Just trying to
piss off the left.

Links

Stop The ACLU Chat

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

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

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?

Tuesday, May 31, 2005
 

Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 2679 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2679
To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 26, 2005
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SODREL, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. PITTS, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. OTTER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. POE, and Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.

(a) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights- Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a)' before the first sentence; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.'.

(b) Attorneys Fees- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.'Source

Please contact your representatives supporting this. This is a good way to stop taxpayer funds going to the ACLU.

Monday, May 30, 2005
 

The ACLU Thought Police

Legal group goes to court after school board nixes blessing at graduation

It seems that destroying "actual" prayer at school is just not enough for the ACLU's appetite! They have now extended their lawsuits to "hoping" prayer can take place. Seems they want to extend their role to being America's thought police! Be careful what you wish for!


Even though a school board decided not to have an official prayer at its high-school graduation ceremony – to avoid a "five-figure" financial penalty – the American Civil Liberties Union has sued the district anyway, claiming community members were hoping the prayer would take place despite the ban.

Last month, the ACLU threatened the Keystone School Board of Clarion County, Pa., saying it had to stop prayers both at board meetings and at graduation, which is slated for today. After school officials agreed to the demands, the ACLU sued anyway, resulting in Superintendent Henry Sinopoli signing a consent decree.Source
Sounds to me as though the ACLU is going to punish them for having done it at all; despite the school district's trying to avoid the lawsuit. Make an example of their supposed transgressions so other school districts will take notice and take action to make sure they're not at risk for this kind of lawsuit! Pretty disgusting! I have to wonder if the ACLU will want to jail the official of this school too, for their "hope".

I'm still fuming about their treason which I feel has not been given enough attention to.

Help us fight the ACLU! We are trying to raise money to advertise and organize a nation wide march on all the ACLU Offices. Please consider donating a dollar or two through the donate button in the sidebar, or purchase an anti-ACLU bumper sticker, or T-shirt from the Bulldoze The ACLU Store!

 

A Moment Of Silence For Memorial Day

 

Memorial Day 2005


Honor is more than a word. It's an action and a way of living.



We've all seen the old war movies where a man throws his body on a live grenade in order to save his buddies. Marine Corporal Jason Dunham didn't just do that in a movie, he lived it. Faced with a live grenade, he covered it with his Kevlar sustaining wounds which would take his life 8 days later. His two buddies survived with injuries. Corporal Jason Dunham has been nominated for the Medal of Honor. And there is no greater example of what it takes to achieve this award than Corporal Jason Dunham USMC.


The remains of Corporal Dunham's Kevlar

Corporal Dunham was a man. A man with honor that some in this country will never achieve in a million years. The kind of honor that puts the lives of others ahead of his own. The example of an American Soldier that is unmatched. His actions were not to seek glory or this prestigious medal. But to save life, achieve victory, and Honor.

In my mind, Memorial Day 2005 is dedicated to the memory of Corporal Jason Dunham, USMC. And when you are enjoying that hotdog and the company of your family this weekend, remember who has given you that ability.

And if you have occasion to type off an email to your Congressman and Senators, urge the speedy award of his nomination.

Sunday, May 29, 2005
 

ACLU Treason

Just in time for memorial day!

Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU, the American Bar Association, and Human Rights First (formerly known as the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) have joined in a call for a special prosecutor to investigate Bush, Rumsfeld & Gonzales.Source
What if our officials start being arrested by nations like Germany and France? Would this make the liberals happy?

Inquiries to the embassies of Belgium, Chile, France, Germany, South Africa, and Venezuela, as well as to the government of Canada, while met with some amusement, did not reveal any inclination to heed Amnesty’s call.
Schulz is not deterred. Acknowledging that the possibility of a foreign government seizing Rumsfeld or Bush might not be "an immediate reality," Schulz takes the long view: "Let’s keep in mind, there are no statutes of limitations here."Source
I'm not sure what they plan on doing if they think they will be successful! What a patriotic weekend this turned out to be! Thanks for the anonymous tip in the comments. Also see this: Amnesty International Drools and Whines and this Gotta Gitmo Respect.

JOIN US IN OUR FIGHT AGAINST THESE MOST DANGEROUS ORGANIZATIONS TO AMERICA

HELP US FUND A NATIONWIDE MARCH ON ALL OF THE ACLU OFFICES ACROSSS AMERICA! PURCHASE A BUMPERSTICKER FROM THE BULLDOZE THE ACLU STORE

Saturday, May 28, 2005
 

So Help Me God

Happy Memorial Day Weekend! As you enjoy this time off with your family, make sure to pray for the troops! Do something to honor the vets. Skizz suggested in a comment section at A Republic "...And also don't forget if you see a vet in a bar this weekend, buy him a beer! They at least deserve that as well as our thanks for protecting our great country. I agree....they deserve much more..but if your out and about...this is the least you could do.


The picture above absolutely disgusts me! Let's pray that Patriotism isn't dead! Beth has more on this horrid anti-patriotic act!

Now, as you remember the fallen, just keep in mind as you enjoy your barbeque, pic-nic, or whatever you and your family will be doing that the ACLU is ever vigilant.

Think about this: While the ACLU attacks the Boyscouts for having the word "God" in their oath, how long before they extend their attacks to the U.S. Military?
However, every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine and Coastguardsman we honor this Memorial Day, and all those in service now, are bound by their oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.... So help me God."Source

Also: The ACLU Fights To Tear Down Cross-Memorial To WWI Veterans and As usual, you are paying for this service.

And lastly, it is always nice to know that the ACLU is protecting your right to burn the flag! Quite nice of them to focus on this so close to the holiday honoring our military.

Do our veterans a favor, and help us Stop This Anti-American Organization called the ACLU!

SIGN THE PETITION TO GET THE ACLU OFF THE TAXPAYER'S DOLE

Donate to help us fight the ACLU by using the donate button in the sidebar.

PURCHASE A BUMPERSTICKER OR T-SHIRT TO HELP US RAISE MONEY TO ADVERTISE AND ORGANIZE A NATIONWIDE MARCH ON ALL OF THE ACLU OFFICES

Join The Fight! Become A Card Carrying Member of Stop The ACLU.org

Friday, May 27, 2005
 

What Do You Dislike The Most About The ACLU?

Every one love polls! So here you go!


