Just trying to
piss off the left.


Stop The ACLU Chat

Join the Stop the ACLU Mailing List
Enter your name and email address below:
Subscribe  Unsubscribe 
Free Mailing Lists from Bravenet.com

Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off The Taxpayer's Dole
Sign Here
Recent Posts

Blog Directory
Add Your Blog

Yellow Ribbon Support
Next / List / Help

Glenn Reynolds Says
"I wish I was half as articulate as Stop The ACLU is. Indeed."

Proud Member of the Alliance

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Saturday, April 30, 2005

Father Arrested For Wanting To Parent His Child--ACLU Refuses To Act

Crossposted with Permission From California Conservatives 4 Truth

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

Friday, April 29, 2005

NAMBLA & the ACLU - A Match Made in Hell

Crossposted With Permission From Merri Musings

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

The ACLU and Terrorism Today

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

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Stop The ACLU Acronym Contest

Head over to A Tic In The Mind's Eye! He is holding an 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

Perhaps there is no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesn't seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed.

On July 12, 1990, Morton Halperin, who at that time was director of the Washington Office of the ACLU, testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: "The ACLU is deeply troubled by the notion that there is a national security exception to the Fourth Amendment or any part of the Bill of Rights. We regard those rights as fundamental and absolute."

"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.

"After 9-11, the ACLU and its leftist cohorts spearheaded a movement to depict the US in general – and the airline industry in particular – as a snake pit of bigoted vipers eager to abuse and humiliate Muslims and Middle Easterners. The statistics, however, tell quite another story. During the nine months immediately following 9-11, the ADC received a mere 60 reports of incidents where airline security personnel prevented “Arab-looking” male passengers from flying as scheduled. While this may have been an annoying inconvenience for those affected, six or seven complaints per month is hardly an epidemic – particularly in light of the fact that the most devastating attack in American history had just been carried out by nineteen men of virtually identical physical, ethnic, and religious characteristics".

"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 Pentagon
Exerpt 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
Email me!

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
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
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

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Enemy Within Part II

Our Friend Muammar

In part one of Enemy Within, we saw how the ACLU supported the P.L.O. In part two we will look at their special interest in the "Mad Dog" of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi.

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

From small bits of information, the ACLU built a case from nothing more than assumptions. The CIA "plot" they learned of only referenced a "possible" plan to have Qaddafi thrown out of power. Knowing they could do nothing about such a plan, they invented an argument based on assumptions that it must inevitably include assassination, despite assurances that this was not the case.

Actually, most Americans would have probably given a hero status to anyone who was able to contribute efforts that would lead to the assassination of Qaddafi. But in the eyes of the ACLU, we needed to make sure he was safe to continue his worldwide campaign of terrorism.

The ACLU's position in this case also helps explain another action taken by one of their own members and former chairman of the National Advisory counsel, Ramsey Clark.
Representing a group of Qadaffi's Libyans, Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against his own country! You've probably heard his name mentioned more recently with his joining the defense team of Saddam Hussein.Source

His actions centered around an air strike in 1986 ordered by President Reagan. The strike was in response to a series of deadly terrorist actions ordered by Qaddafi. Clarks only regret about the lawsuit was that Qadaffi was not a plaintiff. After all, he said, "many of his relatives were injured."

As long as the ACLU and their friends are more concerned about the rights of international murderers than the rights of American citizens to be safe from such mad men, our nation faces a deep threat, and a true enemy within.

Monday, April 25, 2005

Enemy Within Part I

Terrorists Have Rights, Too ?

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
The ACLU sees nothing wrong with Americans becoming traitors and selling classified government information. In 1985 Samuel L. Morrison, an employee of the Naval Intelligence Support Command was convicted and sentenced for stealing classified spy satellite photographs from his office, cutting off the "secret" designation and selling them to a foreign publication. The ACLU claimed that Morrison had the right to steal and sell these classified documents and the under the First Amendment.

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...."
In other words they want the CIA to be completely ineffective, along with the FBI.

Support Your Local P.L.O.

"I'm afraid even the good guys on civil liberties are going to be against us on this one." Those are the words of ACLU Executive director Ira Glasser on the ACLU's decision to represent an agent of Yassir Araftat's Palestine Liberation Organization.

I wonder if his definition of "good guys" meant American citizens who care about their country and are not willing to grant sworn terrorists complete freedom within our borders. If so, he is absolutely correct. We are against that one.

