I just had to post this for all to see. I get frustrated in this fight against the ACLU. It feels like a David and Goliath thing sometimes, and too often it is so exhausting. I watch as the ACLU and judicial tyrants take away our liberties daily, and sometimes it feels hopeless. As much money as the ACLU has contributed to it, and even through our tax money....and then I look at my little grassroots effort....sometimes I get down in the dumps. I've got a Store set up, and a donation button in the sidebar, but so far the contributions are minimal. I'm not sure what to do to get this fight off the ground sometimes. I get frustrated that more people don't do something. I appreciate everyone who does our blogburst with us, and all the petitions I ask you all to sign. I want to be able to raise money to advertise and organize a nationwide march. I appreciate everything you all are doing to help. I want to take this fight to the next level, and any advice you all could provide would be awesome. Again, thank you to everyone who support us.

Now that I've said all that...after we reprinted Mr. Lee Ellis' work in today's blogburst.

Many thanks for your e-mail, Jay. Much appreciated.

You also help to restore faith to this old combat veteran who almost died in WWII during the invasions of the Japanese-conquered islands in the South Pacific. I will be able to move on to my new life knowing that we WWII vets had not done all this in vain. Now that I am 81 and halfway to 82, I think of these things.

May God bless you and your comrades, both male and female, who have taken up the cudgels against the far-left traitors who are putting their own power, ego and greed above the good of this country which has given all people so much freedom and so many opportunities!

You all are off to a good start. Your web site looks good. Since you liked my oped re the ACLU, you may also like my latest column on the Supreme Court, titled "America -- A nation under God --- or another France." it is on the Frontiers of Freedom web site at http://www.opinioneditorials.com/writer.php?id=lellis

Please put me on any e-mail list you start for those who are also on the same wavelength. If any of my opeds can help you, please feel free to use them on your site.

Keep up the good work. The barbarians are at our gates and the hinges are rusting. Your generation will be the new Minutemen at Concord firing another shot that WILL be heard around the world.

It is important, indeed imperative, that Americans create an oasis of freedom in the heart of the Middle East. This is the main reason we are in Iraq, despite what the Durbins, Reids and Pelosi's of the Democrat party (actually reregistered Socialists) are trying to promulgate! We have built the largest embassy in Iraq with about 2,000 employees. Believe me these people are not typing clerks. Their listening post will help save the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent civilians here in the USA.

Freedom is the most contagious element known to man. Once implanted, it spreads. It is this that will help change the Middle East and help stop terrorism. We are blessed in having a President who understands this nand had the foresight and vision to fearlessly launch the attack on one of the most brutal despots known to man in order to plant the seed of freedom in the heart of the Middle East. The Iraq war and 9/11 are tied together. Don't let any of the media convince you otherwise.Thanks again, Lee
-----"Evil can never be appeased, only challenged!" Lee Ellis 1999------------------------------------------------------------------------

During my scan of google alerts on the ACLU, I came across an article in the ChronWatch that dealt with the recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court. A thread titled "Freedom of Religion in America: Adieu!" I have decided to re-print the article today as my BlogBurst contribution to Stop The ACLU and Gribbit's Word.

Freedom of Religion in America: Adieu!

Written by Lee Ellis
Wednesday, June 29, 2005

A few days ago, the majority of the Supreme Court ruled as if it were using the Constitution of France instead of the Constitution of the USA. The French Constitution states that its nation is a secular one, while our Constitution states that we are a nation under God. One would not know this if the majority of the Supreme Court today is to be believed.

Mark Levin states in his book, Men in Black, “Chief Justice William Rehnquist has written that the Court ‘bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.’” Based on a misreading of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the Court has propounded and expanded the concept of a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state.

The framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that all Americans could worship freely, without religious persecution. So they prohibited the federal government from ‘establishing a religion’ and equally prohibiting it from ‘interfering with the people’s free expression of their religion.’

States, however, were permitted to have established churches (the Puritans were the officially established church in Massachusetts.). Even two of the most secular framers, Madison and Jefferson, appreciated the role of religion in the public life of the United States. Jefferson himself wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, that our liberty is not endowed by states or governments, but by God.

President George Washington established Thanksgiving Day as a day of prayer to God. And it was not until 1897 that the Congress decided to stop appropriating money for education at religious schools.

In that now-famous letter, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists that the U.S. legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise of, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” Interestingly, a mere two days after writing this letter, Jefferson participated in church services held in the House of Representatives.

Yet liberal judges have seized on this image of a wall of separation, and are waging a war on religious freedom in our country.

Now the Socialist movement, the ACLU, and other liberal organizations (some with “Mom and Apple Pie” names to fool its readers, its fiscal donators and the country) have been partly successful in its efforts to drive the Judeo-Christian religion out America. The secularists have not failed in making most of Europe and Canada almost wholly secular and they are working hard to do this to America.

How?

They have crammed our courts with liberal legislative judges as replacements for Constitutional judges, and now their representatives in Congress have filibustered to keep President Bush from appointing a majority of Constitutional federal judges. Finally, the ACLU has tried to eliminate any mention of “GOD” from all public places. I don’t think that the word, “God” is a symbol of any one particular denomination or denotes any one specific religion, do you? So why do they act as if it does?

Apparently, the ACLU has forgotten that the founders were only afraid of a federally-owned religion ruled by a King or a President, not by free religious bodies governed by themselves.

In addition, the secularists have convinced enough people that they cannot offend any minority; they must all be “politically correct.” They accuse the majority of “trampling” on minority rights. What about the rights of the religious majority? Is not the minority trampling on those? Do the atheists not offend those who believe in God when they try to eliminate Judeo-Christian religious symbols from all public arenas?

One of the most important causes for the Bush Administration and American voters is to get Congress to accept only Federal judges who believe in and will rule upon and in light of what is actually written in the Constitution of America, not that of France, nor any other document, nor of a personal letter written by an individual—whether he is Thomas Jefferson or not.

The ONLY way this will happen is if you elect a STRONG majority of conservatives to Congress in 2006 and 2008!

Fail this and bid welcome to a godless nation. Or prepare to bid Adieu (literally and ironically, “to God”) to any semblance of freedom of (not from) religion in America.

About the Writer: Lee Ellis is a retired journalist and a former vice president of both CBS and Gannet. He resides in Indio, California, where he writes op-eds that appear in several local newspapers. Lee receives e-mail at indiolee@dc.rr.com.

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

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

Some of The 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
Euphoric Reality
The Right Dominion
Undiscovered country
Steve's Blog
Right On!
It Is What It Is
Kiddsafe
My View
Third World Country
Crosses aCross America

Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Outside the Beltway

URGENT ACTION: Court Bans Commandments

Sign the Petition to Stop Judicial Tyranny

The Petition States: TO: PRESIDENT BUSH, LEADERS IN CONGRESS

As a concerned citizen, I am deeply disturbed by the latest Supreme Court rulings undermining our rights and the Constitution. I am calling on the President to nominate, and the Senate to confirm to the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal courts, only those nominees who:
--Uphold the original meaning of the Constitution.
--Defend the right of the people to publicly acknowledge God and affirm that children in the womb deserve the same legal protection the rest of us enjoy.

I am also urging the U.S. Senate to change the filibustering rules and end the ideological blockade against President Bush’s court nominees.

More than 40 million unborn children have died in America since the tragic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. In recent years, public opinion has shifted dramatically toward the side of life and pro-life citizens are joining together by the thousands to ensure protection of the unborn. Confirming only pro-life justices and judges not only protects the unborn, but our nation as well.

I'm back from vacation and ready to roll!

The same score card also stated the following:


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

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway

I have been guilty these past couple of days of reprinting the work of others. My reason, the idiot trolls out there that cannot believe that a Conservative can take information gathered from the personal experiences of many years and form an opinion based upon personal observation. My sources tend to be the MSM from the last 35 years of my life. Public information that has stuck in my gray matter that I have no way to source and credit.

But to satisfy those idiot trolls who come here, or to my sites, or to Cao's, or Kender's, or anyone else's in our circle of friends and drop their Moonbat Troll droppings in hit and run attacks, I am using the info at my disposal to back up my claims. Using the info directly in this way, no one can claim that I use spin to arrive at my observations.

Each word posted has been written and sourced by others. Where I have interjected my 2 cents, you are able to see.

Placing your trust in this organization which has such an unsavory past is irresponsible. Every time I read one of their press releases I have an overwhelming need to wash my hands. And every time I say the words American Civil Liberties Union, I feel the need to wash my mouth out with soap.

End of my 3 day (with an intermission) Rant

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway

Thursday the ACLU opened its new website, Take Issue, Take Charge, the purpose of which is "stopping government funding of ineffective and harmful abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and ... promoting responsible sexuality education." In other words, the ACLU has a brand-spankin'-new program and website designed solely for the purpose of insuring that the only sure way to stop the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is not taught to young people in favor of teaching them "responsible sex."

Why? In the name of "reproductive freedom." "Take Issue, Take Charge is for people who believe that the government should stop interfering with the decisions we all make about whether or when to have children, including to deny teens the information they need to prevent pregnancy," said Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, Louise Melling. Apparently abstinence will not stop pregnancy, but condoms will.

But let's get to the nitty-gritty, shall we? This isn't really about teens and reproductive freedom, this is about the deep-seated ACLU fear that "abstinence" is "too Christian." Look at the reasons they cite for opposing the teaching of abstinence--

"...[M]any of these programs promote gender stereotypes, discriminate against gay and lesbian youth and all too often proselytize on the public's dime."

How does teaching abstinence promote gender stereotypes and discriminate against homosexuals? What proselytizing? The unspoken assumption is that only Christians are interested in promoting chastity, and then only the "right-wingers," who will certainly promote gender stereotypes and discriminate against homosexuals. The writer doesn't even bother to explain these bald assertions--they are just made as though "everyone knows" they're true...the fallback position of the liberal zealot.

It should also be noted that, following its "initial focus on sexuality education," Take Issue, Take Charge "will target other pressing reproductive rights issues, including increasing access to emergency contraception and combating refusals by hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacies and others to provide basic reproductive health services." First let's get all the kiddies doing it, then we'll move on to making abortion more available and affordable. And we can sue everybody who tries to stop us and make a hefty buck in the process. What a scam.

Cross-posted at The Pulpit Pounder.
Thank you Mudville Gazette

At Jay's request, I am posting this piece that I had on my site, Sweet Spirits of Ammonia, yesterday.

Constitutional Amendment Banning Flag Desecration & the ACLU's Opposition to It

For a couple of decades now, Congress has repeatedly attempted to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning the burning of our national flag. Until now, the chances of its passing have been nil. Yesterday, the House passed a bill banning burning of the flag by 8 votes. Now it's on to the Senate.

The ACLU has released a statement, "the House’s approval of the "Flag Desecration Amendment" a loss for freedom and an unwarranted assault on the First Amendment." And are Claiming, "Nationwide, there is growing opposition to this proposal. The First Amendment Center issued a survey in which 63 percent of those polled said that the Constitution 'should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag.'" source

Well as a Cold War Veteran, I am appalled every time I see the flag that I was willing to die for, desecrated by these liberal wackjobs that have the French mentality of capitulation to our enemies.

First off the symbolism of flag burning is related to the desire of the person or persons doing the burning of a wish that the same happen to the country whose flag is being burned. Think of it, who on an international scale burns our flag? Extremists who want to destroy America. Who burns Israel's flag? Islamic extremists who wish to exterminate Israel from the Earth.

So when one of our own citizens, burns our flag on the streets of a city in the United States, they are publicly calling for our destruction. And that angers me.

Liberals would have you believe that it's protected under free speech. You see, they really don't think that it's free speech. They really want the USA as it is today destroyed. It has been their goal to turn this nation into a socialist state since its founding in 1920.

Critics of my position point out that Baldwin renounced Communism. That is true. It happened when Germany and Stalin signed the non-aggression treaty. The ACLU even adopted a policy to not allow members who are members of the Communist Party. Several high ranking individuals were removed from the membership roles only to be reinstated after the war when the policy was revoked. source

And to further their communist cause, they will resort to anything. As stated in the 45 goals of the Communist Party entered into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963:

• 19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. (To which they would include burning of the national flag.)
• 42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

Public discourse is a natural thing. Protesting unfavorable government policies is natural. And a Constitutional Right. But your exercising of your rights under the Constitution cannot interfere with my rights. And burning the flag offends me.

And if a visual offense can spark the ACLU to come to the aid of an atheist who is offended by a cross that is part of a memorial on top of a hill that's been there for decades, then why are they opposing my position. I'm offended. I want it stopped.

Ever since 1814, when Francis Scott Key wrote the Poem "The Star Spangled Banner," our symbol has been that flag. It is by nature a battle flag. Why? Because freedom comes at a cost. We are always at war. War against forces that are aimed at destroying us. And the ACLU is one of those forces.

