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.

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!

Wounded Warrior Project

Books For Soldiers

Operation Soldier

Operation Dear Abby

4 The Troops(Care packages)

Yellow Ribbon Campaign

Operation Hero Miles

Airforce Aid Society

Adopt A Soldier

Show Thanks

Support U.S. Troops(Care
Packages)

Military Child Scholarship

Operation Mom

Say Thanks

Operation Uplink

Armed Forces Relief Trust

USO

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

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

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

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.

"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.

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!

"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!

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

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!

"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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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?

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!

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!

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.

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

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!

A special thank you to John for helping me out with everything! Still a lot of work to do, but we are making progress!

Interesting Facts

Extension of Remarks of Hon. John H. Rousselot of California In The House Of Representatives Wednesday, September 20, 1961

1. The ACLU, long an advocate of unlimited freedom of the press and freedom of speech, asked Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson to withdraw a pamphlet entitled "How to Spot a Communist," prepared by the 1st Army and used by the Watertown, Mass., arsenal (New York Times, June 12, 1955).

2. The ACLU protested the publishing by the League of Decency of a list of movies and books that the league considered immoral. (Reference: Daily Worker, Mar. 22, 1957). (It has long been known that one of the primary aims of the Communist Party is to subvert the morals of the American public.)

3. The ACLU, when queried by Columnist Lawrence Fertig as to why "They did not defend the most basic of all civil liberties--the right of a man to earn his living without paying tribute to any other individual or private organization" (right to work laws in various States), replied, "there are no civil liberties grounds on which such statutes should be supported," (reference: Fortnights magazine, July 1955).

4. The ACLU has voiced the opinion many times that "they welcome investigation," but they unleash their vitriolic abuse upon the American Legion and brand the American Legion as a fascist group because they not only investigated the ACLU, but have requested the HCUA every year since 1953 to investigate the ACLU.

5. The ACLU has been the recipient of numerous grants from the Garland Foundation (American Fund for Public Service) which is the notorious bankroll for Communist front organizations. The Garland Fund is characterized by the California Senate Fact Finding Commission, 1948 report, page 247, as "the source of revenue for Communist causes is generally referred to as the Garland Fund."

The Garland Fund has also been cited by the United States House Special Committee on Un-American Activities as follows: "The Garland Fund was a major source for the financing of Communist Party enterprises," (reference: H. Rept. 1311, Mar 9, 1944).

Among those who have served as directors of the Garland Fund and who were directly responsible for the disbursement of funds to the different Communist Front organizations and who were or are now prominent members of the governing body of the ACLU are: Roger Baldwin, Harry F. Ward, William Z. Foster, Robert Morss Lovett, Morris L. Ernst, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Oswald Garrison Villard, and E. M. Borchard.

6. Frank Wilkinson, an identified Communist and chief hatchetman for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee and the Citizens Committee to Preserve American Freedoms in the "Operation Abolition" program, who, so far as we know, is not even a member of the ACLU, seems to be so prominent in the affairs of the ACLU. Also, an odd coincidence that a new organization that has been formed and which calls itself the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee (NCAHUAC) and has eight key members in the organization that have been identified as members of the Communist Party gives its mailing address at 617 North Larchmont Boulevard, Los Angeles 4, Calif., which is also the mailing address of the Citizens Committee to Preserve American Freedoms (CCPAF) and that of the 12 national committee members of the NCAHUAC, eight are currently officers or executive committee members of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee (interlocking directorates?).

If any ACLU spokesman charges that this report is biased, our answer is that it is biased only on the side of Americanism--that its only fault for those who don't like it is its bias in favor of truth and fact. In our months of investigation we were unable to find one occasion where the ACLU has something good to say about America. We were able, however, to find many occasions where the ACLU and its leaders had something good to say about Soviet Russia or did something that would benefit Soviet Russia.

In our opinion, the ACLU and its brother organizations have mastered the technique of Josef Goebbels and practiced by the Moscow Communists to the 9th degree. "Tell a lie, make it big, and tell it often enough so that soon everyone will believe it." They have been spouting forth the statement that "the rights of all Americans are being threatened" so long and so hard that already everyone is looking for the Gestapo FBI, the Fascist police, the minions of that inquisition, the HCUA, behind every bush and every telephone.

Deep down in the hearts of all good Americans we know that this is a lie and if we stop and think of its source, then we can look at it in its true light.