"Arafat's group of ruthless murderers had set up an "information office" in Washington D.C, only a few blocks from the White House.

Since the 1960's, the P.L.O. has conducted a world-wide campaign of terror and violence, openly declaring the U.S.A. to be their enemy and therefore a target for their terrorist acts.

In addition, there is overwhelming evidence that other "information offices", like the one in Washington have actually been "safe houses", from which terrorist attacks were launched or where huge stockpiles of weapons were amassed and stored."Source

So the State Department shut this P.L.O office down. Their decision was met with overwhelming approval of the American people.

One family in particular welcomed it more than most. The family of Robert Stethem, the young Navy diver who, during the terrorist hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985, was beaten, tortured and thrown from the airplane to bleed to death on the runway.

When President and Mrs. Reagan visited Arlington National cemetery to pay their respects to Robert, they told his family, "Be strong, be patient. Robbie's death will not have been in vain."
However, it was hard for the Stethems not to feel that Robbie's death had indeed been in vain. They said, "the emissaries of the Palestine Liberation Organization terror are permitted to operate within the shadow of the White House."

The Stethems were actively involved with then Congressman Jack Kemp and others in putting pressure on the State Department to close the P.L.O. office.

In a powerful plea to the American people the Stethems passionately stated, "It's time to set an example for the Western leaders and show the world that the United States of America is deadly serious about the war against terrorism.

We believe that the will of American citizens through this legislation, demands that our senators and representatives act decisively and expeditiously to close P.L.O.-financed outlets which promulgate P.L.O. terrorist policies. How many more American citizens must feel such loss, hurt and pain before all elected officials act forcefully?

Robbie suffered an extremely painful death. Alone and bleeding, he was left to die on the airport runway in a foreign country. Young marines have been burned alive far away from home and families. An elderly gentleman was shot and thrown overboard, helpless to survive. Are we to allow the P.L.O. representatives to get a foothold on our soil? Are we to allow them to continue working, living and enjoying American freedoms and our way of life and at the same time, finance terror and P.L.O. policies? We say, no!"

Perhaps the Stethems were some of the "good guys" that Glasser was talking about.
Anyway, while the Stethems, the State Department and the American people were saying "no", the ACLU was saying "yes."

When the State department decided to shut the office down, the ACLU started screaming about civil rights and first amendment guarantees, and took it to court.

"Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Richey rejected the ACLU's claims and allowed the State department order to stand. Of course, this didn't stop the ACLU. The immediately appealed. They were determined to protect these murderer's under the first amendment. They failed again, and the court upheld the foreign policy interests of the United States in fighting terrorism.

After the second failure, the ACLU decided not to take the case to the Supreme Court. Perhaps this time the pressure of the "good guys" was a little too much for them. The pressure of the "good guys" always need to be on the ACLU.

We are planning to gather all the "good guys" to put some pressure on the ACLU! We want to organize a nation wide march on all of the ACLU offices across America. Like a ninja in stealth, the ACLU is slowly assassinating our great nation. Help us raise the money to advertise this, and make our efforts a success. Visit our store! Buy a bumper sticker! Or donate with the donation button in my sidebar. Thank you for the support!
Click Below To Visit The Store!


Some More Reasons to Hate the ACLU

Recently I have gotten some email from supporters and even members of the ACLU here in Arizona and elsewhere complaining that I only focus on the “unintended” negative impact of the ACLU on the American landscape. When I asked these “people” for examples they could provide none and since they are just mindless socialists following the lead of their “home office” I will not publish their names and/or email addresses at this time. I however in this post will publish just a few examples of the “evil” that the ACLU does. I have collected these over the short span of less then a week so sit back and enjoy the freakshow as they say but take heart true believers the news is not all bad.

The first story I will discuss comes to us from the wonderful city of Flint, Michigan. Seems that the ACLU is once again riding to the rescue of drug users and drug dealers and this time using the Constitution to serve their “evil” purposes. The ACLU feels that the right to assemble extends to those who frequent known drug houses or other places where drugs are illegally used and sold. The Flint Police rightfully raided a nightclub where drugs were openly used and sold. At the end of the raid 17 of the patrons were arrested for suspicion of possession and the remaining people were given misdemeanor tickets for frequenting a known drug house, which is punishable by a $500 fine, 90 days in jail and 2 years probation. The ACLU was promptly called and they proceeded to drop this wisdom on us, "It penalizes the right to free expression with a drug charge that carries a stigma that can affect these people for the rest of their lives," Gibbs said.” He's among 11 attorneys who have agreed to represent suspects for misdemeanor charges in the case. The ACLU is not representing any of the 17 people facing felony drug charges.