Here is a list that I prepared for our members to draw source material from:

From aclu.org

For more than a decade, the Citizen's Flag Alliance and others have expended seemingly endless resources lobbying candidates and members of Congress to pass a constitutional amendment giving the government the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. Civil libertarians have fought back hard, organizing coalitions of veterans, religious leaders and other Americans who believe that such a constitutional amendment would undermine the very principles for which the American flag stands.

While our fight against the proposed amendment has made headway in recent years, the margins of our victories remain precariously thin. Recent calls for patriotic unity threaten to bolster the cause of those who wish to protect the symbol of our freedoms at the expense of the freedoms themselves.

We urge you to read about the history of the flag amendment and why Americans across the country oppose this amendment. Then make your voice heard! (source)

· ACLU talking points on why this amendment is unwarranted and unconstitutional

· ACLU letter to the Senate opposing the flag amendment

· ACLU letter to the House opposing the flag amendment

ACLU Calls Flag Desecration Amendment Assault on Free Speech; Says Measure Fails Very Principles Flag Embodies (05/25/2005)

WASHINGTON - Noting that free expression and the right to dissent are among the core principles for which the American flag stands, the American Civil Liberties Union today strongly urged Congress to reject the reintroduced Flag Desecration Amendment. The House Judiciary Committee is considering that measure today.

House Votes to Amend Constitution Once Again; But Margin of Support For Flag Amendment Drops Again (07/17/2001)

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives today voted by a slim 8-vote margin to once again approve a controversial proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban desecration of the American flag. This year's vote was particularly noteworthy, the American Civil Liberties Union said, because the number of votes for the amendment dropped under 300.

Flag Desecration Amendment Marked Up in House Judiciary; ACLU Urges Opposition, Says American Strength Based in Tolerance (06/20/2001)

WASHINGTON - With the perennial flag "desecration" amendment set for yet another floor vote as early as next week, the American Civil Liberties Union is again urging lawmakers to oppose the misguided and dangerous proposal.

House Subcommittee Approves Flag Amendment; ACLU Says Patriotism Can Not Be Forced (05/24/2001)

WASHINGTON -- A House subcommittee today approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit "desecration" of the American flag. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union joined with veterans and reiterated its strong disapproval of what it calls a misguided and counter-productive initiative.

Flag Desecration Amendment Reintroduced; ACLU Vows to Renew Grassroots Campaign Against Measure (03/13/2001)

WASHINGTON - As proponents once again reopened their drive to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban desecration of the American flag, the American Civil Liberties Union today joined with veterans and urged members of Congress to reject the proposed amendment once again

From The House & Senate

1 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.5.IH]
2 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.12.IS]
3 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.10.IH]
4 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Reported in House)[H.J.RES.10.RH]

Burning our flag isn't free speech. It is inciting violent destruction of our nation. And if the libs can't see that, they are mentally flawed.

Congressional Emergency

Urge passage of HR 2679, The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. What this bill does, is to remove the ability for the awarding of federal funds in order to recover legal fees in Constitutional challenges to the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. These suits are often taken pro bono. But once won, the attorneys are able to recover legal fees from the government.

We need to get groups like the ACLU off the Taxpayers' Dime. Call, write, or email your Congressman and Senators and urge passage of this bill.

Thank you Mudville Gazette

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

Some of The 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
Euphoric Reality
The Right Dominion
Undiscovered country
Steve's Blog
Right On!
It Is What It Is
Kiddsafe
My View
Third World Country
Crosses aCross America
This Space For Rent
The Conservative UAW Guy
Thoughts From The Right
White Lightning Axiom
Militant Pundit
Jo's Cafe

Help Us Raise Money To Advertise A Nationwide March On All The ACLU Offices In All 50 States SHOP THE BULLDOZE THE ACLU STORE

If I ever became a prisoner of war being held by an enemy country, and the guards came to me to announce that I was going to be put on trial, I would not view that as a positive development. Frankly, even if it were stated as benignly as “here is your, uh, lawyer, Captain McCarthy. He will be assisting as we….how to say…adjudicate your case” the words “justice at last” would be the farthest from my mind.

Trials of POWs tend to be followed shortly by whatever the local version is of a blindfold and firing squad (although shovels to the head or a bayonet or sword to the gut are time-tested, most recently giant dull knives are popular with the “adjudicators” of prisoners’ “cases”). This has generally been true whether the prisoner was held in Stalag 17, Cabanatuan, Pyoktong, the Hanoi Hilton, or in the beheading rooms/TV studios of Fallujah. To restate what used to be obvious, putting prisoners of war (or enemy combatants) on trial has not historically been a good thing, particularly from the point of view of the prisoner.

An understanding of the rules governing the treatment of prisoners held by the United States (Convention 3 of the Geneva Conventions, for instance, or Department of the Army pamphlet 27-9-1 entitled “Military Judges’ Benchbook for Trial of Enemy Prisoners of War”) make it crystal clear that the purpose of a trial of a prisoner is not to prove whether or not that prisoner is being properly held in the first place. That is, there is no historical precedent for having to prove, by means of a trial, that an enemy captured while in the service of forces fighting against American soldiers is guilty of being in the service of forces fighting against American soldiers, and that is the only fact that need be true in order for a combatant to be properly and legally held until cessation of hostilities.

Instead, trials under the rules of war are held in order to allow for a punishment above and beyond simple detainment. That is why the famous Nuremburg Trials were held. World War II was over, and those on trial at Nuremburg, if not for the trial, would have been released and at home. A trial was necessary because the captors sought to execute many of them for committing war crimes. Those enemy soldiers who did not commit war crimes, such as gassing civilians, (that is, those who simply killed a lot of Allied soldiers), were released at the end of the war. Their detainment before the end of the war was not about punishment; it was simply about keeping them out of the fight. The other legitimate purpose of putting POWs on trial, beside for punishing crimes against humanity (a phrase that is being continually watered-down these days) is to punish prisoners for crimes committed while in captivity, such as murder of a fellow prisoner, or theft and such. So what do people like Senator John McCain wish to accomplish by putting the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay on trial? I don’t mean in any way to make light of what American POWs have historically experienced, nor to make light of the responsibility of the US military to behave with honor in the way it holds prisoners, and of course I mean no disrespect to the honorable record of Senator McCain when he himself was held by an enemy in war. I cannot, however, figure out what Senator McCain is really asking for when he says, with reference to the combatants at Guantanamo, that “they deserve to have some adjudication of their cases.”

Let’s take a hypothetical case of an enemy combatant. Let’s call him Omar. Let’s say that Omar was captured in November of 2001 at Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan. Omar, a skilled marksman, was responsible for firing a large crew-served machine gun and killed several Americans and many more Afghan Northern Alliance fighters during the allied assault on the city’s fortress-like military base. When Omar ran out of ammunition he withdrew from the wall and assisted a nearby group of men who were firing mortars. Shouting commands to adjust fire and helping to carry mortar rounds from the ammo boxes, Omar contributed greatly to the number of Americans and Alliance soldiers killed and wounded by the mortars. When American Special Forces and their Northern Alliance allies defeated the Taliban stronghold at Mazar-i-Sharif, they eventually came upon Omar. He had thrown down his weapons, run away from the mortar battery, and surrendered. In exchange for not taking his life on the battlefield, the allies agreed to house him where he could no longer pose a threat, until the jihad that his forces had declared is over.

If Omar gets his trial as Senator McCain and most of the political left demands, with what will he be charged? The fact that he was engaged in combat is obvious, but not necessarily provable beyond a reasonable doubt at this point. Think what a high-priced lawyer paid for by Amnesty International could do with the facts: he was in the vicinity of some weapons that may or may not have been used by him or others, and he was standing there with his hands up. Even convicting Omar of conspiracy to engage in combat would be difficult unless you could find the exact soldier to whom he surrendered to I.D. him with certainty. But there is no point in convicting him of engaging in combat, since it is not a crime in the normal way we think of what crime is. The penalty is not a criminal one, per se; rather, the penalty for fighting one’s enemy and then surrendering is to be held until the war/jihad is over, no more and no less. This is where it gets baffling. If there is no point in convicting an enemy fighter of being an enemy fighter, just what does the left expect us to convict them of? Assault and battery? Murder? Conspiracy to commit murder? Beside the fact that such a charge is nonsensical – the criminal justice system simply is not constructed to deal with what happens in war – it is problematic in other ways.

In Omar’s case, he could, if there is good evidence, be convicted of maybe twenty counts of causing the deaths of other humans and for wounding many more. By criminal law standards, that would mean a sentence of life without possibility of parole, or the death penalty. At the very least, as the triggerman on the machine gun and a co-conspirator on the mortar crew, Omar would be facing decades of imprisonment. That way, when an end is declared to the War on Terror (or rather, when the jihadists call it quits), all those who did not get a trial would go home, but Omar, who got his lawyer and his trial, would still have many decades to serve on his sentence. One suspects that is not what the left intends when it demands trials; which begs the question, exactly what is it that they do intend?
Thank you to Mudville Gazette

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 87TH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

The Truth About The American Civil Liberties Union

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

Mr ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, many people have becomed very concerned about the connections of certain persons involved in the affairs of the American Civil Liberties Union with Communist front groups. They are asking the question: Does the ACLU really promote adherence to rights guaranteed the individual by the Constitution?

Organizational Research Associates, the address of which is Post Office Box 51, Garden Grove, Calif., has prepared a pamphlet entitled, "The Truth About the American Civil Liberties Union," which I believe should be brought to the attention of every member of Congress and to the American public. Under unanimous consent, I include the pamphlet in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

"Masters of Deceit," J. Edgar Hoover, page 228: "Fronts probably represent the party's most successful tactic in capturing non-Communist support. Like mass agitation and infiltration, fronts espouse the deceptive party line (hence the term "front"), while actually advancing the real party line. In this way the party is able to influence thousands of non-Communists, collect large sums of money, and reach the minds, pens, and tongues of many high-ranking and distinguished individuals. Moreover fronts are excellent fields for party recruitment."

Dr. Fred Schwarz, executive director of the International Christian Anticommunism Crusade, "Communist Legal Subversion," page 75, HCUA: "Any attempt to judge the influence of Communists by their numbers is like trying to determine the validity of the hull of a boat by relating the area of the holes to the area which is sound. One hole can sink the ship. Communism is the theory of the disciplined few controlling and directing the rest. One person in a sensitive position can control and manipulate thousands of others."

One quick way to evaluate the ideology of organizations is through consideration of the statements and claims of their leaders. So it seems neccessary for a realistic appraisal of the civil rights policy of the American Civil Liberties Union that we develop the factual background of their prominent officials and leaders.

It has taken us months of painstaking research to prepare this pamphlet; it will take you only minutes to read it. So please read it and then pass it on and inform others of the information you are about to learn.

SECTION 1

These are a few of the past and present prominent officials and leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union.

1. Roger Baldwin, founder and guiding light of the ACLU for over 30 years, is now a member of the National Committee of the ACLU. Mr Roger Baldwin has a record of over 100 communist-front affiliations and citations (documented in detail, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May 26, 1952). In an article written for Soviet Russia Today (September 1934), Roger Baldwin said: "When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental."

Entry of Roger Baldwin in the Harvard reunion book on the occasion of the 30th anniversary reunion of his class of 1905 (1935), "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal."

2. Dr. Harry Ward, first chairman of the ACLU. Dr. Harry Ward has a record of over 200 Communist front affiliations and citations listed by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities (HCUA). Dr. Harry Ward was chairman of one of the largest Communist fronts to flourish in this country, "The American League for Peace and Democracy," which was placed on the Attorney General of the United States list of subversive organizations on June 1, 1948. Dr. Ward is the author of "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit," two pro-Communist books which clearly show Dr. Ward's love for the Soviet system of government. The California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, in their 1948 report, page 246, said: "The Communist affiliation of Dr. Harry F. Ward is indicative of the Communist sympaties of the members and sponsors of the "Friends of the Soviet Union."

3. Abraham L. Wirin, chief counsel for the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU, sometimes referred to as "Mr. ACLU."

In 1934 A. L. Wirin formed a law partnership with Leo Gllagher and Grover Johnson (reference: Daily Peoples World, Mar. 5, 1934, official publication of the Communist Party on the west coast). Mr Leo Gallagher ran for State office on the Communist Party ticket in 1936 and Grover Johnson, when asked by a governmental investigating agency if he had ever been a member of the Communist Party, refused to answer the question on the grounds that he might incriminate himself.

In 1954, A. L. Wirin was a candidate for the executive board of National Lawyers Guild (reference: Los Angeles Daily Journal, Jan 13, 1954). The National Lawyers Guild has been cited as a Communist Front organization by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) September 21, 1950. (Four years before, Mr. Wirin was a candidate for the executive board.)