What Do You Dislike about the ACLU the Most
Their defense of Child Molesters like NAMBLA
Their policy to legalize the distribution and possession of Child Porn
Their anti-Christian Stance
Their defense of terrorists
Their abortion stance
That they use YOUR tax dollars
Their attack on the Boyscouts
Their lack of defense of the Second Amendment
I'm A Whining Socialist Liberal and Like The ACLU
Dislike? I just have an overall hatred of this organization!!

Free polls from Pollhost.com

 

The ACLU Rides to the Defense of Killer Terrorists

As if the ACLU continued defense of American criminals and degenerates is not enough the ACLU has now taken their unholy cause to the very terrorists that have swore to kill or convert every man, women, and child in the United States. The ACLU has now “uncovered” more evidence of torture and mistreatment at the hands of United States Military interrogators. In a press release the ACLU blows their own trumpet on their “success” at uncovering “abuses”. Funny thing, the newest document that the ACLU is using as evidence is over 2 years old, has been investigated by the Military and already been dismissed as an outright lie or fabrication by the prisoner. Sit tight folks and let me point out yet another issue where the ACLU is blatantly wrong and in fact entirely anti-American.

The story of Koran abuse by Newsweek was proven to be false and ultimately retracted by both the magazine and the original accuser and rightly so Newsweek has endured the scorn and loss of respect by people around the world. Should the ACLU share that spot in the Hall of Shame with Newsweek? Absolutely! The ACLU has been alleging prisoner abuse including abuse of the Koran since 2002 and even after an internal Department of Defense investigation, an FBI investigation and the release of many documents from both the US Military and the CIA has shown that nothing could substantiated.

When abuse occurred at Abu Ghraib, the people responsible were punished and jailed. One of the main differences between the United States and the terrorists we are fighting that the ACLU fails to recognize; is the fact that we hold our own people to a high standard of accountability while the terrorists themselves engage in the lowest form of human behavior including beheading and torture of innocent civilians who's only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time and ending up as hostages. In fact as the documents released by the ACLU today show, the enemy combatants are being treated as well or better as prisoners in American prisons and these terrorists are not even United States citizens. The ACLU has been successful up to this point in having the rights of an American citizen conveyed upon terrorists who have sworn to kill us.

The results of the recently completed report on the alleged Koran abuse actually found that the terrorists themselves defaced their own Korans many more times then any US personal. The ACLU claims that the released documents represent a pattern of systematic abuse that has been condoned at the highest levels. Frankly the ACLU is wrong and could be rightly accused of providing aid and comfort to our enemies. Here is the link to their latest collection of “found” documents, let me give you a couple of examples and then I will point out a few things regarding their believability.

DETAINEES 3849-3854 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 05/21/02 Records detainee stating that "prior to an interview in Bagram, he was forced to strip naked in front of others."

DETAINEES 3873-3875 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 07/30/02 Notes that "[t]he Camp Delta detainee uprising which occurred on or about 19-20 July 2002, was started when one detainee claimed that a guard dropped a Qur'an. In actuality the detainee dropped the Qur'an and then blamed the guard. Many other detainees reacted to this claim and this initiated the uprising."

DETAINEES 3878-3881 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 08/01/02 Notes that "[p]rior to his capture, REDACTED had no information against the United States. Personally, he has nothing against the United States. The guards in the detention facility do not treat him well. Their behavior is bad. About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Qur'an in the toilet. The guards dance around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do these things."

DETAINEES 3926-3927 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 10/22/02 Notes, "REDACTED began the interview by saying he was under stress because he had not heard from his family and did not know how they were doing. REDACTED said that a guard at Camp Delta, several weeks before, told him he had mail, but that it could not be given to him until after it was translated. REDACTED said that he was still waiting for the letter, and was bothered because it had not yet been delivered to him."

DETAINEES 3947-3948 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 12/09/02 Notes that "REDACTED engaged in limited conversation, stating he would no answer any questions because he feels he has been mistreated. When asked how he has been mistreated, REDACTED replied he felt like an animal having to be moved in chains. . . . REDACTED did request legal counsel, at which point the interviewers explained that, under his current conditions, he was not entitled to legal counsel."

DETAINEES 3982-3984 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 03/28/03 Notes that "Detainee REDACTED stated that the treatment of the Qur'an continued to be the reason for his unwillingness to cooperate. REDACTED was asked how the mistreatment of the Qur'an had taken place. REDACTED stated that the issue continued to be based on what the detainees perceived as the use of the Qur'an as a weapon. It was taken from them and returned at will, with little consideration for the value which they placed in the book. REDACTED was asked if he had ever seen the Qur'an mistreated or intentionally mishandled. He had not. REDACTED was asked if he had ever seen the Qur'an thrown around, tossed on the ground or mistreated in any way. He had not . . . . REDACTED was informed that his case for the proper treatment of the Qur'an had been taken to higher levels and presented as a serious issue. The effort had been hurt, however, because it had been found that detainees were hiding things within the pages of the Qur'an. As a result, the guards were required to look through the Qur'an for their own safety. REDACTED was asked if he could assure camp officials that none of the detainees would ever hide any objects of any kind in their Qur'ans. He stated he could not.

DETAINEES 3998 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 04/10/03 Notes that REDACTED "accused Pakistani Police with giving him electric shocks and U.S. troops of beating him. . . . REDACTED lied to the interrogators in Kandahar because he felt that if he didn't say what the interrogators wanted, they would continue to beat him. REDACTED was then shown a photograph of himself taken in Kandahar and asked to point out where any bruises or signs of a beating were located. REDACTED then admitted to lying about the beatings."

I have a couple points to make about these statements. The first point is this; certainly the vast majority of terrorists are not familiar with the way prisoners are treated in the United States or what rights an enemy combatant might have. That being said, I know nothing about prisoner treatment oversees but I would bet a large sum of money that the treatment at Gitmo is a hell of a lot better then say an Afghan, Russian, Turkish or Pakistani prison. This reminds me of a fact that the ACLU seems to forget all too often, these people are prisoners; prison is a punishment not a damn vacation resort. These prisoners are not true prisoners of war nor are they subject to the same benefits and rights of US citizenship but that is exactly what the ACLU is arguing on behalf of these men who are pledged to the destruction of America and everything she stands for. And for those on the short bus, that does include the ACLU.