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 Racine, Wisconsin back in 2002. It is the responsibility of the citizen to not put themselves in a situation where they might be ticketed for this offense; it has nothing to do with the First Amendment right to assemble. I am sure that the Founding Fathers did not mean that we had the right to assemble where criminal activity was being conducted. Can you see the dangerous precedent this could set? Police Departments all over the country use this type of law to keep people out of drug areas and thus help reduce the amount of drugs being sold. Well let’s hope the judge in Michigan has more sense of what the Constitution actually grants us then the judge in the Wisconsin case. Fortunately the prosecutor in Michigan has a good head on her shoulders and the city’s ordinance has already withstood legal challenges.

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 America, the ACLU is firmly in lockstep with the terrorists who wish to do us harm.

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 University of Wisconsin system is demanding health benefits for unmarried domestic partners. Ok, a couple of things with this one. First I don’t really care who you are or how wronged you may be, if the employer, company, or who ever does not have the money then your not going to get the pay, benefits, or whatever. The facts of this case are that the University of Wisconsin and the State of Wisconsin can hardly extend benefits to unmarried partners of employees since the state is facing a 1.6 billion dollar deficit. It is very ironic that the ACLU has chosen Wisconsin to press the gay rights case, mainly because Wisconsin is very gay friendly and one of the most leftist/socialist states in the country.

Look the law, remember the law, in Wisconsin is very clear, the state will not extend health benefits to unmarried partners of employees. Now since the state currently has no law allowing same-sex marriages the five couples named in the lawsuit are up a creek with no paddle. I really hate how the ACLU takes and twists an issue in to something it is not. This case is being billed as the latest in gay rights but it’s really not. The state has laws in place that have created this unfortunate situation for these folks and the only way it is going to change is if the state passes a law allowing same-sex marriage which does not seem likely since the legislature in Wisconsin is going to send a proposal to the votes to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage as early as next year. I actually don’t have a problem with the University of Wisconsin extending benefits to the partners of unmarried gay employees but the law and the fact that the state is broke says otherwise. As much as the ACLU wants to change the laws of Wisconsin by this lawsuit that is just not how things are done.

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 Chandler, a litigation specialist who is working on the case. "They are backtracking," Chandler said. "They used these laws to get what they wanted – equal rights for the gay-straight alliance – and now that they've gotten that, they want to retract it so the Bible club doesn't get the same benefits." Predictably the ACLU of Washington state could not be reached for comment on their friend of the court filing. It warms my heart to see this groups legal tricks turned against them.

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 America was founded upon. Simply put, there are on a level with the Islamofascists when it comes to the danger that they pose to this country. Have a great day everyone.

Saturday, April 23, 2005


Hat tip to Michelle Malkin again! As we have watched the ACLU relentlessly pursue the Minute Men, and impeeding their efforts to help secure our borders. We've watched them as they have aided in illegal immigrants to cross our borders. And we have seen how their volunteers have acted irresponsibly, to say the least.

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.

Friday, April 22, 2005

Adding or Repealing Constitutional Amendments

The ultimate authority in this country is the Constitution. In order to change this document, the Congress must follow a specific set of procedures. These are outlined in Article V. "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Tennessee has a similar procedure outlined in their Constitution (Article XI, Sect. 3). This being the case, how can the ACLU challenge the right of a sovereign state, to amend it's Constitution? Tennessee has passed a measure banning Same-Sex marriage fulfilling it's Constitutional requirements. Now the measure is set to go before the people for a popular vote. I can't for the life of me understand why the ACLU would be opposed to this. If the people want Same-Sex marriages to be lawful, then they will reject the measure and it would be up to the activist judges of the state to decide if such unions would be lawful. But if the people approve the proposed amendment to their Constitution,as prescribed in Article XI, Sect. 3, then it's truly the "will of the people".

But the ACLU for some reason doesn't want the people to decide for themselves what they want. They would rather that matters such as these be settled in a courtroom in front of a few activist judges. In this way, they get paid, their agenda gets put forward, and their will gets shoved down our throats. And forever more we get to live with the decisions of a few "progressive" judges who have decided for themselves that the Congress and the people cannot make responsible law.