4. Dr. Albert Eason Monroe, executive director of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU:

In 1952, Dr. Albert Eason Monroe, U.S. Navy serial No. 316900, was discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve under conditions other than honorable.

In 1950, Dr. Monroe was fired from his position as head of the English department of San Francisco college for refusing to sign a loyalty oath. (The purpose of loyalty oaths is to protect the unsuspecting individual from lending his name to a Communist cause and from becoming a Communist dupe. The requirements of loyalty oaths have multiplied the obstacles to the Communists in recruiting memberships for their front organizations and maintaining discipline over fellow travelers in Government service. Few people will swear to an oath knowing it to be false and knowing that they might be liable to indictment and imprisonment for perjury. This requirement places a most difficult hurdle in front of the Communists attempting to ensnare an unsuspecting recruit into their conspiracy.)

In 1953, Dr. Albert Eason Monroe was listed as being chairman of the Federation for Repeal of the Levering Act (ie., loyalty oaths), which was cited as being a Communist front organization by the California State Senate Committee on Education in its 1952 report to the State legislature.

5. Rev. A. A. Heist, executive director of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU in 1952, and Dr. Monroe's predecessor. Rev. A. A. Heist was a signer of the statement to the President of the United States, defending the Communist Party (reference: Daily Worker Mar 5, 1941). In 1952, the Reverend Heist resigned his position in the ACLU to become director of a new organization which he founded, called the Citizens' Committee to Preserve American Freedoms (CCPAF). This organization is run by its executive secretary, Mr. Frank Wilkinson, an identified Communist. At a meeting of the district council of the southern California district of the Communist Party, United States of America, Dorothy Healy, well-known Communist and chairman of the district council, said, "The party preferred public protest meetings against the HCUA to be held by the Citizens Committee To Preserve American Freedoms rather than under party auspices because Communists could attend without danger of being exposed as party members." (Reference HCUA, H. Rept. 259, Apr 3, 1950, "Report on the Southern California District of the Communist Party". The Citizens Committee To Preserve American Freedoms was cited as being a Communist front organization by the HCUA on April 3, 1959.

The Reverend Heist stated in a speech to an audience of high school and junior college students in Pasadena that "the Constitution of the United States is outmoded, outdated, and impotent." (One of the stated goals of the ACLU is to preserve the Constitution.)

In 1948, the Reverend Heist protested the withdrawal of the use of their hall by Occidental College to an identified Communist poet, Langston Hughes, who was to speak on a poem of his entitled, "Goodbye, Christ," which called for "Christ, Jesus, Lord God Jehovah" to "beat it" and "make way for a new guy named Marx, Communist Lenin, Peasant Stalin, and worker me." (Reference: Hollywood Citizen News, February 26, 1948.) This would not be a strange protest from an atheistic Communist, but when it comes from a Methodist minister?

6. Carey McWilliams, a member of the national committee of the ACLU in 1948, who now figures prominently in the affairs of the ACLU, has been identified in sworn testimony, according to Government documents, as a member of the Communist Party. Carey McWilliams has a record of over 50 Communist-front affiliations and citations. He is the editor of "Rights," the official publication of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee which has been cited as a Communist front by the HCUA (November 8, 1957).

7. Prof. William A. Kilpatrick, prominent member of the ACLU on the east coast, was for many years head of Teacherc College, Columbia University. In his book, "The Teacher and Society," published in 1939, Professor Kilpatrick said that "the revolution by force and violence was probably necessary in Russia, but it would not be necessary in America. Here, the same goals could be acheived by effectuating change within the framework of the Constitution."

8. William Z. Foster, former head of the Communist Party, United States of America, was a former member of the National Committee of the ACLU. 9. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, former member of the National Committee of the ACLU until 1940, is a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, United States of America.

In the report on "Communist Propaganda in America" (published 1935, A.F.L.) as submitted to the State Department, by William Green, the late president of the American Federation of Labor, Mr. Green states that: "During all the years since the establishment of the Soviet regime in Russia, propaganda in the United States has been conducted, not only through agencies directly set up by the Communist high command, but through agencies and organizations in which non-Communists of good standing and repute have been induced to participate. A careful studyof these organizations shows that they are so related through interlocking directorates that apparently some hundreds of organizations are dominated by an interlocking group of directors numbering not more than 60. Their tactics may perhaps be called the tactics of irritation, since their purpose is to create dissatisfaction as widely as possible and to bring into disrepute the authorities, and the established institutions of the country. As an example, the American Civil Liberties Union may be cited."

To support Mr. Green's statement of "the interlocking directorates," we discovered that when we looked at the record of the top 15 past and current leaders of the ACLU, we found that they had a combined record of over 1000 Communist front affiliations and citations.

Section II

What others think of the ACLU

1. Daily Worker, March 22, 1957. In reference to an ACLU meeting (New York chapter) featuring John Gates, editor of the Daily Worker, "it remains an axiom of our time, that to defend the rights of Communists is to defend the rights of all Americans." (We as a nation are forced to spend $50 billion a year to defend ourselves from the Communists.)

2. California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, 1948 report, page 107: "The ACLU may be definitely classified as a Communist front or transmission belt organization." "At least 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of Communists who come in conflict with the law."

3. House Committee To Investigate Communist Activities in the United States, report 2290 entitled, "Investigation of Communist Propaganda": "It is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to protect the Communists in their advocacy of force and vilence to overthrow the U.S. Government."

4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, special commission to investigate Communist avtivities: "The ACLU, with its front of respectability and with its large membership of sincere, worthy citizens, has provided important legal talent and a camouflage of decency behind which Communist forces have agitated and promoted their campaigns."

Section III

Odd Coincidences

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 is 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 nth 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.

A Soviet dialectician's definition of a Communist front

George Dimitrov, "Advice to the Lenin School of Political Warfare," as quoted in the report of the American Bar Association Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives--CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, August 22, 1958, page 17719. "As Soviet power grows, there will be greater aversion to Communist Parties everywhere. So we must practice the techniques of withdrawal. Never appear in the foreground; Let our friends do the work. We must always remember that one sympathizer is generally worth more than a dozen militant Communists. A university professor, who, without being a party member, lends himself to the interests of the Soviet Union, is worth more than a hundred men with party cards. A writer of reputation or a retired general are worth more than 500 poor devils who don't know any better than to get themselves beaten up by the police. Every man has his value, his merit.

Thanks to our friends at Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway.

What I want to know, is where was the ACLU when conservatives were protesting the Democratic Convention? There was a "free speech cage" where those people were penned up, well outside of the view of the media that was covering the event. Yet, on Tuesday, the ACLU of Massachusetts comdemned the arrests of "peaceful protesters" at an even on the Cambridge Common that marked the founding of the US Army.

That's right, folks. This event was celebrating the founding of the US Army and the ACLU is supporting the people who were protesting against them.

The ACLU also criticized the police for forcing people to move into a "pen" if they were expressing views critical of U.S. policies.

"What a sad irony that on the day we celebrate our flag and the values for which it stands, the organizers of this event and the Cambridge police have chosen to disregard the right to dissent," said Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "This right ought to be one of the most cherished American values."

The "right of dissent" that they're talking about is treasonous-type activity, talking against our government and demeaning to our men in uniform. But that's not how the article frames it, lol...

According to witnesses, people wishing to leave the pen were forced by police to leave the Common. Observers said that one man who was simply holding a sign was made to move and the police also forced photographers from the area if they looked like protesters.

The event was sponsored by the city of Cambridge in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Army and marked the anniversary of George Washington taking command of the Continental Army on the Cambridge Common in the summer of 1775.

Organizers announced in advance that anyone wishing to question the event or U.S. policy in Iraq would be asked to confine their activities to a small area at a far corner of the Cambridge Common behind a row of barriers in a so-called "free speech area."

ACLU attorneys warned city lawyers late Monday that forcing people into this "pen" because they had signs or leaflets deemed to constitute protest messages would be unconstitutional and the city could be held liable for its actions.

So I guess the ACLU attorneys would rather have seen the protesters get right up into peoples' faces and spit on them, as they're prone to do. These people are harrassers and they were probably Ruckus Society trained.

"It is unconstitutional to force people into a protest pen simply because they wish to express a message that is viewed by some authorities as a protest of U.S. policy," said John Reinstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "We are concerned by the government’s increasing use of restrictions on peaceful demonstrations for the purposes of presenting a one dimensional view of public support for its policies, particularly when the government achieves this aim by suppression of dissent."

Where were you at the democratic convention when the conservatives were penned up and kept out of the way of video cameras? The image they wanted to portray to the world was there is no opposition to the democrats' agenda. Isn't this kind of a convenient play on words when the ACLU is not consistent on these issues across the board, and the are plainly against the values that the nation stands for??? You know, like God, Family, Country?

If it's against the United States government, the boy scouts, or the US military, you can bet they're all for it. If it's pro-US government, the boy scouts or the US military, you can bet they're against it.

This has nothing to do with civil liberties, this has everything to do with partisan grandstanding and taking away the freedom of the majority of people!

Thanks to Mudville Gazette Outside The Beltway

Cross-posted from An American Housewife

PHILADELPHIA -- "Nancy Carroll didn't know schools were giving military recruiters her family's contact information until a recruiter called her 17-year-old granddaughter.

That didn't sit well with Carroll, who believe unfairly target minority studentss recruiters . So she joined activists across the country who are urging families to notify schools that they don't want their children's contact information given out.

"People of color who go into the military are put on the front line," said the 67-year-old Carroll, who is black.

A provision of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act requires school districts to provide military recruiters with student phone numbers and addresses or risk losing millions in federal education funding. Parents or students 18 and over can "opt out" by submitting a written request to keep the information private.

But critics say schools do not always convey that message. In New Mexico, the American Civil Liberties Union chapter sued the Albuquerque Public School District last month, charging it does not adequately inform parents of the opt-out provision."

Article - Takes you to another site.

Ok, I'll give you the part about school districts "requiring" to give out children's information is not right. However, you did read that part about the parents being able to "opt out" by submitting a written request to keep the information private, right? You read that part too? OK.

I take it then, too, that you read about the ACLU suing a school for not giving out "adequate" information about this procedure where you can request the information be kept private? You read that as well? OK. If you want to know what is going on with your children and their school then GO FIND OUT, ask questions, get involved!! Don't sit back and expect others to do everything for you, yes I'm talking about white people too!

First of all let me start by saying is the military recruitment such a bad thing? Would you rather have gangster thugs hunting down your sweet, innocent, naive child? I'm using those terms loosely people. Oh my GOD, no not the military! Heaven forbid your son or daughter go into the service, learn some discipline, get an education, make something of him/herself, free benefits, free housing (optional), get a salary, and be PROUD to have done something with their lives. OH no, wouldn't want that would ya?

And this thing about putting blacks on the frontline. BULLSHIT. Granted, the woman who said it was 67 years old, and black, so I have NO DOUBT she has seen her hard-knocked days full of racism. But I'd like to think, no I know, things have changed about blacks being put on the front line. Give me a break. I'm so sick and tired of this complaining about how people get treated because of their skin color. YES IT STILL GOES ON TODAY. I know that, just not as bad as it used to; now I'll admit maybe I am the one being naive on this subject matter. We've made progress, yes we have; go back and read your history. Can we at least acknowledge the progress and think positively about our future as AMERICANS....not black America or white America or Hispanic America?

Let's ALL stop this nonsense about being different. Hell, we'll stay stuck there and make no progress whatsoever. We have identified the problem now let's move on to the solution.

I just had a commenter about the Michael Jackson case. I know her blog. She disagreed with me for saying I thought Michael Jackson was guilty. That's fine, she also parlayed her opinion in a very intelligible and respectful manner. I hope she keeps coming back.

Now rant on my friends, but let's stay in the solution today. For me, the solution consists of talking, debating, and taking action for the good. Asking God to guide me today, even with my potty mouth, turning my will and my life over to Him, doing the next right thing in front of me today and to try to help someone else out who needs it. And helping someone out doesn't have to be a huge thing. It could be as simple as a smile, a hug, helping carrying someone's groceries to their car, giving someone a ride who doesn't have a car, picking up the damn telephone just to say, "hi I was thinking of you today", so go out within the world and be good today. Treat a person kindly; it does YOUR soul good and will make you feel happy and joyful.

Now excuse me while I go wake up the children at 6:00 this morning and take them on a four mile walk!

The time to take on the ACLU, and groups like them, is now. There are actions pending in Congress, as we speak, that would stop the ACLU from getting paid on the public's dime for suing the public, over and over. We need to support these efforts. Specifics to follow.....

Douglas H. Wellman is a resident of Fort Wayne.

I am assuming (at the risk of the obvious) that this was originally published in the Ft Wayne News Sentinel on the Op/Ed page. Upon reading it, I was so impressed with his historical knowledge and opinion that I just had to reprint it.

