I just found this article: Make sure to go read the whole thing. It is long, but very interesting on how the Ford Foundation and the ACLU in the Open Borders Lobby. Perhaps Ford Foundation is due a boycott?

Here is a sample of The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation's Security After 9/11
Written by: William Hawkins and Erin Anderson

The ACLU's opening position on immigration is set forth in an essay by Steven R. Shapiro of the New York Civil Liberties Union and Wade Henderson of the ACLU’s D.C. office entitled “Justice for Aliens.” According to this document, the desire to limit immigration can only be attributed to “hostility, motivated by nativism, racism and red‑scare.” The authors argue “use of the word ‘alien’ is both precise and powerful. In almost a primitive sense, it draws a line between members of the community and those on the outside . . . . they can be treated unequally . . . . the Supreme Court has concluded that certain classes of aliens may not even claim the right to constitutional protection . . . illegal aliens are not entitled to government benefits . . . . The rationale for this limitation is not an economic one . . . . the refusal to grant these often life‑sustaining benefits can be explained only by a desire to punish illegal aliens for breaking the law.[17]

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the ACLU has redoubled its efforts to blur any distinction between citizens and non-citizens, and between legal and illegal immigrants. In Rhode Island, the ACLU protested the decision by the state government not to accept Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs) in place of Social Security Numbers when applying for a driver’s license. Anyone can get an ITIN, but only citizens have a Social Security card. The ACLU argument ran “As long as there is a substantial population of undocumented immigrants in the state, it makes little sense to deprive them of a license solely because of their immigration status.”[18] There is no mention that a state driver’s license is the most widely accepted identity document in America, and once gained becomes the method for completely blurring one’s alien status.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has urged officials to enact an ordinance opposing a Justice Department initiative that would give local and state police the power to enforce immigration laws. “While we expect local police to cooperate with federal authorities in apprehending anyone, including non-citizens, who is suspected of criminal activity,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, “local police should not be in the business of detaining or arresting law-abiding aliens based on their immigration status.”[19] Apparently entering the United States illegally is not breaking a law that the ACLU cares about, as an alien can still be considered “law abiding” having done so.

The ACLU has opposed any Department of Justice plan to fingerprint and track immigrants and foreign visitors to the United States. “The ACLU has long opposed immigrant registration laws, saying that they treat immigrant populations as a separate and quasi-criminal element of society and that they create an easy avenue for surveillance of those who may hold unpopular beliefs,” read a press release, “The fingerprinting and tracking proposal is only the latest Bush Administration action targeted at Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent since September 11. Other discriminatory measures have included round-ups, dragnet questioning, the detention of more than a thousand young men and the targeting of Middle Eastern communities for heightened enforcement of minor immigration law violations.”[20] The ACLU also opposes the use of immigration law violations as the means for holding or deporting suspects with ties to terrorism, and the use of secret or classified evidence in deportation hearings.

Headquartered in New York City, the ACLU has 53 staffed affiliates in major cities, more than 300 chapters nationwide, and a legislative office in Washington, D.C. The ACLU Foundation (ACLUF) is the national tax-deductible, 501(c)(3) arm of the ACLU. Its combined annual budget is approximately $45 million. The bulk of the annual budget is raised by contributions from individual members -- 275,000 strong -- plus grants from foundations. Eighty percent of the budget directly supports litigation, legislation and public education programs.

In 1999, the ACLU set up an endowment fund with an initial target of $25 million. A Ford Foundation grant of $7 million put the ACLU over the top in this fund-raising endeavor. “The ACLU has had no better partner and friend than the Ford Foundation,” said Ira Glasser, Executive Director of the national ACLU at the time, “It is fitting that the largest single gift to this effort, and in fact the largest gift ever to the ACLU, should come from Ford."[21]

When a nation is at war its ability to regulate and control its borders is a security matter of utmost importance. What should be being said by the MSM is that groups like the Minute Men are the moderates, and organizations like the ACLU are the extreme, and dangerous radicals. If you agree with me on this start emailing the MSM and sending them links to articles like this one from frontpage magazine.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin

It seems the ACLU continues to discredit itself by fighting all efforts for the U.S. to secure its borders. teaming up with three other groups to monitor attempts by Minuteman Project-style groups to do in California what the Minute Men managed to do in Arizona. One of the organizations is the American Immigration Lawyers Association. This organization was named a key member of the Open Borders Lobby in the pamphlet The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation's Security After 9/11. If that isn't enough, they are also directed by approximately 100 associates who also serve as members of the pro-Communist National Lawyers Guild.
The second organization is the The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association("The Race Lawyers Association"). If the name isn't enough to figure out what they are about take a look at their sister organizationMALDEF.
The third organization is quite interesting. The San Diego branch of the National Lawyers Guild: Michelle points out that:

