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

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!

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.

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

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!

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.....

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