The second point I would like to make about the believability of these statements comes directly from Al Qaeda in the form of one of their training manuals which was found after a successful raid in Manchester, England of an Al Qaeda member’s home. Here is the link. The manual states rather clearly that if captured, one is required to lie at all times to his jailers and make claims of abuse and mistreatment even if none exist. As I pointed out in the examples from the ACLU’s precious documents, the prisoners are lying to interrogators on a daily basis and nothing from their months can be trusted unless confirmed by multiple sources. I would sooner trust a politician to tell the truth before any of the terrorists being held by this country. As is the case during the course of a war, both sides engage in mind games to further each others agenda’s. Here is an interesting article that points out how this is happening in the War on Terror.

The ACLU should be ashamed of themselves for so easily being duped by a clear plan by these terrorists to further enflame their fellow prisoners and the Arab world at large. If the ACLU continues to press this false issue then they should seriously be looked at as provided aid and comfort to the enemy and thus prosecuted for treason. I don’t think I am outside the mainstream when I say that if the ACLU wants to maintain any kind of credibility they need to concern themselves with the rights and protection of American citizens and not terrorists who would sooner kill an ACLU attorney then thank them for their legal help. Perhaps if the ACLU and Muslims are so concerned with the abuse of the Koran then they should look in the mirror, deal with their own people who deface and disrespect the Koran on a daily basis or at least turn to countries where Koran defacement is not a myth. How about they start here? The five accidental incidents of disrespect to the Koran are being dealt with by the Department of Defense and amazingly enough; none involved flushing a Koran down the toilet.


Wednesday, May 25, 2005
 

Selective Civil Rights

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."-Voltaire

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas(NAMBLA) and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its history. Exception: in the case for pro-lifers.

The ACLU's Reproductive Rights Project has a lot to do with why the ACLU is so reluctant to defend the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

"With a $2 million dollar budget and a staff of 17 employees, Janet Benshoof was the Union's most devoted activist for abortion rights.....she became so overextended in her approach that she advocated mob pressure on the judiciary; she pushed for "pro-choice" activists to march on court rooms where abortion cases were being heard."Twilight of Liberty
To the ACLU, anti-abortion protesters are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60's, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom.

"Hence, the reluctance of the ACLU to defend principle, that is, the exercise of First amendment rights by anti-abortion activists. Ironically, real fascists-like the American Nazis and Klansmen-have had their rights protected more often and with greater vigor by the ACLU than anti-abortion demonstrators.Twilight of Liberty
Of course there are loonies in the anti-abortion movement, but that was true of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement of the 60's, and even today in the "pro-choice" demonstrators. Every movement has it's fringe element. But while the ACLU was right on top in defending any violations of the law for all of these movements, when it comes to the opponents of abortion having their First Amendment rights violated by the authorities, the ACLU is completely absent.

Not even having the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(RICO) thrown at anti-abortion protesters moved the ACLU into action.

The ACLU is nominally opposed to the RICO statute, and there are some senior members, like Washington official Antonio Califa, who are truly opposed to the invocation of RICO against any protesters, including opponents of abortion. However, due largely to the influence of Benshoof, the ACLU's record is grievously stained in this area.Twilight of Liberty
It was actually her suggestion in a booklet titled, "Preserving the Right to Choose: How to Cope with Violence and Disruption at Abortion Clinics." The ACLU would not tolerate the use of RICO against nuclear weapons dissidents, but in the case of anti-abortion protesters the matter is quite different. In fact, the ACLU has actually used the RICO against them. When pro-life demonstrators were sued under RICO in Philadelphia, the local chapter of the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Northeast Women's Center.

The ACLU missed another opportunity to defend civil liberties in 1989 in West Harford, Connecticut. It was on June 17 that 261 persons were arrested, and then physically abused by police, for staging a sit-in.

The police used "come-a-long" holds, or "pain compliance holds", with a result that many claimed permanent nerve damage. Some were denied medical care, and others were not allowed phone calls for over two days. One woman had to have surgery after the police damaged her uterus. The ACLU did nothing.

When John Spear, a publisher of a small New York newspaper, wrote an editorial against police brutality, he too was slapped with a RICO suit. He was charged with extortion. The ACLU did nothing.

"Why do they still call it a civil liberties union?" commented ACLU member and nemesis Nat Hentoff. When pressed about cases like the West Hartford one, the ACLU typically responds that it can't get involved with the defense of antiabortion protesters because it is already committed to the side of the abortion clinics. When John Leo asked Alan Dershowitz, "Can it be that the affiliates sometimes deliberately involve themselves early on one side so they will have an excuse not to help victims on the other?" the Harvard Law professor replied, "Absolutely. They go to the pro-choice people and say, "Get us in right away, "thereby giving them the excuse of conflict of interest in the event they are contacted by the anti-abortion side. And what does the ACLU say when asked specifically about its duplicity regarding RICO? Lynn Paltrow, who worked for Benshoof, explained the Union's attitude: "Its ACLU policy to oppose application of RICO, but there are those on staff who feel that as long as RICO exists, this kind of behavior (Operation Rescue tactics) does fit." "In other words," as John Leo puts it, "RICO is totally bad, but sort of useful."Twilight of Liberty,
It looks pretty clear to me. In the eyes of the ACLU you the First Amendment protects child molesters, perverts, and fascists, but not Pro-lifers! Quite hypocritical in my opinion.


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.


Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additional advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender's Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit's Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Cao's Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
The View From Firehouse
Ogre's View
Fundamentally right
Conservative Rant
My Political Soap Box
Common Sense Runs Wild
Redstate Rant
Time Hath Found Us
American Dinosaur
Merri Musings
And Rightly So
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
Smithereen's Files
Pulpit Pounder
Ravings of J.C.B.
Is It Just Me?
Blogtalker
Parrot Check
Stuff You Should Know
Rancher Blog
Christmas Ghost
Vista On Current Events
Musing Minds
Pirate's Cove
Mr. Minority
The Lesser Of Two Evils
RAGE
The Life And Times
TMH's Bacon Bits
Right Decisions



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!


 

ACLU Top Priority

"The deliberate killing of a human being has no place in a society that calls itself civilized and humane." Though that is an official position of the ACLU's, it expresses the Union's sentiments to ward capital punishment, not abortion.

Abortion is no ordinary issue for the ACLU-it is the organization's top priority! Amost every fund-raising letter written by the ACLU in the last decade mentions abortion. For the ACLU, abortion-on-demand is an unqualified right, deserving absolutely no restrictions of any kind and entitled to full medical coverage.