At center of our collective Angst against the ACLU is the fact that they revise history to fit their political needs. Their contention that they are non-partisan with no political agenda is just moronic drivel. It is the tool of rhetoric (the use of language for you idiots believing that the word means something political) which the ACLU uses to dupe the common American liberal into believing that they are helping secure the civil liberties of the American public. This contention is nothing but useless nonsense.

They use this smoke and mirrors campaign to mask their true agenda. As outline by one of their founders in 1935, the advancement of the Communist agenda here in America. Roger Baldwin wrote in a year book commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Harvard University graduating class of 1905, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

I cannot be more plain that his own words. The ACLU was founded by Communists to put forth a Communist agenda. And in doing so, they have eroded away the very rights that they have the mindless drones on the left believing they are helping to protect.

That is our reason for being. That is the reason for this site. And that is the reason why we are so passionate in our use of language.

End of Rant

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

---

458 U.S. 747

New York v. Ferber

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK

---

---

William A. Donahue stated in his book Twilight of Liberty:

Utah is in a legal battle over censorship of pornography via the internet. Citing First Amendment infringements the ACLU is representing 14 different entities who feel that the law introduced there would stifle their ability to do business in the world of pornography.

Under the law, the state Attorney General's Office must establish and maintain a database of Internet sites containing material harmful to minors. It requires Internet service providers to prevent access to Internet materials harmful to minors and sites on the adult content registry, if requested by consumers, with filters to be checked at least annually by the state Division of Consumer Protection.

The division will also be required to make public service announcements. Web content providers in Utah also will have to rate the data on their sites.

Service providers won't have to offer filters until that section of the law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2006. But after that, if they don't offer filters, they're in trouble. Every violation will cost $2,500, up to $10,000 per day. An intentional violation is a class A misdemeanor.

The law also extends the state's harmful-to-minors law to Internet content publishers and service providers, a move the complaint says bans some constitutionally protected speech for adults. A violation of that section of the law is a second- or third-degree felony.

In July of 1982 the Supreme Court handed down a decision in New York stating that:

a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children for the following reasons: (1) the legislative judgment that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child easily passes muster under the First Amendment; (2) the standard of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, for determining what is legally obscene is not a satisfactory solution to the child pornography problem; (3) the advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for, and are thus an integral part of, the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation; (4) the value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd exhibitions is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis; and (5) recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the First Amendment's protection is not incompatible with this Court's decisions dealing with what speech is unprotected. When a definable class of material, such as that covered by the New [p748] York statute, bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection. Pp. 756-764

The ACLU has this to say about child pornography:

The sexual exploitation of children is a crime. Criminal, sexually abusive acts committed against children -- _not books or films that depict such criminal acts -- should be vigorously prosecuted. As for young people's access to pornography, the ACLU has found that efforts to render material inaccessible to minors generally end up restricting the freedom of adults as well. Parents, not the government, should monitor their children's reading and viewing habits.

The ACLU admits that the ACT of sexual exploitation of children is a crime, but feels that under the First Amendment "not books or films that depict such criminal acts" should be included. My question to the brilliant nit-pickers of the First Amendment is how a FILM that DEPICTS can be made with a CHILD to portray the ACT? Are they saying that it is OK as long as adults dressed in diapers are the ones they are filming or are they saying for the sake of ART and CREATIVE EXPRESSION it is OK to victimize children by having them PRETEND TO GET UNDRESSED, PRETEND TO ACT OUT LEWD BEHAVIOR, and PRETEND TO PERFORM SEX ACTS ON OTHER CHILDREN AND ADULTS? At what point does PRETENDING stop and VICTIMIZATION begin, if this is the case?

Of course, the Utah case is one that is not a question of "child pornography", but rather that children can inadvertently be subjected to pornography and Utah would impose through their legislation buffers to prevent this. The ACLU and their plaintiffs are saying, "but what about us adults? We don't want to go through buffers to get to pornography? It is an infringement of our First Amendment rights." Why would any decent person who gives a flip about childrens welfare mind a buffering system? It is because they aren't decent, they are sick individuals who don't care about children and protecting them from a twisted adult form of recreation. They only care about the act of perversion itself and if it makes a buck for them in the process even better.

This is an early Thursday Stop the ACLU blogburst. Get involved in the battle to protect your children from those who would hurt them just for their own personal pleasure.

STAND UP! TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF RELIGION ACT OF 2005

Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off The Taxpayer's Dole

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

Some of The 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
Euphoric Reality
The Right Dominion
Undiscovered country
Steve's Blog
Right On!
It Is What It Is
Kiddsafe
My View
Third World Country
Crosses aCross America

A special thanks goes out to the Mudville Gazette and Outside the Beltway.

Help Us Raise Money To Advertise A Nationwide March On All The ACLU Offices In All 50 States SHOP THE BULLDOZE THE ACLU STORE

STAND UP! TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF RELIGION ACT OF 2005

Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off The Taxpayer's Dole

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

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

Some of The 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
Euphoric Reality
The Right Dominion
Undiscovered country
Steve's Blog
Right On!
It Is What It Is
Kiddsafe
My View
Third World Country
Crosses aCross America

Help Us Raise Money To Advertise A Nationwide March On All The ACLU Offices In All 50 States SHOP THE BULLDOZE THE ACLU STORE

Gribbit will be posting an addional post later today on this same subject.

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway

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. Stop the ACLU makes no money from supporting these causes. Any money donated at the above links go directly to the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and their war against the ACLU's radical agenda.


Cross posted at Cao's Blog

Thanks to Mudville and Outside the Beltway

This post will stay up top for a while...scroll down for updates. Click on the Title to Sign the petition.

On June 7, 2005 during a comment session that occurred right here on Stop the ACLU regarding the possible closure of the Soledad Cross in San Diego County, CA "Crosses aCross America" was inspired. The Soledad Cross had been placed on a mountain many years ago as a tribute to the soldiers who had served in the Korean War. A lawsuit was initiated by an atheist who claims that the Soledad Cross (which is located along a highway he traveled) was disturbing to him and should be removed.

This particular instance was the springboard from which "Crosses aCross America" was launched. The inspiration for "Crosses" came from frustration that precedents that had been set over the years to honor our founding fathers faith in freedom of religion and that had been illustrated through artwork and other religious symbolism in our government buildings both on a national, state, and local level were coming under attack by those who would have a total separation of church and state. Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal court (or have been threatened to be filed) by the ACLU to remove all of these religious symbols from public view on public property. Capitulation (by those government entities, who could not afford to fight) to remove religious symbols has occurred.

Recently in an interview, Reese Lloyd (a former ACLU attorney) shared his feelings about religion and our government:

"The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage."

"For example, the Ten Commandments in Court Houses. I don't think this is an "endorsement" of religion. It is an acknowledgment of our history. I don't care if it causes discomfort to Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist sympathizers, or Hindus and their holy cows."

These are pretty strong words coming from a former ACLU attorney. Mr. Lloyd is a member of the American Legion, and is only one soldier who served his country under the motto "for God and country". But, his sentiments are the reflections of many others who believe as he does, that there is a movement by some to wipe out part of our country's history as if it never existed. These secularists would do this by removing religious symbols in public places and to remove mention in our schools of the strong religious faith of our country's citizens that has had a huge bearing and impact over the years in molding our government, and that has fortified our people's resolve in times of crisis and war over the years.

Through "Crosses aCross America", we feel that even though the removal of religion in a public sphere may become a reality, the placing of crosses, star of David's and other religious symbols by the private sector on their own personal property will continue to remind those who would choose to forget, that there are those who REFUSE to forget the role and importance of religion in our country's history. We ask everyone that feels this way (as we do) to SHOW YOUR SUPPORT visually and make "Crosses aCross America" a reality, not just something discussed on the internet.

Our first week has been wonderful. The number of visitors to "Crosses aCross America" in our first 5 days has been much more than anticipated - due largely in part to our supporters WHO BELIEVE in "God and Country" and who have taken the time to promote our site on their own sites, in forums, emails, and by word of mouth. Each person is encouraged to make "Crosses aCross America" become a reality - by their continued support through the internet; by contacting area churches and other houses of worship; and by placing a symbol of their faith on their private property - not only in support of this cause, but to remind those who would like to see religion wiped from public view and mind that this is not going to happen.

The ACLU are having problems with the Patriot Act, and as President Bush moves to renew and redefine the legislation's powers, so, too, are they stepping up their pointless nattering about it:

The American Civil Liberties Union called the president's address today on the Patriot Act to law enforcement personnel in Columbus, Ohio both misguided and disingenuous. Key parts of that law are set to "sunset" or expire at the end of the year, and the administration is pushing to not only reauthorize the act, but to expand it.

'Misguided' and 'disingenuous'? What can they mean? Misguided in the sense that it's wrong to hunt down and arrest terrorists? Disingenuous because they think President Bush isn't serious about protecting America from its enemies? ... Or is it just that the ACLU like to kick off their press-releases with headline-grabbing statements that don't bear up under close scrutiny? Let's find out, shall we?

The following can be attributed to Lisa Graves, ACLU Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy:
"The president's Patriot Act rhetoric simply doesn’t match the facts. The American people deserve an honest debate, not rehashed photo opportunities full of inaccuracies designed to mislead."

The American people do deserve an honest debate, but whatever Lisa Graves may think, it takes more than describing George Bush's words as 'rhetoric' to deprive them of this ... And what's this with 'photo opportunities ... designed to mislead'? Hmm? What photographs are filled with 'inaccuracies'? Precisely, I mean? Because as far as misleading rhetoric goes, right now the ACLU are ahead by two paragraphs. If Lisa Graves has something substantive to say, will she please just say it?

"The president claimed that under the Patriot Act, 'terrorism' charges have been brought against more than 400 suspects."

No. The President stated that 400 suspects had been charged with terrorism offences. Since 400 people have, indeed, been charged with exactly that, this isn't a 'claim'. It's a stone, cold fact.

"A study by Syracuse University, however, found that the vast majority of these were minor, non-terrorism offenses."

Well, since the 'minor, non-terrorism offences' resulted in prosecutions under anti-terror laws, it would appear that the government and courts disagree with the ACLU's assessment of what terrorism involves. True, the people actually trying to blow stuff up are the most dangerous of Islamofascism's supporters, but it would be just stupid to ignore the lesser crimes of fundraising and support for the hardcore killers.

"These individuals posed such little threat to national security that most served no jail time."

But they were caught and prosecuted using anti-terrorism laws, weren't they? Is Graves suggesting the Patriot Act should ignore the fundraisers and rabble-rousers? Because, you know, someone paid for Mohamed Atta's flying lessons -- do we just forget about such people?

"More importantly, while many of these people were prosecuted under terrorism statutes, these were not all the result of the Patriot Act - they were cases that the government deemed as being related to terrorism."

Now let's be clear about this: prior to 9/11, the United States already had a whole raft of anti-terrorism laws in place. The Patriot Act was brought in to shore up existing legislation, not to replace it entirely. As we're sure Graves is well aware, some prosecutions will arise from law-enforcers using the Act, and some from using pre-9/11 laws. The point is that the Patriot Act allows the government to track and capture more terrorists than was previously the case. Perhaps this is something that makes Lisa Graves unhappy, but it's to be assumed most Americans don't share her strange desire for a return to less effective law-enforcement.

"In fact, at recent hearings government witnesses said there had been only a dozen or fewer terrorism prosecutions in the past four years."

A 'dozen or fewer'? A couple of sentences ago it was 400. So who are we to believe? Lisa Graves and the ACLU or ... um ... Lisa Graves and the ACLU?

"The most offensive portion of the President’s remarks was his claim that the Patriot Act is constitutional."

And when the offence is taken by people who fight to protect the civil liberties of a talking penis, you just know it's serious! As for the supposed 'unconstitutional' nature of the Patriot Act, well, this really is the damnedest thing. It's liberals, after all, who are constantly insisting on the fluid, ever-evolving nature of the constitution. 'It's a living document', they cry, 'Now can we kill some babies?' 'We have to decide what the Founding Fathers meant in the context of the 21st century,' they wail. 'Now can we legalise kiddie porn?' But face the ACLU off against a President attempting to protect America from terrorists, and the constitution stopped 'breathing' and 'evolving' the moment the ink was dry.

"The ACLU is actively involved with litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act and the powers it expanded. Some expansions the Patriot Act made to the law have already been ruled unconstitutional. Other challenges are still being considered by the courts."

No news, though, on how many terrorists have escaped prosecution as a result of this legal wrangling. Which is a pity, as that really would be a killer counter-argument to Lisa and her chums.

"The president stressed the role of judges as a check against abuse, but let’s look at the facts. Under section 215 of the Patriot Act, judges who sit on a secret court must approve a request for records about people's health, wealth or the transactions of their daily life if the law enforcement agents say they want it for a foreign intelligence investigation."