In other words, they don't trust the American people to make the right decisions for ourselves. If you look hard at the rhetoric from the left, it's full of language that assumes that they are smarter than the rest of us. Judging by the troll traffic on our blogs, they assume that Conservatives are stupid. They assume that we are less educated then they are. That because they have progressive ideas, that makes them superior to the rest of us.

That makes me remember several characters from a novel. George Orwell wrote a satire of Communism called "Animal Farm". In the novel, the pigs take over and move into the farmers house. They took on intellectually superior personalities. Do you see the similarities between the pigs in the novel and the ACLU? I do. And "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely". An observation that a person’s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It also applies to organizations.

The goals of the ACLU are outlined in it's founder's own words. "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." Roger Baldwin, 1935, in a year book commemorating the Harvard graduating class of 1905 (source).

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Calling The ACLU

Me, Join 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: 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!


Wednesday, April 20, 2005

The ACLU and The Second Amendment

One would think that an organization that claims it's purpose is to protect our Constitutional rights would readily defend our second amendment. Sadly, this is not the case. The ACLU is completely absent in defending this right, and while it has not become active in fighting it, its policy clearly shows why they don't defend it....they don't believe in it!

ACLU POLICY "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

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.

Even the majority of democrats that fight for gun control would not go as far as the ACLU has in it's philosphy towards the second amendment. Criminals would obtain their weapons illegally anyway, and it would leave the rest of us two choices; go defenseless or become criminals ourselves in the process of securing our own means of protection.

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::

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
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

"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.

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.

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.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

ACLU Vols Toking It UP?

I saw this first at freerepublic where one person claims they were one of the ACLU volunteers involved and claims these are only rolled ciggerettes.

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."

South East Arizona Republican Club who obtained the photos reports, "Minuteman Project volunteers had observed (and smelled) ACLU "Legal Observers" smoking pot".

Here are the pics...you be the judge!

Others blogging about this:

The Blue State Conservatives
Confederate Yankee
Discarded Lies
The Immigration Blog
Kill Righty

All of these blogs are new to me and are being added to my blogroll!

Monday, April 18, 2005

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 California that he has to pass a solitary Roman cross at the Mojave Desert World War I Veterans Memorial. The ACLU took the case to court and received a destruction order for the cross because a judge turned down a land swap that would have changed the land that the cross sits on from public to private land.

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 Mojave Desert, was erected by private citizens on what was then private land in order to honor the service of World War I veterans. Bill Clinton incorporated the site in the Forest Service as one of his last acts as president.

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 Oregon then asked to sue to destroy the cross. He claimed his Civil Rights are violated because he has to see the cross when he drives to California to visit.

The federal court in Riverside is the first in history in which a private citizen has been allowed to sue a veteran’s memorial to remove a religious symbol. Now, the same court has nullified an act of Congress by judicial fiat, and ordered the executive branch to destroy the cross. The two other branches apparently believe themselves impotent when faced with an order by an unelected judge-for-life, answerable to no one.

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 America. Every time the ACLU sues and an activist judge hands them a victory, it diminishes the moral accomplishment that our Founding Fathers achieved.

The ACLU has seen fit to raise the ante in their mission against America by seeking to include veterans in their fight against Christians. In another report on the ACLU, we find that they are actively working against the national security of this nation be interfering with the military’s ability to recruit new members. Apparently the ACLU thinks that recruiter’s access to high school students should be limited since the recruiters don’t tell the students the full story about military life. Well as someone who has gone through the recruitment process I can tell you that the recruiter does give you more then enough information to make a decision. The gentleman at the heart of the ACLU latest attempt to weaken our country is Orlando Terrazas whose son shocked him by considering a career in the military. His point of view is summed up as follows: deciding to join the military is as important as choosing which college to attend.”

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.

Sunday, April 17, 2005


I thought this older post could use a little attention. Let me know once you have signed the petition in the comment section! The post below this one is another important petition, make sure to sign it too!

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.


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:


Contribute To Our Cause!

Free Site Ring
from Bravenet Free Site Ring
from Bravenet Free Site Ring
from Bravenet Free Site Ring
 from Bravenet Free Site Ring
from Bravenet
Ring from Bravenet