Nicolai Lenin said, "We must build communism with non-Communist hands," Please don't let it be your hands.

For those of you whom I haven't met (that would be about 99.99% of anyone reading this), I am the newest contributor to Stop the ACLU, Makrothumeo. You can find my blog at The Pulpit Pounder--so named because I am a fundamental* (gasp! from many readers) Christian pastor who, on occasion, pounds the pulpit for effect--and I also called my fantasy football team The Pulpit Pounders last season and like the name. "Makrothumeo" is Greek for "long-suffering" or "extremely patient"--something conservatives have to be in this country today. It is the fourth "Fruit of the Spirit" listed in Galatians 5:22, and I work daily on cultivating it in myself.

Which brings me to my point--what can conservatives do to Stop the ACLU, and how can we beat them at their own game? Friday night we had a very interesting chat session, and I realized that many folks would like to adopt some kind of "nuclear strategy"...let's find a magic law or a really sympathetic judge, swoop down and wipe out the ACLU with one blow, causing their disorganized retreat, in the hopes that they will never be heard from again. Let me just say that, if such a thing were possible, I would be at the very forefront of the effort--I find the ACLU to be a running sore on the body of America. Unfortunately, this is not a novel by JRR Tolkien, this is real life, and there are no magic laws, and sympathetic judges are few and far between. Not only that, but the sympathetic judges are also men and women of conscience, which is actually bad for us, since they feel honor-bound to apply the law as it stands, while liberal judges feel they are empowered to do whatever they think is right, and that our elected lawmakers don't know what they're doing, so they have to "fix" the laws. Thus, even if you find a sympathetic judge, his hands are mostly tied by "precedent" set by liberal judges making bad law.

This creates a one-way "ratchet" effect in the system of jurisprudence...and it is a liberal ratchet. Liberal judges gleefully declare the will of the people "unconstitutional" with every ACLU suit, while conservative judges are unwilling to stoop to the levels of intellectual dishonesty necessary to become "activist" judges. With this "ratchet" in place, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the solicitation of prostitution will at some point become a protected First Amendment "right" while the use of illegal drugs could fall into the "right of privacy net," which, although it doesn't exist in the Constitution, seems to "catch" everything the liberals can't justify otherwise.

So--what to do? I believe that the most effective (if not the only) route for those who are serious about stopping the ACLU is to patiently warn the public about what the ACLU is really doing. There are many well-meaning people who think of the ACLU as "our nation's guardian of liberty." I guess that would be true if protecting liberty meant attacking the Boy Scouts and defending groups of self-proclaimed pedophiles like NAMBLA. I truly believe that these people are unaware of the depths of depravity to which the ACLU will stoop in furtherance of what they characterize as "civil liberties."

I realize that patiently warning the public about the ACLU isn't exciting and dramatic...But there simply isn't any quick and easy fix...I know this, because if there were, somebody waaay smarter than me would have used it already. But think about this--although the politicians would have you believe that they should be credited with great changes in our society, the changes come about not because politicians decree them, but because the politicians bow to the will of the people. Women's suffrage, child labor laws, the civil rights act--these didn't come about because politicians suddenly decided to "make things right"--they came about because it was time and the people demanded it. We on the right have to wake people up and get the sleeping giant of public opinion on our side.

A few months ago, this group of bloggers (blogburst participants) didn't exist...today, we number over 50...and growing every day, several new members a week. I would encourage all of our readers to get on board and make a difference for America. To quote a former president who wouldn't recognize his own party today..."If not us, who? If not now, when?"


*Fundamental--A lot of people wonder what a "fundamentalist" actually is...just FYI, The Fundamentals were a series of articles (now a 4-volume hardcover set)written in the early 20th century by conservative theologians in response to liberal theology...to be a "fundamentalist" pastor does not equate to being some wild-eyed nutjob bumping off parishoners on CSI: Punxatawney. It just means you have read and at least mostly agree with the theology presented in The Fundamentals.

"An Indiana congressman plans to curb the ACLU's appetite for filing suits targeting religion in the public square by introducing a bill that denies plaintiff attorneys the right to collect attorneys fees in such cases.

Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., is expected to file his measure next week to amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorneys fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings."WND

I personally have discussed the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act with a friend of my father, Rep. Robert Aderholdt, R-AL. The orginal intent of the Act was to help individual's that couldn't afford to protect their civil rights. The ACLU has turned it on its head, using its leverage often to threaten small schools and others that can't afford to fight them.