Oh, the indignity of it! Judges, perhaps even the activist judges so beloved by the ACLU, are being compelled to assist law enforcement agencies. Why, if this continues, people will start to think the judiciary are on the side of the American people. You can almost hear Lisa Graves' teeth grinding at the thought of this.

"None of these requests has ever been denied and the order includes a permanent gag order."

Well the requests aren't denied because the judges 'must' comply, Lisa. We know this is something you find irritating because you keep going on and on about it.

"And the White House has refused the common sense requirement that there be specific facts connecting the records sought to a foreign agent."

... So if a swarthy, bearded man stands in the street screaming, 'Death to Israel, death to America', the Feds get to take a look at his bank account? What is this world coming to?

"And, at the same time, the White House is now pushing for 'administrative subpoenas,' which would allow the FBI to issue and sign its own search orders - without prior judicial approval."

But look on the bright side, Lisa -- At least those poor, activist judges will be let off the hook.

"If this became law, we would go from diminished judicial approval to none at all: this is the administration's idea of checks and balances."

Actually, we imagine it's the Bush Administration's idea of effective counter-terrorism measures. Be that as it may, if those long-suffering judges have no choice but to sign subpoenas anyway, what is the earthly point in going through the motions? Surely, in a race against time to apprehend an Islamofascist crazy, it makes sense to cut out some of the more superfluous paperwork?

"The president repeated the claim that there have been no reported abuses of the Patriot Act. Brandon Mayfield would certainly disagree. His wrongful arrest based on faulty police work and the secret search of his home and DNA is but one example - given the government’s refusal to disclose how key parts of the Patriot Act is being used as well as the permanent gag orders in the act, it remains highly likely that many more abuses remain out there."

Let's get this straight: an abuse happens when the state deliberately frames the wrong person. In the case of Islamic convert Brandon Mayfield, there was a mix-up over fingerprints, which the FBI received from Spanish authorities. That the Patriot Act was used to enable Feds to search Mayfield's home isn't really pertinent to his arrest, which came about because of the prints. Anyway, considering Mayfield was released without charge and received a full apology, it's difficult to see how Graves thinks she can get away with suggesting this incident was evidence of abuse. On the contrary, if this is how errors are being dealt with, it suggests the Act works just fine.

"Also the president acknowledged that the Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the very mechanism designed to track any abuses of the Patriot Act, remains unfilled and unfunded. It’s no surprise that the administration hasn’t admitted any abuses."

Poor Lisa. You can tell she's really grieving that something fun-sounding like 'the Civil Liberties Oversight Board' isn't operating at full capacity, and especially after President Bush promised it would be -- Bush lied! Civil libertarians cried!

"The president is pushing a political agenda ..."

As politicians tend to do. Indeed, there's a strong argument for the view that 'pushing a political agenda' is precisely what voters expect the men and women they elect to be doing.

"... and not listening to the people."

Well, he's not listening to the ACLU, that's for sure.

"Nationwide, nearly 400 communities and seven state legislatures have passed resolutions calling on Congress to bring the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution. Leading conservative, liberal and nonpartisan organizations have found common ground in reforming the Patriot Act."

... So much for Muslim groups and Democrats. Now what about the rest of America? Sad about the absence of passenger jets being flown into national monuments? Or glad?

"Lawmakers should respond to their concerns, and reject this continuing power grab by the executive branch."

Fortunately, of course, lawmakers will do nothing of the kind. This is because they understand the U.S. needs to defend itself from aggression. Quite why the ACLU don't seem able to grasp this very simple point remains a mystery.

(Cross-posted at Rottweiler Puppy)

Thank you Mudville Gazette

This just in--Curtis DeVeaux, a Philadelphia fireman, is refusing to shave his beard in spite of regulations requiring him to do so for his own safety and the safety of other firefighters (breathing apparatus will not fit and seal properly over beards). Mr. DeVeaux claims that his muslim faith requires the beard (although he has been clean-shaven during his first two years of service in the fire department and agreed to follow the department regulations when he was hired.)

Seems pretty simple...you could die from an ill-fitting mask, and of course you could also inadvertently cost the lives of fellow fire-fighters or fire victims...so shave or quit, right? Not so fast, Philly Fire Department!! Mr. DeVeaux is suing for his right to wear the beard, and the ACLU is on the job! NIN reports that, thanks to their intervention, a federal judge has ordered that while the litigation is pending Mr. Deveaux must be allowed to work and be paid regardless of the danger to others. Nice job, ACLU lawyer...hope your mom's not in the house burning down when Mr. DeVeaux passes out from lack of oxygen.

Thank you to Outside The Beltway and Mudville Gazette

Freedom rang in the ears of the ACLU today, as a the voice of the people trumps the ACLU's judicial activism....as it should be.

A San Diego judge ruled today against an effort by an atheist to block statements in a ballot initiative that will decide the fate of the historic cross on Mt. Soledad overlooking the Pacific.

As WorldNetDaily reported, atheist Phillip Paulson, represented by the ACLU, threatened five San Diego-area personalities with legal action over the proposed wording of the July 26 voter initiative.

The five behind the Mt. Soledad initiative are KFMB radio talk-show host Rick Roberts; KOGO radio talk-show host Roger Hedgecock; San Diego Padres radio announcer Jerry Coleman, Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif.; and SoledadNational.com Director Phil Thalmeimer.

Voters will be able to decide if they want to transfer the city owned site to the federal government where it would be designated as a war memorial. Paulson contends the cross should be removed because it's on government property.

An attorney for the five personalities, Charles LiMandri, said ACLU attorney Jame McElroy was visibly "not pleased with the decision of the judge."Read more at WND

Crossposted at Crosses aCross America

Thank you to Mudville Gazette

Well folks, I am going to take a two week vacation from things down in sunny Florida! Before I go I want to thank you all for your support. I want to thank any of you who have bought things from Our Bulldoze The ACLU Store. I want to thank the entire blogburst team. I want to thank all of our supportive readers as we try to expose the ACLU. I want to thank John Hawkins of Right Wing News and Conservative Grapevine for linking me up several times and helping me to gain new readers. The more exposure this site gets, the more exposure the radical agenda of the ACLU gets. I also want to thank Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway for doing their open posts. They too have helped me to gain new readers. I also want to give a big thank you to all the support I've gotten from all of the Wideawakes.

I want to thank all of my contributors for helping me make this site successful. I couldn't do it without you guys. I'm leaving the keys with you guys while I am gone. I will check in if the opportunity is available from time to time...but I am on vacation. I could go on and on...but...I mainly just want YOU ALL to know how much I appreciate all of the support! Thank You!

God and Country Forever
Surrender To The ACLU Never

I had the benefit of getting an interview with Mr. Reese Lloyd, a former ACLU lawyer affiliated with the largest Veterans Organization in America, the American Legions. When I called the media relations department there and inquired about their support for Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 , this is the man they referred me to. I soon found out why. This was a very passionate, wise, and well spoken man.

I first inquired of his history with the ACLU, how he became employed with them, and why he eventually disassociated himself with them. He informed me that he had worked two janitor jobs while attending law school. One day the ACLU did some kind of fellowship interview, and he was given an internship with them. He eventually went on to be on their staff. He focused in the area of worker's rights with special attention to the deprivation of speech in the workplace...such as whistleblowers.

So why did he leave them? He said, "it was in part because around that time they established a separation of Church and State Staff Position." He informed me that, "This was funded by Norman Lear and several other Hollywood millionaires." It seems even back then that Hollywood sided with the secular left. He went on to say that, "the very purpose of this staff position was to push "establishment clause" lawsuits against the government."

At this point he got pretty fired up, and dominated the conversation for a while. I didn't mind...what he had to say was passionate and cut right to the truth of things.

"I think it is important that we shouldn't forget that we had a civil rights movement that was needed in our history at the time. I was around to see segregated bathrooms. There were black and white water fountains. You could sit at a lunch counter next to someone like Charles Manson because he was white, but not someone like Martin Luther King Jr. because he was black. The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can't turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due."

"But....that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism."

Wow! I couldn't have come up with a better more colorful description myself. I think I will be sending him a Stop The ACLU T-Shirt. But wait...he was just getting warmed up! He went on to say....

"I have done more cases for minorities and civil rights violations myself than the whole bunch of them put together. I was in the trenches of the Civil Rights movement. They can't tell me anything about civil rights. We did that 40 years ago, and we accomplished that goal. There are now laws protecting people from those things we fought against. The Civil Rights movement has now taken some crazed "Jesse Jackson" turn to the point that often it is now the white people that are being discriminated against."

I must say that in this world of political correctness this guy was bold, blunt, and to the point. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who fought the battle of Civil Rights, a soldier who fought for them, and an esteemed former Commander of an American Legions post in Banning, California. He continued...

The ACLU is an elitist organization bent on the social engineering of our Country in defiance of both the legislative and executive branches. What they are involved in is secular cleansing of American History."

He asked if I were familiar with how Stalin airbrushed people like Trotsky out of photos in order to rewrite history. He went on to compare that to how what the ACLU is trying to do with Christianity in American history. He pointed out many similarities.

Then he got to the good stuff! He repeated....

"The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage."

"For example, the Ten Commandments in Court Houses. I don't think this is an "endorsement" of religion. It is an acknowledgment of our history. I don't care if it causes discomfort to Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist sympathizers, or Hindus and their holy cows."

At this point I felt like saying, ....Bwhahahahah! However I restrained myself like the nice guy that I am. I'm glad I did, cause this is when he got the really good stuff.

"This is a Christian Nation! And we ought to be damn proud it is! Because it is only in Christian Nations where you will find freedom of religion. We are a Christian Nation, and the U.S. Supreme Court said so. The Supreme Court in HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S. that this is a Christian Nation. That is our history. The history the ACLU wants to erase."

"Secular Humanism is a religion. Again, the Supreme Court ruled this in Torcaso vs. Watkins. If this is true, then it is being given precedence over other religions in our nation today."

I finally asked the question that I primarily called for. Knowing that the American Legion is supporting The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 would it affect the ability of a poor person to defend their religious liberty by having to pay attorney fees out of pocket? To this question he answered....

"Absolutely not! This legislation would only apply to "Establishment Clause" cases. This would help to keep organizations from being paid attorney's fees in cases such as the ones where the ACLU is fighting to take down our Veterans' Memorials. It would only affect these kinds of suits. The "Free Exercise" is not affected at all. So someone defending their right to express religion could still collect attorney's fees."

"The ACLU crossed the damn line when they denied the Boyscouts charter on U.S. Military Bases. People need to stand up on this. The American Legion has a creed we say now..."For God and Country Forever! Surrender To The ACLU, Never!" We have 2.7 million members and we are stepping up. And when we step, we march, we don't mince."

Thank you to Outside The Beltway and Mudville Gazette and Wizbang

You may have heard that a crucifix scares away vampires. Did you know that a similar thing happens to certain athiests when they see a cross? Yes...they get "offended"....especially if it is a public place. Groups like the ACLU are at the forefront of this fight. Probably because taxpayer money gets into their pocket anytime they are successful in getting rid of these "offensive" crosses, even if it is a National War Memorial.

So our friend Kathy from Is It Just Me? has set up a very cool site. She is looking for volunteers to help, and ideas. Leave her a comment. So what are you still doing here? Go tell her I sent you!

And for you that are easily offended...you have been warned. There are crosses there.

Thanks to Outside The Beltway and Mudville Gazette

By the way...if you don't want your tax money going towards things like this.

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

Hat tip to Jacklewis.net

A civil-liberties group has sued the speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives, claiming the use of the name of Jesus in prayers to open the body's daily sessions is unconstitutional.

The federal lawsuit by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union says including such phrases as "In the strong name of Jesus our savior," "We pray this in Christ's name," and "I appeal to our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ" exclude people who aren't Christians.

The legal action targets House Speaker Brian Bosma, a Republican and a Christian.

"The suit does not seek to prevent opening the House session with prayers," ICLU Legal Director Ken Falk said in a statement, but asks that such prayers show "respect for the beliefs of all Indiana residents and the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all."WND

Thanks to Muddville Gazette

Ok, this is the final installment in my humble analysis of Eklund v. Byron Union School District, a decision in which the court ruled that it was permissible for California schools to use an "interactive educational module" to teach seventh graders about Islam. In the first three installments we reviewed the facts of the case and the first prong of a two-prong analysis the court did regarding the possible violation of the Establishment Clause. The court concluded, in the first section of its analysis, that the Eklund children were not "coerced into participating in religious activity" because, in the court's view, learning portions of the Koran, reciting portions of muslim prayers, doing symbolic fasting to simulate Ramadan, etc. did not rise to the level of actually participating in religious activity. See Part 3, below, for the complete discussion.