...Reason writer Charles Oliver was taken aback when he learned from John Powell, the Union's national legal director, that he considered abortion to be the ACLU's number one priority; the defense of the First Amendment, the alleged heart and soul of the ACLU's mission, was listed third, after civil rights. Oliver's conclusion cuts to the question why:

"Abortion may indeed be a civil liberties issue, but it seems strange to make it the ACLU's top priority. After all, Planned Parenthood, N.O.W., and National Abortion Rights Action League ably fight for abortion rights. But defending abortion rights seem like a much more lucractive venture than defending the speech rights of Nazis. Or of anti-abortion protesters.Source"
Oliver's charges are not without merrit. One of the main reasons the ACLU is so committed to abortion rights is pure greed: nothing works to raise more money than, "EMERGENCY MEMO" citing some alleged restriction on abortion rights.

According to surveys that go beyond "yes" and "no",most Americans find abortion a controversial and complex issue in which they express mixed feelings. Most do not want a return to the days of a near-absolute ban on abortions, but fully eight in ten oppose abortion-on-demand. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, or if there is a strong chance of a defect in the baby, most Americans favor abortion. But only a very small minority favor abortion for a low income family that can't afford a baby, the woman who is unwed and does not want to marry the man, or the pregnancy interferes with the woman's work or education. In short, the public seems to be saying that abortion should be legal only for reasons of health, not for reasons of conveience. Not only do most people see abortion as a conflict of rights, a majority believe that pregnant women have responsibilities to the unborn child. The ACLU fully rejects both of these positions. Source

The ACLU casts all fetal protection laws as oppressive and illegal. As Kary L. Moss of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project sees it, requiring a pregnant woman to abstain from substance abuse is analogous to requiring a woman to risk her life by rushing to save the life of a child in a burning building. It could be pointed out, of course, that when a woman gets pregnant, she reasonably assumes responsibilities toward her unborn child that no stranger incurs when children are at risk in a burning building.Source

For the ACLU it is not a conflict between a woman's right to abort and the right of someone else to live. The ACLU sees abortion as purely a matter of individual choice, requiring no say from the father or in the case of minors, from parents. The ACLU has even sued over an Illinois birth questionnaire.

According the the ACLU, new mothers in maternity wards should not be required to disclose the number of their previous births, miscarriages, and abortions, nor should they have to answer questions about alchohol and tobbaco. Simply put, the ACLU sees abortion as a birth control.Twilight of Liberty

And after all I've exposed about the ACLU, there will still be someone try to claim they are not an extremist organization.

Help us raise money to advertise for a nation-wide march on all of the ACLU offices nationwide! Donate a dollar using the donate button in the sidebar, or

Purchase a bumper sticker from the BULLDOZE THE ACLU STORE

Every little bit helps! Thanks for the support!


Tuesday, May 24, 2005
 

Should Your Tax Money Pay For Homosexual Health Benefits?

The ACLU thinks so, and as always they believe their misguided philosphy of civil liberties trumps the voice of the people!


SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.—Wisconsin’s Joint Committee on Legislative Organization has voted to retain ADF to intervene on behalf of the Wisconsin legislature to defend the state against the latest lawsuit brought by the ACLU. The lawsuit demands taxpayer-funded employee health benefits for same-sex couples, in spite of state law, which does not allow benefits for unmarried couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex.

"It's important for the legislature to be part of this lawsuit," said Glen Lavy, senior vice president of the Alliance Defense Fund’s Marriage Litigation Center. "The Attorney General's Office said that this is an issue to be left up to the courts, but that is the exact opposite of what the Wisconsin Court of Appeals said in an identical case by the ACLU in 1992. The court of appeals said in that decision that domestic partner benefits was an issue for the legislature. We at the Alliance Defense Fund consider it a privilege to assist the legislature in defense of Wisconsin taxpayers.”

The 1992 lawsuit, Phillips v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, was rejected by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

“This lawsuit has significant financial implications for taxpayers in Wisconsin,” said Lavy. “The ACLU has filed similar suits around the country, demanding that taxpayers subsidize benefits for same-sex couples."ADF Website
If you agree with the ADF perhaps you should support them. ADF was founded for a unique purpose: to aggressively defend religious liberty by empowering our allies, recognizing that together, we can accomplish far more than we can alone.

Donate To ADF

Monday, May 23, 2005
 

Got Morals?

We have two new designs at the Bulldoze The ACLU Store!!! Let me know what you think! If any of you have some design ideas that you would like to see, let us know!

Click on the images to see all of the products with the logos!



My personal favorite is this coffee mug, which I will be buying myself!



Please share your ideas for other designs with us! And I want to thank everyone for all of the support!

Sunday, May 22, 2005
 

Thomas More Law Center Defends Us Against ACLU Backed Infanticide

"How can you say that there are too many children in the world? That is like saying there are too many flowers."—Mother Teresa

"The Thomas More Law Center has filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and others, who seek to overturn the recently enacted Michigan Legal Birth Definition Act. The law is a new approach to ban partial-birth abortions. The Law Center is representing Standing Together To Oppose Partial-birth-abortion (“STTOP”), the ballot question committee, which played a crucial role in enacting this citizen-initiated legislation.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, commented, “There is a point at which the law protects a child that is in the process of being born. No civilized society should have to accept and condone the inhumane killing by partial-birth abortion. The Legal Birth Definition Act seeks to put a stop to this grisly form of infanticide
.” Source

I have to agree...Partial Birth Abortion is a brutal, uncivilized, heartless act! So much for the theory of evolution! We're still primitives!

CHECK OUT OUR NEW DESIGNS AT THE ACLUBULLDOZER STORE


 

The ACLU on Abortion:A Miscarriage of Justice

In National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft (No. 03 Civ.8695 (RCC).), the ACLU and NAF succeeded in garnering a decision against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, this one in the Southern District of New York. Louis Melling, head of the ACLU’s “Reproductive Freedom Project,” contended that, “This ban was a broad attack on second-trimester abortions and a dangerous attack on women's health.” The Court overturned it on the grounds that, “ [t]he Act as whole cannot be sustained because it does not provide for an exception to protect the health of the mother.” The ACLU were also instrumental in Planned Parenthood vs Doyle and Hope Clinic vs Ryan, in which the Wisconsin and Illinois PBA bans were struck down. (The majority opinion in Hope Clinic vs Ryan, when it was at the Seventh Circuit, was written by Judge Richard Posner, a prominent economic conservative and Reagan appointee. However, Posner was a vocal critic of the Illinois state PBA ban.) The ACLU has the dubious distinction of being the plaintiff in the first case that overturned an “abortion ban.”