I applaud this Congressman for stepping up to the plate on this one.

"Every other civil right case, there is some injury to somebody," American Legion attorney Rees Lloyd of Banning, California, told a Thursday rally in front of ACLU's Los Angeles offices. "Somebody lost their job ... somebody got beat up by authorities – they have some physical, mental, economic injury. But in an Establishment Clause case, it is someone who says, 'I take offense,' and the offense is based on religions, politics, philosophy, but there is no injury."WND

This is so true... Offense does not equate to injury. I hear so many on the left complain, and some go as far to say that Christians are forcing our religion on them. The only forcing that goes on is when groups like the ACLU use Court orders to force Christians not to express our religion...a blatant attack on the First Amendment itself. And many times, as I've shown in earlier articles here, they attack Christianity while they defend Islam, Wiccans, and others.

I'm glad to see that someone has stepped up on this. Perhaps with the current conservative makeup in the Congress, this bill will pass! But don't just hope!

Let your voice be heard!! Write Your Representative about this! Contact your Senators! And....

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


Crossposted at:

BNN

The Wide Awakes

Conservative Angst

Welcome Ace of Spades HQ Readers!

This is being reported at Pro Life Blogs, and also, here.

CBN.com – (CBN News) – A Florida judge overruled the state, and allowed a young girl to have an abortion. The girl, 13 years old, got pregnant while she was in the state's foster care system.

The judge ordered a psychological exam to see if she was mentally fit to undergo the procedure. Then he ruled that the girl would not be harmed physically or emotionally by the abortion.

The Florida Department of Children and Families did not want the girl to have the abortion, but the American Civil Liberties Union intervened and sued the state. The ACLU says the girl has a fundamental right to have an abortion.

Florida governor Jeb Bush was not pleased with the judge's decision. Bush said that “It's a tragedy that a 13-year-old child would be in a vulnerable position where she could be made pregnant. And it's a tragedy that her baby will be lost. There's no good news in this at all."

It's weird.. but in my mind, this is actually making some sense to me. In the case of Terri Schiavo, the ACLU was nowhere to be seen.

Annie at AfterAbortion comments on the ACLU's involvement, "Gee, when there is a life (or two) to protect, the ACLU is nowhere to be found. When there's a life to end though, boy-oh-boy, count them in."

More of what Jay terms the ACLU's hypocrisy!

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.

Double Dose Saturday! I had two contributors have a take on this issue...so once you read this one...scroll down and read Cao's take!

High School cheerleaders are children. And they should act like children. In the quest to grow up faster than nature has intended, High School cheerleaders have gotten more and more suggestive in their routines. In an age of increased cases of pedophilia in the forefront of the MSM, a young lady who acts in such a manner can be seen as suggesting that she would be a willing participant for a sociopath who has a fetish for young girls. Texas law makers are being pro-active for reasons more for an argument of taste, and age appropriate material rather than protecting the young from monsters who prey upon children. But never-the-less, with crimes against children on a perceived increase, curtailing these routines is not only appropriate but responsible.

How would the ACLU feel if one of these girls were the victim of someone like John Evander Couey? Asking that question is bordering on foolish because the ACLU is already fighting to protect the rights of a group called the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). No wonder they are so fiercely against this bill. Not to protect freedom of expression, but rather to pander to their ultra liberal, sociopathic clients. And to further degrade the family unit in hopes of gaining a foothold to put forward their Socialist agenda.

The following is an article which appeared on MTV.com.

Lone Star State lawmakers seem to believe grinding on the gridiron is becoming a Texas-size problem. The state House of Representatives approved a bill on Tuesday that would ban sexually suggestive cheerleading at middle and high school athletic games and events. Edwards said he's gotten calls from parents who are embarrassed to bring their young children to sporting events where cheerleaders will be present out of concern for what they'll be exposed to. "This has gone on so long that it seems like something we should just accept, but we don't have to accept it," he said.

If the bill is made law, school dance, drill and cheerleading teams, in addition to other performance groups, will be prohibited from performing in a manner that is "overtly sexually suggestive" at a school-sponsored athletic or extracurricular event. Performances deemed questionable can be subject to review by the state education commissioner, and if judged inappropriate, the district can take action against the group and its sponsor.