The NLG was founded in 1936 by Communist Party USA (CPUSA) lawyers and liberal fellow-travelers. A watershed moment for the organization occurred in its third year, when its National Executive Board chose not to adopt an amendment to the NLG Constitution condemning dictatorship and supporting democracy - an amendment its Communist organizers called "divisive." "The real aims of the National Lawyers Guild," read a 1950 report by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, "as demonstrated conclusively by its activities, . . . are not specified in its constitution or statement of avowed purpose. In order to attract non-Communists to serve as a cover for its actual purpose as an appendage to the Communist Party, the National Lawyers Guild poses benevolently as 'a professional organization which shall function as an effective social force in the service of the people.'"

Sounds a lot like the ACLU's founding:

Its co-founder Roger Baldwin candidly stated, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it."

And if you still need a little more:

The head of the ACLU is also an adviser to the IFC and of course, ACLU is among the most important and dangerous members of the open borders combine, using its considerable resources in support of causes that will encourage illegal aliens to enter the US and facilitate their remaining here: granting them drivers' licenses to illegal aliens, granting instate tuition to illegals, welfare and free health care etc. The ACLU has even opposed rules to speed the deportation of illegals convicted of violent felonies.

And here is an ironic twist to things. Want to know what happens when its members break rank?

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico suspended its Las Cruces chapter Monday after learning that a member of the group's board was heading the formation of a Minuteman-style organization in New Mexico.

Gary Mitchell, a Ruidoso attorney and president of the ACLU board of directors, said the suspension of the southern chapter was a technical move to make sure the leader of the New Mexico Minutemen — a spinoff of the controversial civilian border patrol group the Minuteman Project — no longer had authority to act or speak on behalf of the ACLU.Source

Can some of you far-lefties please explain to me how the ACLU can support open borders, and defend terrorists? Make sure to see the full history of how they defend the enemy before you answer.

Others blogging about this Right Face
Undocumented Blog
Conservative-Thoughts
NY Girl

While the interpretation of the First Amendment differs greatly between conservatives and the far left, one thing is quite clear...Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercize of religion. While the far left like to focus on the establishment clause, and Conservative's like to focus on the free exercise Clause, there should be no argument when it comes to private property. As a matter of fact that is what one of our projects, CrossesaCrossAmerica is all about. Encouraging people to practice their Constitutional rights to express their religion. So the following article should be good news to Conservatives and Christian liberals alike.

WHITLEY CITY, Ky. - It's one of the more conspicuous road signs on U.S. 27, a scenic route that meanders through the Daniel Boone National Forest on its way to a popular recreational area on Lake Cumberland.

"WARNING. Jesus is coming. RU Ready?"

Such proclamations, already common throughout the Bible Belt, could proliferate along roadsides in reaction to a Supreme Court ruling barring displays of the Ten Commandments in two southern Kentucky courthouses, said Don Swarthout, head of the Kentucky-based Christians Reviving America's Values.

"People want to do something to reflect their principles, and that's one way they can legally do it," Swarthout said.

While some groups continue the fight for the right to post biblical passages in public buildings, others are enjoying their constitutional privilege to post them where they're certain to be seen - in places of prominence on private property along roads and interstate highways.

Some are opting for professional displays on billboards. Others are using hand-scrawled signs on lawns or in cow pastures. Yet others are attaching bumper stickers to their cars. Swarthout said far more people will see the outdoor displays than would see a posting inside a courthouse.

Jimmie Greene, a retired McCreary County judge-executive, said he put a placard of the Ten Commandments on his lawn, as did most of his neighbors, after a judge first ruled that the display in the courthouse had to come down.

"You should have seen it," he said. "The landscape was covered with Ten Commandments."

Swarthout said the turmoil involving the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings triggered the reaction by private property owners to show their support for the cause.

"People feel like that is something they can do that shows they feel strongly about the principles of Christianity," Swarthout said.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that such exhibits on government property must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure they don't violate the Constitution. Its ruling said, however, that southeastern Kentucky's McCreary and Pulaski counties went too far and promoted a religious message when they put framed copies of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls.

Officials first hung framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses in 1999 and later added other documents, such as the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence, after such displays were challenged as religious by the American Civil Liberties Union.