Says the ACLU, “Abortion bans are a deceptive and unconstitutional attempt to prohibit abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy.” In asserting these claims, they cite the “facts” that “they[abortion bans] impermissibly endanger women's health.” These arguments could not be more specious or besieged by constitutional, moral, and factual inaccuracy. A bevy of activist judges have issued rulings unfavorable to federal and state PBA bans, citing a precedent from previous cases that mandates an exception for the “health of the mother.” The federal PBA ban has a “life of the mother” exception.

Rick Santoroum hypothesized that a “health of the mother” exception could be “abused,” insinuating that patients would concoct apocryphal medical conditions in order to receive an abortion. This is not merely unlikely, but fallacious. The dubious constitutional logic of Roe v Wade makes any citing of a “precedent” for “health of the mother” exceptions a shaky legal premise. However, one must acknowledge that the federal PBA ban is a deeply flawed piece of legislation, a contention on which there appears to be unanimity on both sides of the abortion debate.

US Rep Mark Kirk(R-IL), a social moderate, professed that, while partial birth abortion was morally abhorrent, he would vote against the PBA ban because of its lack of a “health” exception. Kirk threatened to introduce a counterproposal with such an exception. Thus, while one can conclude that, in the rush to pass pro-life legislation, medical and legal merit has been obscured. However, the ACLU’s opponence for any restrictions whatsoever on abortion are just as disturbing.

The ACLU provides a scathing critique on the “rights of fetuses,” to which it appears to be opposed.. They make a vague and unsupported argument in favor of the “unconstitutionality” of fetal rights, in which they remark that, “A fetal protection statute that leaves the public, health care workers, and law enforcement authorities uncertain as to its meaning is especially dangerous because it threatens to chill the exercise of constitutionally protected reproductive rights.” Roe vs Wade is universally condemned by scholars on both sides of the aisle as lacking in constitutional merit, and as being, essentially, a sham, a delusion part of Warren Burger’s grand design to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people under the auspices of advancing “womens’ rights,” while ignoring gravely misogynistic practices, as he did in Reed vs Reed.(Argued by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Reed vs Reed took an aim at an Idaho law which banned executrixes.)

The ACLU also charges that scienter requirements are necessary in “fetal rights” bills, an assertation of which is absolutely absurd. There are no, nor have there ever, in contemporary times been, laws that make an abortion a punishable offense for the woman. Nor would there be any equivocality about whether or not the physical knew he or she was performing an abortion. That’s pretty obvious.

The ACLU present a fallacy-ridden and downright specious constitutional and moral arguments in favor of more lenient abortion laws, in which is inherent the potential to inflict great harm upon society, women, and their unborn children.

Saturday, May 21, 2005
 

Stop The ACLU Newsletter

If you haven't already done so, please sign up for Stop The ACLU.Org's Newsletter! There is a box in the sidebar to do so. I wanted to share a few highlights from this month's newsletter.

#1. (Nedd of stop the aclu.org...not me!...but you can include me if you want...and please do include the blog's address in the email)

What I am requesting of you is that each of you take a couple moments to write Mr. O'Reilly at oreilly@foxnews.com and ask him to consider inviting yours truly (Nedd Kareiva) on the O'Reilly Factor.

All I ask is that you put the subject of your e-mail as follows to Mr. O'Reilly: Show suggestion (or recommendation) - Stop the ACLU Coalition and mention the web site in your note. If you want to follow up with a snail mail letter to Fox News, that would reinforce your feelings. But please send a message to Mr. O'Reilly and encourage him to have me on his show.(Also include our blog address)

You may vary your wording as you please but the three things that I ask of every e-mail are (1) Make sure the words Stop the ACLU Coalition are in the Subject title (2) The web address http://www.stoptheaclu.org/ is mentioned in the body of the message and (3) Be brief. Conformity to these guidelines sends a message that you are angry with the ACLU, that there is a group of patriots who are willing to do anything to see that the ACLU agenda bites the dust and that Bill O'Reilly and yours truly(Nedd Kareiva) can mobilize massive numbers in opposition to the ACLU.

#2. Also, we have a contest on the web site to choose the best acronym for the ACLU (e.g. American Communist Lawyers Union). Be sure to make your recommendations (one per person) and send them to me at the address on the web site (not this one). The contest will run thru June and the one who has the uniquest name will be the winner and receive several Stop the ACLU T-shirts and bumperstickers from the soon to be active Stop the ACLU online store. If per chance the winning selection was named by more than one person, there will be a drawing to select the winner.

There will be 5 judges to decide the best acronym, yours truly and 4 others. If you would like to be a judge (I only have one and we still need 3 more), be sure to let me know of your interest.


Friday, May 20, 2005
 

Jailed Terrorist Helps Draft Anti-Christian Rules

WASHINGTON – Abdurahman Alamoudi, an alleged senior terrorist operative, is behind bars on an 18-count indictment. But he can take satisfaction in the fact that a court in California has just given the green light to schools following ACLU’s religion-in-the-classroom guidelines, which he helped to formulate.

A federal judge judge has now upheld the constitutionality of an intensive three-week course in California government schools that requires children to choose a Muslim name, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koraan, pray to Allah, play “jihad games, and simulate worship activities related to the Five Pillars of Islam.”

I guess that separation of church and state mantra they keep hammering depends on which religion is involved.

Most interesting is this piece of it:

Clintonoid Terrorist Connection

Alamoudi’s name will ring a bell..... In 2000, [he was identified] as a “friend and sometime adviser on Islamic affairs to Hillary Rodham Clinton,” and reported that he had stood before a crowd in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House “and passionately declared his support for the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbolah.”

NewsMax also quoted Alamoudi, a Clinton administration appointee, as a “goodwill ambassador” to Muslim countries. We cited his comment to a pro-Palestinian organization in Chicago in 1997, years before 9/11: “I think if we are outside this country, we can say oh, Allah, destroy America, but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. There is no way for Muslims to be violent in America, no way. We have other means to do it [destroy America].”

Some outraged parents, particularly in California, believe one of the “other means” Alamoudi might have had in mind was indoctrinating American children in school, an issue back on the front burner with this week’s decision by U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton.

The ACLU confirmed that Alamoudi, in fact, represented the American Muslim Council among the organizations that helped craft the ACLU document “Religion In The Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law.”