Civil-rights advocates say the measure is unnecessary since Texas law already prohibits public lewdness on or near a school campus. Will Harrell, director of the ACLU of Texas, told the AFP, "This broad, morally restrictive legislation reminds me of the Taliban. Why not go all the way [then and] require them all to wear a burka?" Karen Halterman, vice president of the National Cheerleaders Association, believes coaches and administrators already mandate what is appropriate. "Honestly, I think 98 percent of our schools represent their communities in a very appropriate manner," she said. "The focus of the NCA has been on development of the whole student athlete, and we believe the vast majority of teams represent their schools and communities with pride and decorum."

Teams competing at NCA can face penalties if they don't follow strict safety guidelines that include directives on "age-appropriate" choreography. Halterman says one of her organization's main concerns is that cheerleading performances be family-focused, since their contests are televised to a national audience.

"Cheerleading is a healthy, amazing, athletic activity, and that's what we want people to focus on and be proud of," Halterman said. The bill is expected to pass the Senate early next week and be handed to Republican Governor Rick Perry. —

Brandee J. Tecson


Children often need protection from even themselves. In today's world, children are in such a rush to grow up, that they make rash decisions which are ultimately harmful to themselves. The recent legal manuvering in Florida surrounding a 13 year old girl who has gotten herself pregnant comes to mind. Now the state is going to allow her to get an abortion. I still feel that this is a mistake. She will learn that if it were to happen again, there is a quick fix available to her. Just make a simply make a trip to the Doctor and it's done. What are we allowing our children to turn into?

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.

Being that one of the communist goals is to

26. Present Homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy”.

It's no surprise to me that the ACLU would be advocating this; even when people have gone so far as to say it offends them. Only CERTAIN peoples' sensibilities are considered worthy of protection, and it isn't those who hold to old-fashioned moral values.

Lone Star State lawmakers seem to believe grinding on the gridiron is becoming a Texas-size problem. The state House of Representatives approved a bill on Tuesday that would ban sexually suggestive cheerleading at middle and high school athletic games and events.

"I feel very strongly that the inappropriate, sexy dance routines I've been seeing for a few years now are unacceptable," Representative Al Edwards (D-Houston), who drafted House Bill 1476, said Wednesday (May 4). "It's not conducive to good, healthy, moral cultural development."

Edwards said he's gotten calls from parents who are embarrassed to bring their young children to sporting events where cheerleaders will be present out of concern for what they'll be exposed to. "This has gone on so long that it seems like something we should just accept, but we don't have to accept it," he said.

If the bill is made law, school dance, drill and cheerleading teams, in addition to other performance groups, will be prohibited from performing in a manner that is "overtly sexually suggestive" at a school-sponsored athletic or extracurricular event. Performances deemed questionable can be subject to review by the state education commissioner, and if judged inappropriate, the district can take action against the group and its sponsor.

Civil-rights advocates say the measure is unnecessary since Texas law already prohibits public lewdness on or near a school campus. Will Harrell, director of the ACLU of Texas, told the AFP, "This broad, morally restrictive legislation reminds me of the Taliban. Why not go all the way [then and] require them all to wear a burka?"

Considering the ACLU's support of terrorists, I'm sure they'd be right there to support that, being that they've been on the side of Islamist Terrorists who want to teach Islam in schools.

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.”

hehehe that ACLU is just priceless. I guess they forgot to mention in that statement about wearing burkas that they've already been in court supporting the spreading of Islam in the United States. As Nate Hentoff said, it's all about "Free speech for me, and not for thee"...

Read this little blurb and the fantastic comments that have been left on the thread about the sexy cheerleader issue. It is SOOO interesting.

(Drumroll) A Tic In The Mind's Eye has announced the winner of last week's free Stop The ACLU Tee Shirt!


****Arguably, Criminally Liable Utopians-by John****

of Xtremerightwing.net

To claim your prize please see Joe at A Tic In The Mind's Eye

Just reading the two statements above should wake up the Christians on both the left and right! And after learning this myself, the question came to me....how could anyone say this organization is not anti-Christian? I know all of you are wanting to see the evidence yourself, and while I don't have the official policy to refer you to, I have learned this information from a very well respected author, William A. Donahue, in his book Twilight of Libery/The Legacy of The ACLU. Donahue has attained their policy guide and is one of the most trusted experts on the ACLU.