At the height of the controversy, residents of the two counties began putting blue-and-white Ten Commandments markers on their front lawns to show their support.

David Friedman, who successfully argued the ACLU's case before the Supreme Court, said Monday's ruling reaffirmed a core principle - "that government and religion should not become impermissibly entangled."

Friedman said the ACLU would vigorously pursue cases against other local governments that have posted the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

Speaking to reporters at his downtown Louisville law office, Friedman said he welcomed people celebrating and displaying the commandments, just not on government property.

"They should do it in their homes, in their religious institutions, on their cars, in their businesses and not through their government," he said. "The government is all of ours, and it can only be all of ours when it remains neutral."

Churches, especially, have been making use of their marquees to do just that through what's called sentence sermons.

"We're kind of a sound bite society," said L. James Harvey, of Grand Rapids, Mich., author of three books of sentence sermons. "I'm trying to convince churches that they have a drive-by congregation, and they can reach out to them with these messages and sometimes change a life."

The messages aren't limited to church marquees. Harvey said Christian businessmen are incorporating them into outdoor advertising.

"I just think people have a thirst for truth wherever they can find it," he said. "When people are in their cars, they're kind of a captive audience."

Jim Ratliff, owner of Lighthouse Christian Bookstore near Pikeville, said he is seeing strong sales of ornamental license plates that allow people to share their messages with other motorists.

"Got Jesus?," one asks. "God Is My Co-Pilot," another proclaims.

"Those license plates make as many statements as you could possibly make," Ratliff said.

Others prefer bumper stickers. For pedestrians, it's T-shirts adorned with a list of the Ten Commandments or messages like "Smile, God Loves You."

"It's about freedom of speech," Swarthout said. "It's about sharing principles for people to live by."Source
Thank youMudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway

The Omaha World-Herald revealed (in the Sunday July 3rd, 2005 edition) the identity of an atheist who sought to maintain his "John Doe" status as filed in his lawsuit against the city of Plattsmouth, NE over a Decalogue monument that is located in the city park. The 2001 lawsuit became "ACLU Nebraska and John Doe v. the City of Plattsmouth".

The Ten Commandments monument was erected in 1965 in a corner of Memorial Park and had been donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. In July of 2000, the atheist (a.k.a. John Doe) did not put in a personal appearance, but through the assistance of the local ACLU informed the city of Plattsmouth in a town council meeting that he would sue if the monument was not brought down. The city refused and the atheist and the ACLU filed suit in May of 2001.

At the time of the filing of the lawsuit the atheist and the ACLU attempted to block his identity, but this was later denied by a federal judge which allowed the Omaha World-Herald to identify "John Doe". The Omaha World-Herald did a thorough job in investigating the initiator of this lawsuit - not only showing a picture of him, but also revealing the make of his car and showing a picture of his vanity license plate (ATHEOS) in their article. Atheos is Greek meaning "godless".

It is now up to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to decide the fate of the monument.

As to the fate of the atheist, who had complained that he was threatened because of the lawsuit, his fate is sealed. John Doe, he is no more. The court has decided that in such a controversial lawsuit, he can not hide behind any wall of his and the ACLU's making.

Cross posted from Is It Just Me?

Thank you Mudville Gazette

We want to wish everyone a safe and happy Independence Day! Spend time with your family and friends celebrating the birth of the Greatest Nation on the planet. Thank God for blessing our Great Nation and granting us with our inalienable rights.

But as you do, remember the sacrafices being made on a daily basis by our young men and women in the military services to preserve the nation we are celebrating. You can help by visiting one of the following links and adding your support.

Wounded Warrior Project

Books For Soldiers

Operation Soldier

Operation Dear Abby

4 The Troops(Care packages)

Yellow Ribbon Campaign

Operation Hero Miles

Airforce Aid Society

Adopt A Soldier

Show Thanks

Support U.S. Troops(Care Packages)

Military Child Scholarship

Operation Mom

Say Thanks

Operation Uplink

Armed Forces Relief Trust

USO

We undertand that for some finances are tight. The members of the military, wounded veterans, and thier families would appreciate anything that you can do. Keep our troops in your prayers!

Happy Birthday America!! And now for some links to other patriotic bloggers around the sphere.