Many government schools have given great weight to the document as a warning. Anyone who follows the news knows that the ACLU is aggressively looking for any and all opportunities to run to court and sue anyone or any institution that shows the slightest trace of promoting Christianity in the public square.

As a result, many school districts have bent over so far backward to show “tolerance” and avoid costly nuisance lawsuits that they have prompted outrage from parents and others who believe school authorities have crossed the line from tolerance to indoctrination in Islam.

For those of you on the left, think about this. Christians can't even have a Christmas play with any reference to the birth of Christ in it. But the ACLU wants to dress our children in Islamic garb, and have them simulate worship to Allah! Please tell me you are not too blind to see an underlying agenda here....surely you can at least see hypocrisy.


Wednesday, May 18, 2005
 

ACLU Supports Legalized Unregulated Prostitution

Sex For Sale

The ACLU's Policy 211 is straightforward. "The ACLU supports the decriminalization of prostitution and opposes state regulation of prostitution". They base their argument on several points, including that existing laws are discrimination against women, and the right of individual privacy. They argue that what two consenting adults in private do is their own business.

Prostitution is private? But isn’t the prostitute engaging in business, isn’t she providing a service? Would we not regulate and license a business? You wouldn’t want a general contractor to work on your house without a license would you? That would be unsafe as is an unregulated prostitute.

However, the ACLU doesn't believe in that philosophy. The question of privacy comes in if the government is allowed to regulate the oldest profession.

As for it being a privacy issue, it seems a contradiction to me when they also state that the "public" solicitation of prostitution is "entitled to the protection of the First Amendment". "It's not just the bedroom that the ACLU wishes to make off-limits to public censure, but also the local street corner, presumably even if that corner is regularly used by school children crossing the street." Source

Privacy applies to two consenting adults when no contract is involved; a date with no expectation of performance is a far cry from paying for a service.

And what good would it do for women's rights to decriminalize this? One could argue that women should not be punished for their own exploitation. But how does decriminalizing pimps, buyers, procurers, brothels or other sex establishments offer any solution to this? Decriminalization would do nothing but expand the sex industry and send a message to society that it is acceptable. And a system unregulated would do nothing for women's health, and would only promote the spread disease.

The more I learn about the ACLU, the more I am convinced that they want to establish a new society based on everything immoral. They are blinded by their elitist ideology to the point they can't even conceive of the possible consequences that will result if they are enacted. The scary thing is that they hold so much power, and lack so much responsibility. They must be stopped.



This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.


Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additonal advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender's Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit's Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Cao's Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
The View From Firehouse
Ogre's View
Fundamentally right
Conservative Rant
My Political Soap Box
Common Sense Runs Wild
Redstate Rant
Time Hath Found Us
American Dinosaur
Merri Musings
And Rightly So
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
Smithereen's Files
Pulpit Pounder
Ravings of J.C.B.
Is It Just Me?
Blogtalker
Parrot Check
Stuff You Should Know
Rancher Blog
Christmas Ghost
Vista On Current Events

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!



 

Prayer = Jail Time?

Teachers and administrators in Tangipahoa Parish continue to violate a court-imposed school prayer ban, according to the ACLU, which Wednesday asked a federal judge to send them to jail.Source
Just think about this for one minute. Think about what your grandmother might say. I never thought I'd see the day that prayer was treated as a crime. Hasn't the ACLU taken this whole seperation of Church and State myth just a little too far?

When will we all stand up and demand that our First Amendment be given back?

Tuesday, May 17, 2005
 

Socialism, Religion and The ACLU

Check this story out.

ACLU Says Silver Ring Thing Violates Federal Rules
Abstinence Program Says It Has Secular Options

POSTED: 4:29 pm MDT May 16, 2005

NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit alleging that a taxpayer-supported teen abstinence program improperly promotes Christianity.

"The Silver Ring Thing," which uses music and comedy skits, is an offshoot of the John Guest Evangelistic Team. Since 2003, the program has received more than $1 million in federal grants as part of the Bush administration's initiative to expand abstinence-only education.

Grant recipients aren't supposed to use federal money for religious proselytizing. But the ACLU alleges that the Silver Ring Thing encourages teens to commit themselves to Jesus Christ.

The lawsuit says youths are given the opportunity to divide into secular and religious groups, but are encouraged to choose the religious option and to enroll in a Bible-based follow-up program.



There is a world of difference between "encouraging" someone to do something and making it mandatory.

The ACLU doesn't seem to grasp this concept, and even encouragement now seems to be a problem with them.

Mayhaps it is because the word "courage" is in there and courage is the antithesis of what the ACLU is about. The ACLU is about socialism and secularism, and these two things take no courage and are simply the abandonment of morals and free will.

Giving over your life to the whim of the state, and the path of least resistance of secularism is not only the cowards way out, it is inherently evil.

Socialism detracts from the free will of you and your fellow man. Secularism leads to a society of depravity and causes life to be devalued.

Both of these systems are, in the end, bad for society as a whole, as they ultimately cause society to break down.

When human life is not highly valued you get such things as euthanasia, and when your freedom to better yourself is stolen from you and your fellow man, then you are simply alive to continue the existence of the state.

Over-bearing religion is also evil, as evidenced in the theocracies of the middle east, conversely, a society devoid of religion is also evil, and the ACLU appears to be on a mission to chase religion behind closed doors, much like the communists did in soviet russia.

At the heart of this issue is not the fact that a group attempting to teach abstinance is encouraging children to follow Christianity, but rather that the ACLU apparently sees this encouragement tantmount to encouraging someone to commit a crime, and I am forced to conclude that if the ACLU does indeed see this as a crime, or even appears to see this as a crime, then we have slipped further into the abyss than I had thought.

Further, tax dollars going to faith based groups is allowable by law and demanded by a society that insists on equality.

Once in this country it was shameful to become pregnant before marriage, and to have to go to the free clinic for a shot...promiscuity was frowned upon, at least for women, and divorce was a shameful situation that would cause the perpetrators, at the least, social discomfort, if not outright shunning by their friends.

The ACLU has, for many years, followed a course towards secularism and a socialist agenda, and this is, upon deeper inspection, one more example of it.

It is about time that we take our country back from this path of ultimate destruction.

Crossposted at Kenders

 

ACLU Defends Talking Penis

I know what you are thinking...and no...it was not one of their own lawyers.

"Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the show's producer & host Timothy Huffman had argued that the three minute "Dick Smart" show segment, aired only twice on public access cable channel GRTV in the city of Grand Rapids five years ago, was protected speech under the US first amendment".Source

First Amendment right you see? Our forefather's wrote the first amendment to protect people to have the right to show their privates to the world!

"Wednesday's ruling contained a transcript of the three-minute segment that aired twice in 2000, including the voice-over lines delivered in the style of the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield: "Hi, I'm Dick Smart. I am a comedian, yeah, stand up, ha."

"A three-minute segment of Huffman's Friday-night half-hour show on GRTV, the public access channel in Grand Rapids, Mich., featured a penis with a face painted on it delivering bar jokes. Instead of invoking TV-obscenity prohibitions, Kent County prosecutors concluded that the segment violated Michigan's indecent-exposure law".Source

See, to the ACLU this was a "free speech" issue. I however think that a cable-access channel is a "public place" and that exposure was conduct, not free speech. What do you think? Do penis's have the right to free speech?

Sunday, May 15, 2005
 

ACLU Sues School District over Military Recruiters

Great. This is a pretty consistent meme from the ACLU, too, their anti-military stand.
School district sued over parent notification
Source: AP









ALBUQUERQUE -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico is suing the state's largest school district.

The ACLU claims in a lawsuit filed today that the Albuquerque school district allegedly failed to notify parents of their right to keep schools from sending their children's contact information to military recruiters.

The lawsuit claims the district's current practices violate the privacy and due process rights of students.

District spokesman Rigo Chavez can't comment specifically on the lawsuit but he says the district already informs parents they have the option to remove their child's name from lists sent to recruiters.

He says the matter is addressed in the student handbook, the district's behavior handbook and in newsletters sent to parents two to three times during the school year.

We don't want parents or children volunteering for the military, we want to disarm the nation and make sure recruiting is down. You know, to keep up the negative buzz about the war in Iraq and so on. And what are the ACLU doing supporting parental notification? I thought they were against this? Oh...that's right! Only in the case of abortions.

Also see what Militant Pundit found out on this subject!


 

Fair And Balanced?

Since we are not asking for the destruction of the ACLU, but their moral reform, I think that a few examples of when they get it right would be ok. These cases are very rare when the ACLU is on the right side.

I want to note that this will not happen here very often. Make note that this is not Fox News and I have never claimed to be "fair and balanced". The cases where the ACLU is wrong greatly outnumber the cases in which they are right. And I personally believe they are blinded by ideology and absolutism to the point they irresponsibly take no account of consequences in their extremism. Many of the cases in which they take the right side are mere propaganda. Anyway, here are a few examples of when the ACLU got it right.

Good job, ACLU, on defending river baptisms
ACLU gets Bible verse back in local yearbook
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction
ACLU fights for Congregation's Religious Freedom

You can also see where our good friend from the left at Preemptive Karma has pointed out even more for us.

And make sure to see Just how much our friend at Preemptive Karma loves us here. We are lovingly referred to as "slaughtered"! Make sure to let them know how much we love them too! Make sure to vote for my friend Ogre for their next "slaughter."

Anyway, the ACLU needs to know when they get it right, cause 99% of the time...they get it wrong!

 

Send the ACLU to France!

Warning! This is a rumor! I think it's funny, and if you don't have a sense of humor, please go find one before you comment!

Marines were praying during a ceremony honoring the birthday of the corps, and it has the ACLU up in arms. "These are federal employees," says Lucius Traveler, a spokesman for the ACLU, "on federal property and on federal time. For them to pray is clearly an establishment of religion, and we must nip this in the bud immediately."

When asked about the ACLU's charges, Colonel Jack Fessender, speaking for the Commandant of the Corps said (cleaned up a bit), "Screw the ACLU." GOD Bless Our Warriors, Send the ACLU to France!!!



This is probably a rumor but I like it anyway. There are a lot of commies in France, let them lobby over there to take away more peoples' rights! Oh yeah. France is already socialist...and we're not so the ACLU needs to be harping harrassing and arresting all us Christian folks who want to pray to G-d.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Saturday, May 14, 2005
 

Another Cross Controversy




Removing Crosses from public view is one of the methods that the ACLU uses to advance their goal to remove all vestiges of religion from public life. In the past it has been mainly restricted to Crosses displayed on public land. But now, they even have a problem with a Cross being displayed in a public cemetery.

A cross, which is part of a Korean War memorial in Elk Township, Ohio, is being targeted. The memorial which is located in the Township cemetery, was once located at the Macarthur Courthouse where it was displayed for over 40 years. But in 1996, our friends at the ACLU were successful in forcing the removal of the Cross. The Cross then sat for 8 years in storage prior to being moved to the Township cemetery to create the Korean War Memorial.

The ACLU's objection to this Cross being located in the cemetery isn't understood by Township officials. Especially since the cemetery already contains multiple Crosses and a Star of David.

"I don't understand why he's picking on this cross in this county," said Elk Township trustee Mickey McDonald.

"An argument could be made the cemetery plots are private property," reported Mike Bowersock of NBC 4 News in Columbus. "The plot the cross is on was donated to the late Cy Karns, who helped put it there." "Karns' son Steve vowed to keep the cross in the cemetery."

"We'll move it down there and make it bigger than it is now," Karns said.

At issue is whether the ACLU can have a case if the memorial is located on a private plot. The ACLU's position is that if it is part of a private grave plot, it is an expression of personal belief. But as a public memorial in a public cemetary, it violates the phantom separation of church and state.

I have the solution, have the Towship return the donated plot back to the family who donated it to the Township. And leave the memorial alone.

Information courtesy of NBC 4 Columbus

Help Put A Stop To The Most Dangerous Organization In America. We are trying to organize a march on all of the ACLU state offices in all of the 50 states. To help in this matter, we are trying to raise money to pay for advertising in our nation's newspapers promoting the march. You can help. Visit Bulldoze The ACLU online store and buy a bumper sticker or t-shirt. All of the proceedes will be going into advertising for this march. Thank You.

Friday, May 13, 2005
 

The ACLU, Supporter of Illegal Aliens

Once again the ACLU is supporting illegal immigration and claiming reasons other than the subversive agenda they are hiding from you and I.

It seems they are against the Real ID Act and they claim it is because of this:

The ACLU of Arizona expects some of that information to be checked over the internet, and the group is worried the process will give hackers one more way to steal identities.