So let the story telling begin....

We will start out with the ACLU's official policy on the tax exemption of Churches. Policy #92, "Religious Bodies' Tax Exemption"...it states, "The ACLU opposes the tax-exemption of all churches..."Source

During the 1988 presidential campaign the ACLU was brought under the spotlight. Michael Dukakis, the democrat nominee, proudly stated, "I'm a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union." These words would soon come back to haunt him. I will not focus too much on this campaign other than using it as evidence of the ACLU's position on the tax exemption of churches. However, Dukakis's association with this group proved to be a major factor in his defeat.

During the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC asked George Bush why he continued to make an issue out of Dukakis's membership in the ACLU. Bush replied that he didn't like most of the ACLU's positions and offered four of them. We will just focus on the one we are talking about right now. Bush said, "I don't think they're right to try to take away the tax exemption of the Catholic Church."

The ACLU don't deny their position! Norman Dorsen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1976 to 1991, refuted Bush's statements, and said that the ACLU opposes tax exemption for all churches, not just the Catholic Church.Source

Here is a little more history on the issue from Twilight of Liberty.

"ACLU founder Roger Baldwin once told me that the ACLU's desire to strip the churches of their tax exempt status was "very foolish." But in 1969, some nineteen years after Baldwin stepped down as executive director, the Union adopted its first policy opposing "tax exemption for church property which is used exclusively for religious purposes.' In the latest policy on this subject, it makes no difference to the Union whether church property is not used exclusively for religious purposes, all are denied: "The ACLU opposes tax benefits for religious bodies", seven examples are listed for clarification, including the benefit of tax exemption."Source

"In 1970, the year after the ACLU issued its first policy opposing the tax exempt status for churches, it accepted the advice of church and state extremist Leo Pfeffer and drafted a brief opposing tax exemptions in Waltz v. Tax Commission. In 1987, the ACLU Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in support of Abortion Rights Mobilization to secure standing in a suit challenging the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was charged with violating its tax-exempt status by taking a stand against abortion."Source

Meanwhile with the Witches

"While the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church's tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Satanists."Source They went and got a tax administator to rule that a coven of witches were entitled the same tax-exemption as churches had. This is pure hypocrisy. The ACLU's involvement in this case clearly shows that they will defend the rights of the occult. Many Christians wonder why they are not as acommodating to our interests.

Now if we were to follow some misguided philosphy of the seperation of church and state, one might could rationalize their policy on a church's tax exempt status. One could also rationalize a posistion of tax exemption to all religions. But their is no logical reasoning that one could take to defend both of these positions. It is pure hypocrisy, and proof that the ACLU is an enemy of Christianity.

I question their tax exempt-status! I think it's time for Christians on the left and right to wake up to the ACLU's agenda!

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
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

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

Crossposted with permission from Bear To The Right! We appreciate it!

In 1957 Los Angeles County redesigned its County Seal. The Seal was designed to reflect a broad spectrum of icons of significance in Los Angeles. Among the items included on the County Seal were the Hollywood Bowl and a very small cross to signify an old Los Angeles landmark - a cross atop a hill near the Hollywood Bowl. The cross was also an homage to the missionary origins of Los Angeles, whose original name was "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciúncula."

For decades the seal stood as the official seal of the County of Los Angeles - used on countless pieces of stationery, business cards and buildings. That is until the ACLU, in its untiring efforts to remove any references to Christianity from the view of the public, decided to wage a battle to remove the cross from the County Seal, notwithstanding the fact that one needed a magnifying glass to see the cross on a business card.

Last year the ACLU fired off a letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors saying that the tiny cross on the County Seal violated the separation of church and state and threatened a lawsuit if it wasn't removed. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is made up of five supervisors, three happen to be Democrats and two are Republicans. The Board of Supervisors, despite a huge turnout by the public protesting any change in the County Seal, caved in to the outrageous demands of the ACLU and decided to remove the cross from the seal. The vote was three to two.

One doesn't need a lot of imagination to know which members of the Board of Supervisors voted which way. The Republican members of the Board of Supervisors, Michael Antonovich and Don Knabe, voted to retain the County Seal as it was and to fight the ACLU in court. There were several public interest law groups and law firms that were willing to take the case on a pro bono basis so there would have been no cost to the County. The cost to the County for changing the seal amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The liberal members of the Board of Supervisors, Gloria Molina whose Hispanic constituents are one of the most religious groups in the county, Yvonne Braithwaite Burke, an African-American, and Zev Yaroslavsky, a Jew, all voted to remove the cross.