American Warmonger wants you to send him patriotic pictures for his 4th of July Blowout!
Time Hath Found Us has A Declaration of Independence from judicial tyranny.
Eagle Speak has a reminder of just why we are celebrating this holiday.
Pirate's Cove is doing some patriotic pin ups.
Ma deuce Gunner has a lesson we need to learn stateside on patience as he serves in Iraq.
American Soildervisits Arlington on his way home from the dessert.
Merri Musings has a great patriotic round up too.
Regular Ron sings America a birthday song.
Zaphriel is singing for us too.
Gun Toting Liberal has an interesting history lesson for the day.
Mudville Gazette is doing all kind of bloggin for the 4th!
Michelle Malkin tells us about happy founding terrorist day.
Black Five has Profiles of the servicemen who died in Afghanistan Tuesday.
Chrenkoff salutes the troops.
Euphoric reality has a 4th of July tribute and sings some Johnny Cash
Mudville Gazette has a lot more links with their 4th of July Dawn Patrol

I'm sure there are more that I missed. I did this at 3 a.m. so...anyway, if there are others out there who have patriotic posts they would like to share...don't worry about linking back to this post, just send me a trackback or leave us a link in the comments. Have a happy 4th of July everyone!

Carol, from American Housewife is mourning the death of her husband. Please take some time to go over and send her condolences. Donate if you can afford to, and definitely keep her and her family in your prayers.

In order to accomplish the agenda of reordering society, the ACLU focuses primarily on the courts. They understand that it its goal of political, economic, social, and cultural equality is most likely to be achieved through circumventing the will of the people, and that is why it is wary of taking its case to the executive and legislative branches of government. In today's world of judicial tyranny where the judicial branch acts as though it is the legislative branch, in essence writing laws instead of interpreting them, you can bet that the ACLU will use it to its advantage.

The ACLU's reliance on a judically active court explains why it views Supreme Court nominees with the utmost importance. There is probably nothing else that will galvanize the energy of the ACLU officials more than the appointment of a justice to the high court.

It is a matter of some saliency that until the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, the ACLU had a policy of not opposing any candidate for elected or appointed office. Bork officially changed all that, though he was not the first prospective justice the ACLU sought to discredit. In fact, the Union's disdain for judicial restraint anedates Bork by decades.

Even before the ACLU officially changed its policy regarding its refusal to take a stand on any candidates for elected or appointed office, it violated its own policy on nonpartisanship. For example, in 1971 the Union sent letters to each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee publicly attacking the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court.Twilight of Liberty

There are many examples of how the ACLU departs from its policy of nonpartisanship. The ACLU's "Stop Meese" campaign, a fundraiser against Attorney General Edwin Meese, and its practice of issuing bumper stickers such as "LONG LIVE JUSTICE(S) BLACKMUN, BRENNAN, MARSHALL. But it was the possibility of having Robert Bork on the Supremem Court that caused the ACLU to officially change its policy. The tactic the ACLU used to oppose Bork was ruthless, painting him as a "radical." Ira Glasser even went to the extent to say, "Had he (Bork) been around in the 18th century, he would have been against adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution."

Well, get ready, because the ACLU is preparing to go at it again! From The ACLU's Website:

ACLU Concerned O’Connor Replacement Will Roll Back Vital Civil Liberties Protections

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed great concern that the Bush administration will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her retirement today after more than two decades on the court, with a nominee whose judicial philosophy is fundamentally opposed to the progress made in protecting individual rights over the past century.

So, they hide nothing about it! They are concerned that it will be the Bush administration who will be doing the replacing. And you can pretty much take it to the bank, that they will oppose whoever Bush appoints, despite their credentials. Only in the way off chance that Bush appoints a liberal judge with similar views to the ACLU will they stay silent. And in today's atmosphere where we watch the democrats oppose and obstruct at every angle, and the fight between the filibuster and the nuclear option, that the far-left democrats will be chiming in right along with them.

"Justice O'Connor fully earned her reputation as a centrist; she was a conscientious jurist and, in a number of key cases, stood up for individual rights and against a radically conservative vision of the Constitution," said Steven Shapiro, ACLU Legal Director. "We are gravely concerned that President Bush will use this opportunity to nominate someone whose judicial philosophy is hostile to civil liberties."

The ACLU is preparing to hold a board meeting in the coming weeks to decide whether to oppose the Bush administration's nominee. As a matter of policy, the ACLU will only oppose nominees to the Supreme Court that are fundamentally hostile to civil liberties and will do so upon a vote of the board of directors. The national board of the ACLU has voted to oppose only two nominees in its history: Justice William Rehnquist and former solicitor general and law professor Robert Bork.