The reason they are against the Real ID Act is because it would make it that much harder for illegal aliens to acquire "Valid Photo ID", therby making it harder for them to attain assistance from our great socialist programs. The ACLU believes that once someone is within our borders, regardless of HOW they got here, that they are entitled to everything a Citizen of the U.S of A. is entitled to under law.

This is simply not true.

Now before you guys go whining that I have no source to show that the ACLU believes those things about illegals being protected under the Law and Entitled to Services I must remind you that our Staunch Allies and Defenders that float at the edges of our comments section will gladly show you that I am, indeed correct, so complain at your own risk.

One more thing.

Just a quick thought here, if this is the reason they are against it then why aren't they against online banking, such as the transferring of money out of the country by illegals......like I said, just a thought.

Cross Posted at Kenders

Wednesday, May 11, 2005
 

ACLU Wants To Extend Voting Rights To Felons

"The ACLU, along with seven national organizations, participates in Right to Vote, a national coalition to end felony disfranchisement policies.

The ACLU is also conducting an ex-felon public education and mobilization campaign with affiliates in Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina and Southern California, to educate ex-felons about their voting rights and to encourage them to vote".Per ACLU

First, let me ask you a question. Is voting a right or a privilege? If you look at the numerous rights listed in the Declaration of Independence, and the constitution itself, there is no mention of voting rights. For those who believe they have a "right to vote," here's a little history lesson.

"The American founders were well versed in the miseries of majority rule and of the historical failures of democracies.

So, they went about forming a government which would protect the rights of everyone, especially the minority, from the tyranny of mob rule (democracy).
We often forget in our time that those who created the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government itself had been a distinct political minority for many years. They knew first hand how dangerous majority rule and democracies can be. They knew instinctively that when the mob gets rolling, the rights of individuals are of no consequence.

"Trial, we don't need no stinkin' trial! He's guilty, string him up!" They knew that in a democracy, no one's rights are secure and that sooner or later the majority would find a way to sack the treasury and bleed it dry. That's why they formed a representative republic. In a republic form of government, which we are guaranteed by the national and state constitutions, there must be a limited franchise to vote.

Voting in a republic is not a right, it is a privilege. The American founders then went one step further, and insisted that voting privileges be determined by each state legislature, not the national or federal government. It worked quite well for more than 100 years ... then came "reconstruction" after the U.S. vs. CSA conflict in the 1860s. That's when the socialist move for a "full democracy" began. It has flourished ever since, slowly but surely eroding the original guarantees of a republic form of government by planting ideas that every person has a "right to vote," simply ignoring constitutional restraints against such a notion."
excerpt

The 14th Amendment permits states to deny the vote "for participation in rebellion, or other crime." In 32 states convicted felons have the "privilege" to vote. Only 13 states now forbid convicted felons from voting, with just nine of these imposing lifetime bans. Two states, Vermont and Maine, even allow felons currently doing time to vote like any other citizen. The fact is that it isn't about the felon's "rights". What it comes down to is states rights.

Ignoring the fact that the ACLU is trampling on states rights for the moment, I will defend the decision of these states as deserving applause. Felons include murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Why should those who break the law have any right to vote for those who make and enforce the law? Why should convicted criminal have any say in who becomes sheriff or judge? And why stop at the "right" to vote? Why not restore a convicted murderer the right to own a gun? Oh yeah...the ACLU doesn't belive that is a right.

Now, the subject of criminals serving time having some "right" to vote is just ludicrous to me. But when it comes to the subject of ex-prisoner felons being able to vote, it has to be approached with much more care.

Many believe that once a felon has served their time they have paid their price to society, and with their reinstated citizenship they should be given back it's full privileges including that of voting. In many cases the person has learned their lesson, and goes back into society to contribute positively, a truly changed individual for the better. And personally, I think people like this should regain their citizenship in full with all of it's benefits, including voting. But on the other hand, many come out of prison conditioned, and hardened, only to return to a life of crime...in many cases worse than before. In my opinion every citizen has a social contract with society, that once broken has also broken the trust of society. It really comes down to rehabilitation, and being given parole is not a true gauge to measure this by. I would have no problem giving ex-prisoner felons back their full citizen privileges after a specified period of time in which they commit no other felonies, and prove their good citizenship.

I know another argument from the left which states that laws denying formerly incarcerated criminals their "right" to vote is a remnant of the "old Jim Crow laws". These people believe the laws are racially motivated. They base their argument off of the statistics showing that almost one third of convicted felons are black.

Instead of confronting the fact that a grossly disproportionate percentage of crime is committed by black men, however, they twist it around and claim it is another example of institutionalized white racism. Of course, they conveniently leave out the fact that any convicted felon, despite their race, loses the right to vote in the states that forbid it.

If you think the disproportionate amount of blacks convicted of felonies is due to a flawed judicial system, I want argue with you. I also have qualms with our judicial system.

Despite all of the arguments, it all comes down to states' rights. If a state has decides to make part of the punishment of a felony the loss of their voting privileges permanently, or bear arms, this can not be infringed upon by the federal government, or the ACLU. Those who violate the rights of others have proven that they want the benefits of society without the burden of obeying its laws. They can hardly complain when a majority of their fellow citizens deny them the right to choose who make the laws. When one is convicted of a felony, they lose many rights and privileges. I definitely don't think incarcerated felons should be able to vote, as the ACLU does. And as far as them regaining those privileges once they finish their prison term....it shouldn't be unconditional or automatic the way the ACLU thinks.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.
Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additonal advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
Mad Tech
Respublica
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
Kender's Musings
American Patriots
What Attitude Problem?
Life Trek
Gribbit's Word
Def Conservative
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Cao's Blog
Regular Ron
Freedom Of
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
NIF
Obiter Dictum
PBS Watch
Xtreme Right Wing
Daily Inklings
Miss Patriot
Jack Lewis.net
Conservative Dialysis
Conservative Angst
Kill Righty
American Warmonger
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
The View From Firehouse
Ogre's View
Fundamentally right
Conservative Rant
My Political Soap Box
Common Sense Runs Wild
Redstate Rant
Time Hath Found Us
American Dinosaur
Merri Musings
And Rightly So
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
Smithereen's Files
Pulpit Pounder
Ravings of J.C.B.
Is It Just Me?
Blogtalker
Parrot Check
Stuff You Should Know

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!




BULLDOZE THE ACLU Site Ring
Ring Owner: ACLUBULLDOZER Site: BULLDOZE THE ACLU
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
Site
Ring from Bravenet