A compromise was proposed by a concerned group of citizens opposed to the removal of the cross, headed by David Hernandez. The proposal was to put the decision to a vote of the people. Not only would this be democracy in action, but it would give the very people who the ACLU is supposedly protecting from being confronted by the sight of the offensive cross to voice their opinion. Again, in a three to two vote, the County Board of Supervisors decided that the people could not be trusted to vote on such a weighty issue.

The ACLU and the pusillanimous liberal members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors have obviously not read the First Amendment recently. The language of the First Amendment is pretty clear, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof;..."
It is clear that the First Amendment is only a restraint on the Congress of the United States preventing it from passing any laws establishing a national religion. It also restrains Congress from prohibiting the free expression of religion by citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any other mention of religion - or "separation of church and state."

No reasonable person could possibly think that a small cross on a local county seal means that Congress has passed a law to establish a national religion. There is no legal justification, under the Constitution of the United States, or under any statute, ordinance or law for the removal of the cross. Nor could it possibly mean that the County of Los Angeles is establishing a 'County Religion'. To force the removal of the cross from the County Seal is the height of absurdity and the rewriting of the Constitution, as we have seen so often from liberal judges.

David Hernandez is now heading up a petition drive to put the removal of the cross before the voters of Los Angeles county on the June 6, 2006 ballot. To get a petition, or to sign a petition, or to volunteer your services, please go to Save The Seal.net

The ACLU may have served a useful purpose at one time, and I suppose there are instances even now where the ACLU acts to protect individuals whose civil rights may have been abused. Nonetheless, the ACLU is the proponent of its own religion - humanistic secularism. No less fanatical then Wahhabi Muslims or Afghan Talibanis who have to destroy the icons of religions other than their own (e.g. the destruction of ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan), the ACLU is determined to do the same. Notwithstanding the fact that most Americans consider themselves religious and live a life consistent with Judeo-Christian values, the ACLU cannot tolerate any public displays of Christianity anywhere.

In my view, the ACLU is an organization which today is one of the most subversive organizations in the United States. It poses a threat to our moral and spiritual well-being. It wants to strip our spiritual heritage from this nation.

On the one hand, it protects pedophiles such as the members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, and it opposes the Boy Scouts of America because it claims the Boy Scouts are a religious organization. In other words, it is an organization that stands as cheerleaders for pederasty while opposing those who mentor rather than rape young boys.

The ACLU was formed in 1920 by Roger Baldwin, who stated, "I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

We must oppose the efforts of the ACLU to remove spirituality from America. We must oppose their efforts to remove the cross from the Los Angeles County Seal, and we must oppose their efforts to remove other symbols of our spiritual heritage throughout the land.

Edmund Burke once wrote, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Let us not let evil triumph. Help David Hernandez and his volunteers to succeed in their efforts to prevent the removal of the cross from the seal. If we don't take a stand here and now, it will become more difficult to do so later.

"Public prayer at school-related functions is "un-American and immoral," contends ACLU of Louisiana's executive director, Joe Cook".World Net Daily

It is almost laughable that the ACLU thinks it has any ground to walk on, much less any authority, to have any say on what is moral or immoral. The ACLU's ideas of morals are quite the opposite of most Americans. Here are just a few examples of the ACLU's morals. Defending America's enemies, helping illegals cross the border, defending the "rights" of child molesters, advocating the legalization of ALL drugs, and advocating the legalization of the distribution and possession of child porn. ......just to name a few.

And then they have the gall to call prayer immoral! And the hypocrisy has many levels. Sher Zieve points out much of the hypocrisy well....

"The ACLU is still hot on the trail of those who would dare offer any prayer, whatsoever, in public schools. But, as has become its norm, the ACLU’s campaign against God is relegated only to ‘Christian prayer’ and Christianity. This “great protector of our civil rights” (all sarcasm intended) has yet to challenge any Muslim prayers that have now been mandated by many California public schools. For the ACLU, Islam is allowed but, Christianity is forbidden.