The ACLU just said they will only oppose nominees that are fundamentally hostile to civil liberties. This is strange coming from the most hostile organization to liberty in America. We will just wait and see on this one, but I'm sure the ACLU meant to say they will only oppose nominees that threaten their radical agenda.

Although her record on the court is mixed on civil liberties, Justice O'Connor has provided the crucial fifth vote in a number of cases implicating core civil liberties. For instance, she wrote the opinion upholding equal opportunity programs and the importance of diversity in college admissions in Grutter v. Bollinger.

She also wrote the opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in which the court ruled that an American citizen seized overseas as an "enemy combatant" must be allowed to challenge the factual basis of his or her detention before an independent arbiter. Affirming the rule of law even during times of national crisis, O'Connor wrote: "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

Although the majority opinion in Hamdi is far from perfect, it remains a strong rebuke of the Bush administration, which had argued for absolute power to detain American citizens seized overseas in military custody without charge, trial or access to counsel.

And in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, she broke with Chief Justice Rehnquist and other opponents of a woman's right to choose as part of a 6-3 majority in affirming Roe v. Wade.

This last paragraph helps clear up things for me. I see now that if the nominee has views that may be in opposition to their's on abortion that they will probably be labeled "hostile" to civil liberties. It's all becoming clear. Perhaps this is whyall of this liberal activism has already started.

Looking forward, the ACLU noted that O'Connor's replacement could directly affect the outcome of some of the most divisive legal questions facing America today history. The nominee could, for instance, reverse the court's growing discomfort with the death penalty; grant the president greater authority to detain Americans without charge, trial or access to counsel in the name of national security; and uphold troubling parts of the Patriot Act.

"The nomination battle for O'Connor's replacement comes at a critical moment for civil liberties," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "The stakes could be as high as they were during the Bork nomination battle of the 1980's."

I'm telling you folks, and if I'm wrong I know you'll let me know...get ready for a huge fight on this! Mark my words, the ACLU will get active on this. In today's world of judicial tyranny, as our freedom is attacked constantly through the judicial activism of the ACLU...we need to get active too. We need someone that will interpret the Constitution, not try to rewrite it as the ACLU wants. I'm telling you now that if the ACLU opposes Bush's nomination, in all likelyhood it will mean the nominee is in actuality a great choice. Be prepared to contact Congress on this.

Sweet Spirits of Ammonia also has an interesting take on all of this.

Help us raise money to advertise and organize a national march against the ACLU. Put a donation via paypal in my sidebar, or Purchase a T-shirt or bumper sticker from the Bulldoze The ACLU Store. The money will go towards our cause of fighting and exposing the radical agenda of this most dangerous organization. Thank you all for the support.

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Wizbang

# posted by loboinok @ 9:04 AM | | Pre Haloscan 0

Not only do we have to contend with the ACLU, but we still have to keep an eye on those who are former members. They are like the spores of some insidious fungus, released into the air and carried by the the wind. Where they land , the next generation of atheistic socialism sprouts and corrupts the area around it.

If Michael Bernard is named the next city attorney, San Antonio will pay the price. But, then it already lives with the nickname Berkeley Southwest. How sad for the cradle of Texas liberty.

From the San Antonio Express-News

Here's the latest bizarre news out of Berkeley Southwest:

Mayor Phil Hardberger is pushing City Manager Rolando Bono to name First Assistant District Attorney Michael Bernard the next city attorney.

Why is that bizarre?

Because a decade or so ago, Bernard then the president of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union earned his ACLU-hero stripes attacking City Hall's efforts to stem an ever-rising tide of horrific, gang-banger killings.

Bexar County Commissioner Lyle Larson, who was a city councilman during that tragic period of San Antonio history, was incredulous when he learned of Hardberger's Bernard-hawking campaign.

"He (Bernard) was the person who led the opposition to passing ordinances dealing with gang violence," Larson said Friday when I asked him about the latest Berkeley-esque move at City Hall. "In the early '90s, (street violence) was one of the biggest problems in the country and in San Antonio. We had close to 100 gang-related homicides in one year."

"We started looking at what other communities were doing to get a handle on the problem," Larson recalled, "and we found that they were passing graffiti laws, curfew laws, parental responsibility laws, etc.

"But anything we tried to get done was opposed by the local ACLU chapter.

"(Bernard) fought the city attorney's office continually, which cost the city a lot of time and a lot of money.

"Now the city is looking at putting him in that (city attorney) position.

"It's ironic."

