid the price.
Hopefully the evidence presented throughout this piece will help change some peoples perspective on marriage and family, and will lead them to defend the traditional family unit. Realizing that the so-called alternatives to these things are destructive in nature, and should be avoided by the American society at all costs.
America must not end up like Scandinavia, we must however stem the moral decline in this country if this country is going to continue to be a place of freedom and democracy. For the sake of America’s children we must uphold marriage as one man/one woman, leaving the ACLU and the Radical Far-Left to their hedonistic delusions. Children deserve to be raised in a home with a dad (man) and a mom (woman), where they can learn the proper gender roles, and develop into healthy, well adjusted members of society.
We come now to the last issue, polygamy, and why it is wrong. It is my belief that marriage is to be one man, and one woman, not one man, and many women. Polygamy causes a whole new set of relational problems between men and women, the stress of having to deal with multiple persons destroys what God meant for the marriage relationship. " We want to find that one person who puts us before all others, and in whose arms we feel irreplaceable. Polygamy and polyandry are the antitheses of soulmate."
There is indeed a slippery slope here, one thing will lead to another, critics will deny this, but that is because they deny anything that march in lock step with the agenda of the far-left. "The heterosexual family unit–spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–shall be abolished." Left wing activists are out to destroy the family and marriage in order to force feed the culture at large with the sour grapes of their radical agenda, and their own words prove it!
For the sake of our children, for the sake of the American society, we must fight against the oppression of the far-left by passing whatever legal measures are necessary to protect society from becoming extinct. We MUST preserve the moral boundaries that have stood for as long as this country has existed, We MUST do this for our own survival, and for future generations.