Today, the court turns to the second prong of its analysis...Did the Excelsior School "endorse" Islam through its use of the module? Again, the court concludes that, from the objective standpoint of a reasonable observer (a hypothetical "reasonable" seventh grader at Excelsior) and the "larger context of the challenged activity" that endorsement did not occur. I have to say that there is very little to analyze regarding the court's findings in this regard. Rather than applying the legal standards at issue to the specific facts of the module (for instance the documented admission by the teacher that the students were required to learn portions of muslim prayers, or the fact that the module repeatedly stated that Muhammad was a prophet of Allah and received special revelation from God, without any qualifying language whatsoever) the court simply states that "a reasonable Excelsior student would not have believed that it [the module] represented an endorsement of religion..." (brackets supplied). The sum total of the legal reasoning applied to this aspect of the Establishment Clause analysis is about half a page of a 22 page opinion.

Again, the judge's conclusion is unsupported by the facts...she never makes mention at all of the fact that the final exam was required to be a "critique" of Islam so long as the student didn't say anything negative, that elements of Islam were presented as "truth," or that the student guide handed out to the students stated that "you and your classmates will become Muslims."

This is intellectual dishonesty and judicial activism at its worst...The ACLU and organizations like it are using the willing accomplices of the federal bench to do their dirtywork.

Just for the record, for those of you who don't think that the "compromise" agreed to by the Senate Republicans on GWB's judicial nominees is a big deal, remember that judges like Phyllis Hamilton are what you are going to get every time you concede a point to the liberals.

Thanks to Muddville Gazette

We are trying to raise money to advertise and organize a march on all of the ACLU offices nationwide. Help us! Shop The Bulldoze The ACLU Store

Concerns have arisen at the ACLU over some document shredding.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding some documents over the repeated objections of its records manager and in conflict with its longstanding policies on the preservation and disposal of records.

The matter has fueled a dispute at the organization over internal operations, one of several such debates over the last couple of years, and has reignited questions over whether the A.C.L.U.'s own practices are consistent with its public positions.New York Times

It was a little shocking that it was the New York Times that reported this. Imagine if it read, "GOP has been shredding some documents over the repeated objections of its records manager and in conflict with its longstanding policies on the preservation and disposal of records." We would never hear the end of it. But it doesn't. Instead it is a liberal organization, so it must be o.k. right?

Maybe, maybe not. But it is definitely worthy of further investigation.




Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway

"I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the year of the Bible. But you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that. Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor." ~ President Reagan, January 1984

If only there were more like him. May he rest in Peace.

Others honoring Reagan:

Michelle Malkin
Cao's Blog
Cat House Chat
American Patriots
If I missed you I'm sorry.

Crossposted FromGribbit's Word

cool pic provided by Zaph

By: Stephanie Strom

The American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding some documents over the repeated objections of its records manager and in conflict with its longstanding policies on the preservation and disposal of records.

The matter has fueled a dispute at the organization over internal operations, one of several such debates over the last couple of years, and has reignited questions over whether the A.C.L.U.'s own practices are consistent with its public positions.

The organization has generally advocated for strong policies on record retention and benefited from them, most recently obtaining and publicizing documents from the government about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The debate over the use of shredders is reminiscent of one late last year over the organization's efforts to collect a wide variety of data on its donors, even as it criticizes corporations and government agencies for accumulating personal data as a violation of privacy rights.

Janet Linde, who oversaw the A.C.L.U.'s archives for over a decade until she resigned last month, raised concerns in e-mail messages and memorandums for over two years that officials' use of shredders in their offices made a mockery of the organization's policy to supervise document destruction and created potential legal risks.

"It has been shown in many legal cases over the years, including the Enron case, that if a company has an established and documented shredding program they will not be liable if documents at issue in a lawsuit are found to have been destroyed," Ms. Linde wrote in a 2003 memo. "If, however, the means for unauthorized shredding is present in the office we cannot say that we have made a good faith effort to monitor and document our records disposal process."

Ms. Linde said she was disturbed that her correspondence had become public and declined to comment further. A spokeswoman for the organization, Emily Whitfield, declined to answer specific questions but made the following statement: "The A.C.L.U.'s records management policies have always been of the highest standards in keeping with, if not more stringent than, those of other nonprofits."

The organization refused to address which documents were being shredded, among other questions.

Shredding has become more closely controlled after scandals arising from questionable record-keeping have rocked the corporate world.

Congress has amended the criminal code to permit fines and jail sentences for those who alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal documents with the intent of preventing their use in official proceedings. Many lawyers for companies and nonprofit entities have advised their clients to enact strict policies on records management.

The A.C.L.U. allows for document shredding but has policies for recording what is destroyed that predate recent changes in the law, and it has historically placed great emphasis on preserving records. Its policy lists specific types of documents - including duplicate records and outside publications - that can be destroyed without creating a record. For other materials, employees are instructed to contact the archives.

In a speech to the Society of American Archivists last year, Nadine Strossen, the president of the A.C.L.U., said that at its inception in 1920, the civil liberties group arranged for the New York Public Library to archive its records and those of its predecessor organization.

"I'm especially impressed by how prescient the A.C.L.U.'s founders were in understanding the importance of preserving our organizational records," Ms. Strossen said.

In 2003, the Archivists Round Table of Metropolitan New York gave Ms. Linde an award for her role in helping draft and enact a public records law after Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, moved records from his administration to a private institution.

Under the A.C.L.U.'s policy, employees deposit documents, disks and other files slated for destruction in locked bins in their departments. They are required to complete and sign a form next to the box, describing what they have deposited.

A contractor collects the bins each month and shreds the contents under the watch of an A.C.L.U. records manager, who then countersigns the sheets to confirm the destruction.

So when Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the organization, casually mentioned to a group of employees in 2002, about a year after his arrival, that he had a shredder in his office, they were shocked, said two former employees who did not want their names used because they feared it would interfere with future employment. Mr. Romero was told it was a violation of policy, the former employees said, but no one pushed the issue.

That encounter came several months after the New York attorney general's office had begun an inquiry into security breaches on the A.C.L.U.'s Web site that had resulted in leaks of information about donors and members. The organization is sensitive to such leaks, given past government scrutiny of its membership.

"As an advocacy organization dedicated to protecting privacy," Ms. Whitfield said on Friday, "we take very seriously the confidentiality of our donor records and have policies in place to ensure proper document management procedures."

To end the attorney general's inquiry in December 2002, Mr. Romero signed an agreement that obliged the organization to strengthen its online and computer security and pay a $10,000 fine, a cost covered by the company that manages their Web site, where the problems originated.

The organization hired Richard M. Smith, an Internet and computer security expert, to examine its practices and offer suggestions for improvement. Among other things, he recommended that shredders be installed in every department to make document disposal more convenient.

In a July 2002 e-mail message to Barry Steinhardt, an A.C.L.U. lawyer who specializes in matters of privacy, Ms. Linde objected to that recommendation, saying that Mr. Smith seemed unaware of the organization's document retention policy. She noted that she had asked to sit in on his audit but had been excluded.

Employees began noticing shredders next to copiers throughout the organization in early 2003, according to e-mails.

Ms. Linde wrote a memorandum voicing her concerns, so the A.C.L.U. sought advice from the law firm that handles its real estate matters in Washington, D.C. The firm forwarded a report that echoed many of Ms. Linde's points, and several shredders were removed, according to memorandums.

Mr. Romero kept his shredder, as did Alma Montclair, the director of administration and finance, according to those memorandums. Later, records managers noted that the accounting and human resources departments had shredders, and, more recently, that Donna McKay, the A.C.L.U.'s director of development, had one, too.

To track what was being destroyed on those machines, the records managers attempted to impose a system similar to the one used for the locked bins, putting document destruction sheets next to all the shredders except Mr. Romero's about a year ago. Employees in the departments with the shredders signed the sheets, according to a memorandums, but rarely noted what they were shredding.

In January 2004, an employee found bags of shredded documents outside a freight elevator and alerted the archival staff. "We really need to get this shredding documented if there is that much of it going on," Ms. Linde then wrote to David Baird, who worked with Ms. Montclair.

Mr. Baird responded that he knew nothing about the bags and defended the shredding of documents with Social Security numbers, salary information and other information in Ms. Montclair's administration and finance department.

"It is not clear to either Alma or I the specific reasons why shredding these clearly confidential documents needs to be reported to you," Mr. Baird wrote in an e-mail message.

Ms. Linde wrote back, "This is the kind of thing that gets companies and organizations into lawsuits."

She was eventually told that the shredded documents in the bags were resumes from the human resources department, a memorandum said.



This article is re-printed with full credit given to the New York Times and Stephanie Strom.


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.

Congressional Emergency

Urge passage of HR 2679, The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. What this bill does, is to remove the ability for the award of federal funding in order to recover legal fees in 1st Amendment Establishment Clause challanges. These suits are often taken pro bono. But once won, the attorneys are able to recover legal fees from the government.

We need to get groups like the ACLU off the Taxpayers' Dime. Call, write, or email your Congressman and Senators and urge passage of this bill.

Help us raise money to advertise a march on all the ACLU offices Nationwide Shop The ACLU Bulldozer Store

Thanks to Mudville Gazette Also see Outside The Beltway's Post on this

Crossposted From Ravings Of John C. Bameneck

According to Drudge Report:

American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding documents over repeated objections of its records manager and in conflict with longstanding policies on preservation, disposal of records... Developing...

Lawyers have the strictest document retention policy around. They keep everything. Yet here we are with the ACLU destroying documents. Andersen did this to hide what they did with Enron and they were annihilated as a corporation (despite having their conviction ultimately overturned). What does the ACLU have to hide? This could be a bogus lead from Drudge, but if not it is explosive. Is the ACLU under criminal investigation and is worried that documents normally protected by attorney-client privilege would be taken? Do the documents show that the ACLU has been taking funds or shuffling funds to organizations it shouldn't be?

There is no honest reason to be destroying documents for a law firm, something is amiss...

Euphoric Reality has several sources on this.

Thanks to Mudville Gazette

We are trying to advertise and organize a Nationwide March on All The ACLU Offices Nationwide. Help Us! Shop The Bulldoze The ACLU Store

Crossposted fromRavings of John C. A.Bambenek Thanks!

You've heard the charges. We're desecrated the Koran at Gitmo (since retracted), we've institutionalized torture (because anything less than 3 squares and 8 hours of sleep and cable TV is torture), that we're intentionally targeting journalists (I can sympathize with the military on this one, it is becoming harder to tell the difference between an insurgent and a reporter), and so on.

In accordance with "Bin Laden's Terrorism Bible" (specifically Chapter 11 paragraph 1), Amnesty International has been a sounding board of false claims of torture. The Left celebrates IIMPR's guest speaker Seymour Hersh who's claim to fame was taking evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation that the military already released to the press (without pictures) on January 16th and publishing pictures of it thereby depriving the accused of any semblance of a fair trail and inflaming the Muslim world. They then continue to claim that torture was routine and that anything short of giving prisoners of war or enemy combatants anything less than 5 star accommodations is tantamount to torture.

The ACLU, far from being outdone, and continuing the word of Amnesty International insists that more pictures be released in flagrant violation of international law that apparently they are so worried about protecting in other circumstances which the ACLU itself admitted was ironic. Either you support international law or you don't. Apparently they support international law when it works in their favor and when it doesn't they throw it aside.

What happened at Abu Gharib was inexcusable, and that's why those soldiers are being prosecuted. If it happened elsewhere, those soldiers should likewise be prosecuted. But when Seymour Hersh suggested that the White House didn't want the pictures to get out because of the reaction of the Middle East, he suggested the answer as to why the President didn't start firing everyone he could find. They knew the reaction and they were trying to do what was best for the country, what was best for the safety of soldiers, and to not give Al Qaeda more propaganda fodder. The ACLU and Amnesty International will have none of that; to them apparently Al Qaeda is the "good guy" in this fight.

What these organizations and the media as well as other organs of the Left have done is take the actions of a few and paint the entire military as a bunch of deviant sex offenders and torturers. The ACLU insists on making sure everyone in the world looks upon America as cruel destroyers of human life because they make prisoners stand too long. They insist the only human rights violators in the world anymore are the US and Israel were the likes of Syria, China, and Iran are free to jail and truly torture dissidents.

There was a time when the Left identified with oppressed people everywhere. With stories of innocents (not even political prisoners) had their bodies fed into tree chippers, the Left used to be the one protesting. Now apparently they've aligned themselves with those regimes which truly practice torture.

Thank you to Mudville Gazette

This is Part 3 of this series on Islam in the public schools, in particular the decision in Eklund v.Byron Union School District. The parents of a seventh-grader sued the school district (and the superintendent of schools, the teachers, and the principal of the Excelsior school), claiming that the use of an "interactive educational module" simulating the five pillars of the muslim religion violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution (at least as it is currently interpreted).