After the City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting youths 16 and under from being on public streets between midnight and 6 a.m., Bernard filed suit against the city, alleging that the curfew violated the Texas Constitution.

Before that suit could be tried, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a similar legal challenge to a Dallas youth curfew.

At the time (May 1994), Bernard expressed disappointment in the decision and continued to bash the San Antonio ordinance despite a police department statistical study that showed that juvenile arrests and crimes against youths had dropped as a result of the curfew.

"It sounds good and makes people think (city officials are) doing something about crime. But they aren't," Bernard harrumphed.

Nevertheless, he and his fellow ACLUers reluctantly dropped their suit and allowed the curfew to stand.

During a Friday interview about the City Council/ACLU confrontation, Bernard accurately recalled that the "court ultimately resolved (the Dallas case) by deciding that curfews were fine ... the issue was resolved in favor of municipalities." As a result, San Antonio "didn't have a court battle over it."

Asked how he would handle the matter today as city attorney, he said, "The law is quite clear that cities can impose curfews. I would tell (council members) they could do that."

That probably won't do much to change Commissioner Larson's mind about Mayor Hardberger's "ironic" choice for city attorney.

Nor will it prevent the use of stronger adjectives like "daffy," "dotty" and "dippy" by less diplomatic critics of the new king of Berkeley Southwest.

***Please credit CourtZero.org***

This is just sort of odd. I'm going to see if I can look this guy up and interview him.

Back in April of 2004, SCOTUS decided that the non-denominational lunchtime prayer at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was unconstitutional.

The two plaintiffs, from class of 2002, sued over the prayer with the ACLU. One of the plaintiffs, Neil Mellen joined the Peace Corps just after graduating from VMI.
peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/2019431.html

But that's not the odd part. The other plaintiff, Paul Knick, is now a Sunday School teacher:

Quote:

---

Paul Knick is at Barksdale AFB in Shreveport, Louisiana and is working with Charles Ransom ’01. Paul was married this past December at Lee Chapel in Lexington. He is teaching Sunday school and enjoying his time in the Air Force. Paul’s brother will be matriculating this August as member of the Class of 2007.

---

users.ju.edu/sjoyce/classnotes/view.asp?id=22
Not only is this young man serving in the armed forces, but after having sued VMI for being outraged over prayer, he is teaching Sunday School and his younger brother is attending the outrageous institution.

I find that interesting. I know that there is a difference between public prayer and a private Sunday School class (unless, of course, he is teaching in the chapel on the Air Force base), but any way you look at it there is some irony here. I wonder how this young officer's thoughts have evolved, and if he might think he was exploited by the ACLU.

If anyone knows how to get in touch with Lieutenant Knick, let me know.

Here are a few things I found around the net that caught my interest.

Ann Coulter has an excellent piece titled THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT RELIGION. Here is a little excerpt from that.

That's the America you live in! A country founded on a compact with God, forged from the idea that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights is now a country where taxpayers can be forced to subsidize "artistic" exhibits of aborted fetuses. But don't start thinking about putting up a Ten Commandments display. That's offensive!

I don't want to hear any jabberwocky from the Court TV amateurs about "the establishment of religion." (1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion — meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion. We've been through this a million times.

Now the Supreme Court is itching to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because of its offensive reference to one nation "under God." (Perhaps that "God" stuff could be replaced with a vulgar sexual reference.) But with the court looking like a geriatric ward these days, they don't want to alarm Americans right before a battle over the next Supreme Court nominee. Be alarmed. This is what it's about.

Mr. Minority has an excellent series of posts on Liberty. Here is a small quote from there...make sure to go and read the whole series.

"Now, not tomorrow, is the time to cast off the Bonds of Tyranny that the Gov't has shackled it's people with." - Mr Minority

Yes, I created that last quote, and yes, I feel that America is being bound by unjust laws, we are seeing the erosion of our God Given Rights, being shackled with Nanny Laws and the Morality of our Nation is being flushed down the toilet of secular humanism.

Oddybobo would like to take Sandra O'Conners place. Spread the word on this. Wouldn't it be great to have a fellow blogger in a position like this. And her credentials for the position are quite commendable.

This is some great stuff. How the ten commandments and the Bible has impacted American Law.

I'm suffering from a little writer's block, so I thought I'd just be lazy and link to others today. I hope you all are enjoying this holiday weekend. Thank you all for the support.

Thank you to Mudville Gazette's Open Posts and Outside The Beltway's Traffic Jam.