In its recent lawsuit against Louisiana’s Tangipahoa Parish School, the ACLU is calling for the fining and imprisonment of the school’s Board “for their calculated un-American and immoral conduct to embarrass, hinder or obstruct the court in the administration of justice." To the ACLU, God is now “un-American” and “immoral”. The first reason for this latest ACLU contempt charge is due to Shane Tycer (not a school employee) broadcasting a prayer (Christian of course…not Muslim) over the school’s public address system, before a basketball game. This flew in the face of a prior ACLU obtained court order (it’s easy for the ACLU to get these ‘court orders’ when judges are in its pockets), which disallows Christian prayer anywhere and anytime at the schools."Source

It is a good point to notice their inactive stance here, but the ACLU's absense in this case is only part of it. The hypocrisy continues. Apparently the sacred American Civil Liberties Union doctrines of the separation of church and state only apply to Christians and Jews. While the ACLU have actively fought to ban the Bible from any public classroom, they have fought for Islamic religious texts to be allowed.

"How else can you explain why the North Carolina ACLU went to court to support the University of North Carolina's mandatory reading assignment of the pro-Islam book for incoming freshmen?
UNC was challenged by concerned groups in the state, but the ACLU rode to the rescue and a federal appeals court sided with the university."Source

"Melanie Morgan (a California talk-show host) advises that when her son was in 7th grade he was not allowed to graduate to the 8th grade until he could recite and explain the Seven Pillars of Islam. If that is not a mandated public school requirement, nothing is. Although the command is that the Islamic religion must be studied, references to the Christian religion are not allowed. The ACLU has not objected to this." Source

The ACLU's intolerance of Christianity has a long list of examples. It's non-partisan approach towards religious expression, and it's pure hypocrisy can clearly be seen for those who look. The statement, "The ACLU doesn't hate religion, just Christianity", is more than just a catchy phrase...its the TRUTH!

The ACLU has pulled the wool over many eyes, especially on the left. Their radical agenda and war against Christianity shouldn't be a partisan issue. The hypocrisy is clear for anyone who looks at the whole picture. The ACLU is a captive of it's own absolutist positions, and will manipulate the system at every turn to further its elitist, radical goals. Christianity stands as an obstacle for the ACLU's agenda to strip America of its moral foundation. Every Christian on the left and right should stand up against this agenda.

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

Crossposted at Cao's Blog

You can support us and help us raise money for projects by visiting our store. We plan on organizing a nationwide march on all the ACLU offices. One thing we are trying to raise money for is to advertise this. Just click on the banner below. Anti-ACLU bumper stickers, T-shirts, and more.

"The ACLU's support of a legal precedent used to gain recognition of a student homosexual group has reversed now that the ruling is being used to back the rights of a Christian club on campus, claims a public-interest law firm.

The Associated Student Body at Kentridge High School in Kent, Wash., has rejected the Truth Bible Club because it required all members to adhere to a code of Christian conduct and voting members to sign a statement of faith. Also, the name of the club was deemed "offensive" and "proselytizes.World Net Daily

So, let me get this straight. The ACLU wants to reverse a ruling they won for the homosexuals? Or do they just want to selectively apply things for their agenda?

"ADF points out that in 2003, shortly after Prince v. Jacoby was decided, the ACLU sent an information letter to school officials in Washington state explaining the case "makes it clear that student clubs promoting tolerance for gay students are entitled to the same resources as other clubs."

But now, the ACLU has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Truth case that takes the opposite position".World Net Daily

It looks to me like hypocrisy at it's best! I thought the ACLU was supposed to defend the First Amendment, not attack it! It looks to me like the ACLU is blantently manipulating the judicial system for it's own agenda!

"The ACLU is obviously engaged in religious bigotry – in cases concerning homosexual groups, they argue that Prince fully applies, but now, when it clearly applies, using the ACLU's own standard, to a religious club, they are seeking to overturn the Prince decision," he said.World Net Daily

I couldn't agree more! The ACLU definitely has shown it's true nature, and two faces! They can't have it both ways! This is a clear display of how the ACLU manipulates the system for it's own agenda and it's war on Christianity!

The ACLU champions itself as the defender of our Constitution and our rights. Last time I read the First Amendment it gave the right for free expression of Religion, and limited the government from interfering with it. The ACLU's manipulation of our judicial branch, and it's true nature can clearly be seen here. The ACLU is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Help us expose the ACLU's radical agenda!

SIGN THE PETITION TO EXPOSE THE ACLU'S RADICAL AGENDA