The undisputed facts of the case are found in the two previous posts regarding this dispute. I say "undisputed" because the judge ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact (there's nothing for a jury to decide, because the parties basically agree on the facts) and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Before I get to the judge's reasoning, I want to address the facts just a little bit more...the reason I went to the trouble of getting the opinion was so I could see whether the "facts" reported on various websites were the "facts" the judge ruled on. To be fair, there were some differences. NewsMax reported that children were required to play "jihad (holy war) games"--in fact the game was a "haaj (pilgrimage) game"--in terms of the religious content, this may be a distinction without a difference, but at least they weren't advocating Islamic violence.

Moreover, students were not "required" to choose a muslim name or wear Islamic garb as has been reported--they were "encouraged" to do so. NewsMax also reported that this was an "intensive three-week course in California government schools," making it sound as though this module is taught to every California seventh grader as a matter of state policy, when in fact it is not...the module at issue was not even used in every seventh grade world history class in the Excelsior School plaintiffs attended.

With these facts in mind, let's look at the judge's opinion...First of all, Judge Hamilton disposed of any thought that she was going to order the school to stop teaching the "interactive educational module" regarding Islam. Both of the named child-plaintiffs had completed the course, and would never be in seventh grade history again, and so the judge ruled that, insofar as they sought an injunction against the school to stop the teaching of the module, they no longer presented a "live case or controversy" and therefore were not entitled to the equitable relief of a court order prohibiting the use of the module...the claim was moot.

Though not entitled to equitable relief, however, the students were also suing the school district, the superintendent, the teachers of seventh grade history, and Excelsior's principal for damages. The court found the superintendent and the district immune from suit, as they were acting only in their official capacities, and the Eleventh Amendment bars damage claims against state agencies acting officially. At this stage, therefore, only nominal damage claims against the teachers and the principal for violation of the Constitution remained in the suit.

According to the opinion, "All parties agree that the school district is entitled to teach students a basic history of Islamic religion and culture. The parties instead dispute whether role-playing games, and the details of this particular role-playing game, are a proper way to do so."

According to the court, the Establishment Clause is violated if: 1) a school coerces a student into participating in religious activities, even if the coercion is subtle and indirect, and even if students may opt out of the activity, or; 2) the activities in question advance or endorse a particular religion.

The remainder of this post will cover the court's analysis of the first Establishment Clause test--whether the students were coerced into participating in religious activities.

In discussing the first test, the court avoided having to analyze whether the Eklund children had been coerced into participating in the educational module because, according to the court, the activities in question did not rise to the level of participating in religious activities. The court reasoned that an objective observer would not have considered the students "to have performed any actual religious activities in their seventh grade world history class." They did not actually proclaim the "Shahada", pray five times a day facing Mecca, donate to charity as an act of faith, fast for the whole month of Ramadan, or make a real pilgrimage to Mecca. They only "approximated" these activities.

The court noted that the Ninth Circuit has already held that it is acceptable to discuss witchcraft and instruct students to pretend to cast magic spells, since these are just "fantasy activities...that happen to resemble religious practices." Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified Sch. Dist., 27 F.3d 1373, 1382 (9th Cir. 1994).

The court also stated that, if there was a subjective lack of spiritual intent on the part of the students, an objective observer would not conclude that "religious activity" was taking place. In other words, if the children's state of mind is not "worshipful" toward the activity, there is no "religious activity."

Frankly, I find this analysis incredible. First of all, even a "moment of silence" has been held to constitute religious activity, as has saying "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance in Judge Hamilton's very Circuit. Yet the recitation of portions of muslim prayers, symbolic fasting and charitable donation are not. The court seemed to make much of the fact that, although the students did a portion of activities that would be Islamic, they never did the complete Islamic rituals...apparently, anything short of actually proclaiming the divinity of Allah, praying five times a day facing Mecca, fasting for a month, charitably donating as an act of faith, and traveling to Mecca is permissible. In the court's words, the activities were "analogous...[but]...not actually the Islamic religious rites."

Then, the court buttresses it's argument by saying that "'fantasy activities...that happen to resemble religious practices'" are not religious exercises violative of the Establishment Clause. (Quoting Brown). While claiming to use an objective test, the court is really saying that whether or not activities will pass constitutional muster will depend on whether the court finds the practice in question to be a "fantasy activity" or "real religion"...a highly subjective factual inquiry that calls into question whether the court should ever have entertained these motions for summary judgment.

Finally, the idea that a "subjective lack of spiritual intent" by the students establishes that no religious activities tool place is laughable. The whole purpose of this prong of the Establishment Clause test is to ensure that student are not coerced into religious activities. Their "spiritual intent" or lack thereof should not be material to the test, since obviously people being coerced lack the requisite intent the court would require.

Nonetheless, the court concluded that there was no religious activity and therefore no coercion into religious activity.

The Eklunds' still had one more arrow in their quiver...the court could find that, even if there was no religious activity, the unit advanced or endorsed Islam...

Tomorrow--Endorsement of Islam?

Thanks to Mudville Gazette and Wizbang

Crossposted from Is It Just Me? who will be a contributor at the new site

Confusion is a state of mind... Or is it? David Schroer, a former Colonel with the Army Rangers who had 450 parachute jumps to his credit and was a terrorist specialist who oversaw a 120 member organization that advised the Bush government, is out a job because he really isn't David, he is Diane trapped in David's manly body.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court alleging transgender discrimination, ACLU attorneys say that a job DAVID was offered and accepted, from the Congressional Research Service within the Library of Congress after leaving the military, was denied HIM after HE revealed HIS intentions to what would have been HIS new boss that HE would be DIANE in the near future. HE was informed by HIS "almost" boss that HE wouldn't be a "good fit" the next day.

'"The government was perfectly happy to let Schroer risk life and limb to fight terrorism, yet now that she's female, Schroer has been told that she's unfit even to research terrorism," said Art Spitzer, legal director of the ACLU in the Washington area."'

It is a known fact that an individual's ability to be compromised, leading to a breech in security through intimidation or threats is something taken very seriously by government entities. It would appear that under the circumstances, DAVID's potential boss was not initially informed of HIS intentions to become DIANE. That DAVID could become DIANE, leaves one to question the psychological stability of David. The job in question would be that of handling sensitive military and government material. The ramifications of David's revelations to his boss were obvious - if David could withhold personal information of such magnitude to get a job - essentially presenting a completely different face from his (her?) true nature, there is the question of what other areas of DAVID/DIANE were yet to be revealed. The boss had no choice, gender identity had nothing to do with it. The truth element and the psychological element were the basis for making the decision to not embrace DIANE with open arms.

In the article from the AP, it was not made clear whether DAVID or DIANE filed the lawsuit. It was also not revealed, of the 450 parachute jumps David made, how many times he landed on his head. This is just another example of the ACLU supporting one person's personal agenda under the auspice of "civil" liberties, which undermines the integrity of national security of the entire U.S.

As I began discussing in my last post, I was reading Cao's piece the other day, "Jailed Terrorist Helps Draft Anti-Christian Rules," and I thought it was pretty interesting. But I thought it might be even more interesting if I could actually read the court papers, so I obtained a copy of Judge Phyllis Hamilton's decision in Eklund v. Byron Union School District, so I could figure out if what the judge actually said is as bad as what has been reported.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the first two pillars of Islam, the "Shahada" (profession of faith in Allah) and and "Salaat" (prayer) were taught by requiring the students to learn lines from muslim prayers. The students were also required to learn the other three "pillars" of Islam--"Ramadan" (ritual fasting), "Zakaat" (charity), and "Haaj" (pilgrimage to Mecca). The court made the following factual findings (italicized quotes are from the court opinion):

"For the third and fourth pillars, Carlin (the teacher, not George) also required students to give up things for a day, such as watching television or eating candy, to demonstrate the Islam principle of Ramadan, or fasting. (Citations omitted). Carlin also required students to perform volunteer community service...in conformance with the Muslim requirement of Zakaat, or charitable donation..."Finally, to demonstrate the fifth pillar of Haaj...Carlin had the students participate in a board game, called 'Race to Makkah.'"...(Apparently, in "Race to Makkah," students are asked to identify religious statements about Islam as "trivia," "truth," or "fact" in order to move around the board to Mecca.)...

"Certain 'truth' or 'fact' cards included statements of religious faith such as 'The Qu'ran...is God's third revelation that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad,' or 'The Holy Qu'ran is God's word as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad through the Archangel Gabriel,' without any qualifying language such as 'Muslims believe...' prefacing the statement.

"As part of the final [exam], Carlin required students to write an essay critiquing elements of Islamic culture. The essay assignment stated, 'BE CAREFUL HERE -- if you do not have something positive to say, don't say anything!!!'" (Capitals and triple exclamation points in original).

Putting aside my own feelings about Islam and my own feelings about how incorrect the Supreme Court is in its current interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, it is almost impossible to imagine that a court could find that this treatment of Islam in a public school passes Constitutional muster.

Let's try this with Christianity as our model...We start by "encouraging" all the students take "Christian" names (oh, didn't I mention that? Although it wasn't "required" the students were "encouraged" to choose muslim names to "facilitate role-playing.") "So, um, Muhammad, you're "Peter"--yeah, the Apostle--uh, Kim Lee, you're Joseph...chill out, this is just to facilitate role-playing...what are we role-playing?"

"We're going to start with role-playing that you believe in Jesus as your personal savior...say, 'For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' Yes, it's on the final."

"Ok, Muham..., uh Peter, now you baptize Kim, er, Paul...Say, 'I baptize you, my brother, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' YES, it will be on the final!"

"Now I will read a short passage from 1 Corinthians 11 on partaking of the Lord's table, and then for snack time we will be having some crackers and grape juice as we role-play the Lord's Supper...as we partake of snack time, keep in mind that the elements represent the broken body and shed blood of out Lord and Savior...uh, that Christians believe in, but there's no pressure here, gang, just role-playing...YES, IT WILL BE ON THE FINAL!!!"

Final Exam--Critique Christian culture--if you say anything bad, you will fail...

Yeah, that would fly...

Next: The court's legal reasoning in finding this activity passed constitutional muster.

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway

Stuff You Should Know has tagged me with a stupid Meme! They obviously didn't realize just how much I hate Memes. But I will be a sport and play along. However, I'm going to do my best to kill this meme.

1) Total number of films I own on DVD/video: Not that many: 42
2) The last film I bought: A DVD of Bela Fleck and the Flecktones
3) The last film I watched: Revenge of the Sith
4) Five films that I watch a lot or that mean a lot to me:

Matrix
Passion of the Christ
Space Odessey 2001
Pink Floyd: The Wall
Pulp Fiction

5) Tag 5 people and have them put this in their journal/blog:

O.K. This is where I attempt to kill this meme! I'm passing it on to lefties!

Joseph
Gun Toting Liberal
Kevin
Tom
and our newest fan Jason

Hopefully this will kill the meme. If not, have fun guys!

This week's StopTheACLU blogburst was to complain about what we don't like about the ACLU. Since "everything" isn't really all that entertaining I thought it might be more interesting to do it in song. I know it's supposed to be up FOR Thursday and this is really the end of Thursday (I'm in California) but hey...better late than never. I hope you like it. If you don't, you're probably some pinko, patchouli stinking socialist anyway. In which case...screw you hippy.

Stop the ACLU by John Martin of XtremeRightWing.net
Sung to the tune of L-O-V-E by Nat King Cole

A is for the way you Always sue
C the Communism you pursue
L is for Liberty, that you trample daily
U are redefining, our rights with legal whining

Break the crosses off memorials
Don't rest until Communism rules
They're for prostitution
They say it's in the Constitution
Let's Stop the A-C-L-U

{kazoo instrumental - Use your imagination.}

A is for the way you Always sue
C the Communism you pursue
L is for Liberty, that you trample daily
U are redefining, our rights with legal whining

Child molesters will be roaming free
Say goodbye to Christianity,
Teenage girl's abortions
Will increase in great proportions
Let's Stop the A-C-L-U

A is for the way you Always sue
C the Communism you pursue
L is for Liberty, that you trample daily
U are redefining, our rights with legal whining

The other day I was reading Cao's piece, "Jailed Terrorist Helps Draft Anti-Christian Rules", and it was pretty interesting--so as a follow-up I thought I would dig up just exactly what what was going on in the Byron Union School District vis-a-vis the muslim religion.

In case you don't know, the lawsuit, Eklund v. Byron Union School District, involved a parent's objections to the methods used in the teaching of Islam to seventh graders in the public schools in California, particularly in the Excelsior School of the Byron Union School District. Judge Hamilton, a notoriously activist judge, granted summary judgment to the school district.

Here are some of the facts of Eklund, according to the court, not according to any of the interested parties (you can have our own view of whether the court was actually an "interested" party--I'm just saying these aren't the facts according to the ACLU or the Plaintiffs--they are the uncontested facts the judge used in granting the School District's motion for summary judgment). The italicized portions below are directly from Judge Hamilton's opinion:

"The California State Board of Education requires that seventh grade world history classes contain a unit on Islamic history, culture, and religion (citations omitted)...The state has approved a standard textbook, Across the Centuries, which is used by the Byron School District, but Excelsior teachers are also encouraged to use other instructional methods that they in their professional judgment feel best serve their students.

"Accordingly, some teachers have chosen to supplement the Islam unit with portions of an interactive educational module. This module...suggests a variety of role-playing activities to engage students in the subject matter. The module is premised on having students role-play situations roughly equivalent to the five elements of faith in the Muslim religion."

Note--Although the Plaintiffs in this case challenged only the "interactive educational module," and not the textbook itself, the Across the Centuries textbook is currently the subject of an Administrative Complaint against the San Luis Coastal School District--Plaintiff in that case asserts that even the textbook violates the First Amendment, inasmuch as it contains unqualified statements "of fact," such as:

"The Arabic word Quran can be loosely translated as 'recitation." In fact, the very first word the angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad was "Recite."

"Ramadan is a holy time, because in this month Muhammad received his first message from Allah."

"From Jerusalem, both Muhammad and Gabriel ascended into heaven, where Muhammad spoke to God." (new paragraph) "These revelations confirmed both Muhammad's belief in one God, or monotheism, and his role as the last messenger in a long line of prophets sent by God. The God he believed in - Allah - is the same God of other monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity."

Back to the court: "The Student Guide (distributed by the teacher, Carlin, to the students) states that '[f]rom the beginning [of this module], you and your classmates will become Muslims.' Id. Carlin states that she went over the guide in great detail and specifically emphasized...that the students would not actually become Muslims through their participation...(brackets in original).

"Students...were also encouraged, but not required, to choose a Muslim name...."For the first two pillars of Islam, Carlin admits that, in the classroom, she read Muslim prayers and portions of the Qu'ran aloud in class, required student groups to recite a line from a Muslim prayer, such as 'In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful,' on their way out of class, and had the students make group banners." (Bold supplied). Note--The first two pillars of Islam are "Shahada"--professing faith in the muslim god, and "Salaat"--prayer 5 times a day. Pronouncing the Shahada is all that is required to become a muslim, by the way.

Hmmm...I wonder if a teacher recited the Lord's prayer in class and required the students to say a line or two of it on their way out the door, the court would find that unobjectionable...or if "role-playing" Baptism and Communion would pass muster. There's more, that's just some of the facts of the case through page 4 of the 22-page opinion, and I want to get to the rest of it (and I will), but I'm going to post this for now, just to get a sense of what people think of the actual facts of the case...I will continue with "Pillars" 3-5 later this evening.

You can share your posts at the Outside The Beltway's Traffic Jam and Mudville Gazzette's Open Post! A thank you to these two great blogs! Go share a link! I am!

I only recently became politically active. I guess 911 woke me up. I can remember being aware of the ACLU every every Christmas season as they tried to rid the public square of references to Christ, the very reason of the celebration of the holiday. This angered me, but I ignored it as enjoyed the time with my family, and I didn't hear much about the organization through the rest of the year. I didn't really watch the news in those days anyway.

After 911 my political awareness became atuned. I watched as Bush took control of the situation, and lifted the spirit of Americans of all political sides. It felt good, we were all united. And I watched as election season approached as the left started changing the rhetoric to the point that I saw their true evil nature.

I first started getting angry at the ACLU's actions watching Bill O'Reilly. I don't agree with him all of the time, but he is right on about the ACLU. He does a good job exposing their radical agenda.

As election season rolled on I discovered freerepublic which really kept me aware of the ACLU's actions. I finally got fed up, and concluded that I couldn't think of any other organization more dangerous to our society than the ACLU. That is when I became active. I researched them, and started posting about them at freerepublic. I have quite an extensive ping list there. On that ping list there were some of us, loboinok, ACLUBulldozer, Dethanial, and Wayne who joined Stop The ACLU.Org and started discussing ways to fight the ACLU in their discussion group. We picked up Kender somewhere along the way. To make a long story short...commercials were our first idea, and we soon found it would be quite expensive. $30,000.00 for a 30 second spot on O'Reilly. So Bulldoze The ACLU Store came first. The blog soon followed.

So, now! What do I despise the most about the ACLU? Well, I'll get to that. But first...what you, my readers think? I put a poll up recently that posed the question, "What Do You Dislike The Most About The ACLU?" With over 100 votes... The results are in!

The winner is....(drum roll)....."Dislike? I just have an overall hatred of this organization!!" This won with 66% of the vote. Followed by their defense of NAMBLA at 8%! And while I agree these are good reasons to hate the ACLU...I voted for neither of these.

If I had to pick one thing that I despise the most about the ACLU it would be their overal attitude towards children. It makes me sick to my stomach. It's policy to legalize child porn, defense of child molesters, their support for baby killers combined just make me sick. And that is just a sample.

If I had to pick a second choice it would be defense of terrorists and their treasonous nature.

Third would be their outright hatred of Christianity. The list is endless from their Communist founding to their lack of defense of the second amendment.

So the winning selection in my poll is not suprising. You can't ignore what the combination of ACLU positions has on the average attitude of a mainstream American. And I almost made this choice as my vote in the poll.

But there is one thing that sickens me more than all of the ACLU policies put together, and that is.....the fact that my tax money pays them to act on them!

Thank goodness their are officials that understand this, and there is new legislation just introduced to the House. So if you too are tired of paying the ACLU, contact your reps and tell them to support HR 2679!

Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off The Taxpayer's Dole

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
Euphoric Reality
The Right Dominion

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!

It seems the ACLU are by no means finished with their dirt-digging exercise at the expense of the FBI:

A series of FBI inquiries across the country shows that the agency has sunk back into the kind of political monitoring it did in the 1960s and 1970s, says the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ah, yes. The 1960s and 70s; that notorious period in which sinister government agencies cracked down so hard on civil liberties that the left were barely able to come up with the anti-Vietnam movement, radical feminism, Roe vs. Wade, gay rights, hippies, freely-available porn, and -- Oh. Wait. The left were actually having a ball back then, weren't they?

"They are conducting investigations based on groups' political activities and affiliations, or their religious affiliations," she said. "Under our Constitution, government is supposed to have cause to believe that you are involved in criminal activity before they put you under investigation."

You have to give card-carrying Democrat and Naral-activist Lieberman her due -- She certainly knows how to whip her nutty supporters into a frenzy of paranoia ... Only, the real question is what proof she has the FBI have behaved badly?

Fourteen individuals and nine organizations, all represented by the ACLU branch in St. Louis, filed requests under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act on May 18, seeking any investigative files the FBI may have about them. The ACLU also filed one for itself.
[...]
Lieberman says she believes that at least some of those who filed the requests have been investigated improperly and that obtaining the FBI's files on them will reveal whether that is true of all.

... But the FBI haven't actually released any of the dreaded files yet? So this whole story is based on -- What? -- the ACLU's fear that someone may or may not have investigated their clients? Because, as newsworthy stories go, this is a bit on the ... um ... thin side, isn't it? I mean, after all that stuff about civil rights and the Constitution, anyone not reading carefully might have concluded that the ACLU had some concrete evidence.

Here's Muhammad Nur Abdullah, imam of the Islamic Foundation of St. Louis and one of the ACLU's new clients. Somewhat unintentionally, he sums up the problem I'm having:

"You don't know what is there," he said. "We don't know what they have, whether it is right or wrong."

Well, Muhammad's got a point here, hasn't he? Perhaps the St. Louis FBI have been unjustly investigating Muslims in his city. Or perhaps they haven't. Or perhaps they're all high-functioning schizophrenics who've convinced themselves attendees of the mosque in question are being controlled by death-rays from Pluto.

The point is that until the ACLU have actually read the files in question, Lieberman really has no idea what they contain. So why is she involving the press at this point in time? Hmm? Did her parents forget to run the line about patience being a virtue past her when she was a child? Or is it that if the files don't reveal any illegal practices, the ACLU will have lost a golden opportunity to make a fuss about the treatment of Muslims by the Feds?

See, whatever you might think of the ACLU (insert expletive here _______), they do have a certain reputation in the public eye. They're lawyers. They do business by presenting evidence in court. So, when the ACLU sue a football team for saying prayers before a game, most people will assume that the 'offending' prayers have, at least, taken place. When they try to get a death-row inmate off the hook by claiming a jury were prejudiced because he was handcuffed in court, it will likewise be assumed that handcuffs were, indeed, worn.

Yet in this instance, the entire story amounts to nothing but the ACLU's request for files. It's smoke, but there's no fire.

What's more, this is the second time in a week the ACLU have been caught stirring up the idea that the U.S. government persecutes Muslims. Last time around, they were whining about allegations made by Gitmo inmates. This provided apologists for Newsweek's Koran-down-the-toilet story with the ability to mount an 'unproven, but true' defence of the magazine. Yet. All the ACLU actually provided were two-year-old transcripts of Islamonazi complaints which had already been investigated and disproved.

These two incidents seem to signal a worrying shift in ACLU strategy -- Instead of bothering to present hard evidence in a courtroom, they're now dropping the facts completely and running to the press with no more than rumours and half-baked allegations. This is a low tactic, even by their standards.

(Cross-Posted at Rottweiler Puppy)

Killrighty had brought up concerns with Hostettler's new bill that would help keep your tax money out of the hands of the ACLU. He asked a very good question!

"Would this bill’s effect would be to deny first amendment protection to the poor who would then be unable to sue to have their rights protected if they are unable to afford an attorney out of pocket?"

I'm happy to say that I have an answer! I talked to a legislative aid to one of the co-sponsor's of the bill. This bill is specifically designed towards "establishment clause" cases, and would not apply to "free exercize clause" cases. In other words, it would help curb groups like the ACLU from violating people's right to express their religion in the public sphere. It does not stop their ability to do so, but takes your money out of their hands if they do so. Furthermore, it could not be used in a case against an individual expressing their religion. So the poor people need not worry about attorney fees if their right to free exercize of their religion comes about. This legislation would not affect them. It will however affect the ACLU pocketbook! So go....

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

Share your links at Outside The Beltway

More good news! It looks like our nation's largest veterans organization is throwing in its support for Rep. John Hostettler's newly proposed Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA),and are urging all Americans to support it!

“The 1976 Civil Rights Attorney’s Fee Awards Act was much needed legislation, but in recent years, certain groups have abused the congressional intent of this public law in ‘Establishment Clause’ lawsuits against the Boy Scouts of America, the Ten Commandments, and now veterans’ memorials, ” said Thomas P. Cadmus, National Commander of The American Legion. “And it is time to fix it!”

“Exorbitant attorney fees awarded by Courts to be paid by American taxpayers has become the newest ‘Sword of Damocles’ strategically employed by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to coerce settlements by cities, counties, states, and large organizations like the Boy Scouts of America and the Department of Defense by suits and threats of lawsuits against any public expression of America’s religious history, heritage, and values,” Cadmus said. “When out-of-court settlements are more cost effective than the judicial process, then the system is clearly broken.”Source

I couldn't agree more. The ACLU has taken a law that was meant for good, and turned it on its head. Instead of protecting the poor, as the law was designed to do, the ACLU use it to their advantage as they threaten small schools and communities that can not afford the costs if they lose a battle against the ACLU.

By the way, while "reasonable attorney's fees" is what it's called in the statute, the ACLU pockets hundreds of thousands of tax dollars through these cases...$790,000 to stop the Boy Scouts from using Balboa Park in San Diego for a summer camp, for instance.

“Enough is enough!” Cadmus declared. “The American Legion fully supports legislation introduced today by Representative Hostettler, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA). It will remove the chilling effect on constitutionally protected free expression of religion in public areas by ending court-ordered attorney fees, or damages, in Establishment Clause cases – but only those cases. It does not bar anyone from filing an Establishment Clause lawsuit. It merely follows the general American rule that each party bears its own attorney fees in lawsuits, and removes the threat of court-ordered attorney fees or damages in Establishment Clause claims only. No other civil rights claim will be affected by this legislation”

“The American Legion believes the Public Expression of Religion Act will restore sanity in the judicial process,” Cadmus said. “With this bill, we take a giant step to stop an abuse of the Civil Rights Acts. I thank Rep. Hostettler and urge every member of Congress to sign on as a co-sponsor of this extremely important legislation.”Source

We here at Stop The ACLU also believe this bill is good, and long overdue. Help us fight the ACLU! I have contacted several of the sponsor's of this bill, and will let you know what I find out once they get back to me. I will do my best to keep you all updated on its status and answer questions you may have on it. I think it is a good thing that we have the American Legions on our side with this one. What an awesome organization they are.

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

Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off the Taxpayer's Dole The petition will be headed to Mr.Hostettler in the next few days!

Help us fund a nationwide march on all the ACLU offices nationwide. Shop The Bulldoze The ACLU Store