Stop The ACLU

Supreme Judges or Supreme Cowards?

2008-12-09T11:52:00.004-05:00

The United States Supreme Court has denied the lawsuit challenging the authenticity of Sen. Barrak Obama to be President of the United States on the basis of that his father was a British subject, and it is believed that he was born in Kenya, not in the United States.

The Court is scheduled to meet once more to debate this subject and decide whether or not to hear arguments concerning Obama's ineligibility, and the fact that his real birth certificate has never been made public.

The case is actually about the fact that Obama and his team have worked overtime to thwart the legal requirements that all other Presidents have had to comply with, and violate the very Constitutional rule of law by refusing to produce official documents, and calling the public's attempts to force compliance through the courts, garbage.

The integrity of the Constitution, and our legal system stands to suffer irreparable damage if Obama is allowed to get away with not complying with the legal requirements.

Seems to me that Obama and his team have an attitude problem in which they believe that they can break whatever laws they want to get what they want, but then again these are Democrats we are talking about here, self explanatory!

The real issue now lye's on the heads of the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the law and the Constitution, and not give the outside pressure from liberals to just let it go, and allow Obama to take office with a black cloud hanging over his head.

My question is this. Is the Supreme Court chicken?? Have they turned into the court of supreme cowards who don't dare to make an unpopular ruling that might result in a backlash from socialist liberals? Are they afraid of causing riots in the streets as pissed off Obama supporters have their knee jerk reactions? Or are they trying to make nice to the new President Elect so he won't seek retribution on them?

I think the Supreme's are scared to stand up and take the heat. Too many women on the court, not enough testicles!!

They should order the Governor of Hawaii to unseal the Obama birth certificate, obtain copies of the documents, and certify that is either natural born, or not!
Either he is fully eligible to be President, or he had sought the highest office in the land illegally, and his bid for the White House is nullified. Then we simply have a run off election and choose a new person to be our President who is honest and upfront, and not a socialist nightmare.

Back Up Blog

2008-12-08T22:45:00.003-05:00

This will be our back up blog,and will be updated from more frequently than before.

Stop The ACLU Down

2006-03-07T06:52:00.000-05:00

Stoptheaclu.com is having some major issues right now due to a DOS attack. My server has been less than helpful. I may be taking today off from posting in order to concentrate on getting the old site back up. Please bear with us. Thank you for the support, Jay

The Day of The Martyr: Martin Luther King Jr.

2006-01-16T14:01:00.000-05:00

Gateway Pundit: A Child's Book That Helped Shape America & The World

ACLU's War Against National Security

2005-11-17T00:53:00.000-05:00

I will now be using this site as a backup/crosspost site. For our new site, please go to Stoptheaclu.com

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

In conjunction with the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the ACLU has lobbied hard against Arab-profiling at airports for years. “Profiles are notoriously under-inclusive,” says ACLU legislative counsel Gregory Nojeim. “Who knows who the next terrorist will appear as? It could be a grandmother. It could be a student. We just don’t know.”Source

The airline industry’s fear of such lawsuits is based on solid historical precedent. In 1993, for instance, the ACLU joined forces with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) to sue Pan American World Airways for having detained a man of Iranian descent during the first Persian Gulf War.

So, the ACLU says political correctness trumps common sense. They block that route of securing ourselves from being blown up. What to do? Hmmm.. I've got it! Lets do random searches!

ACLU Files Suit Over Random Subway Searches.The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the New York chapter of the ACLU, has announced that they intend on filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan today. The suit claims that the random bag searches before boarding the subway system is unconstitutional.

City lawyers have noted that an al-Qaida training manual advising terrorists to avoid police checkpoints gives the city some justification for its random searches of bags entering the subway system.

Ok, so the ACLU says no profiled searches, and no random searches. What about searches across the board? Nope. Raymond James Stadium tried it, and the ACLU sued. So, where does that leave us with searches? I think we can conclude that the ACLU are against all searches. Is this because they stand by the principle of the fourth amendment? The irony and hypocrisy here is that, the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search. Apparantly their war against searches is not based on principle.

But searches are not the only that brings criticism on the ACLU on the topic of National Security.

The ACLU and CAIR have actually taken up quite a number of cases together. In 2003, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU awarded its yearly “Liberty Flame Award” to the Ohio chapter of CAIR “for contributions to
the advancement and protection of civil liberties.” This same Ohio chapter, in August of this year, refused contributions from the United Way, as to not complete a required counterterrorism compliance form.

But it isn't isolated to one rouge chapter.

In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.

“The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”

The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.

What is this all about?

Although its website proclaims that it does not receive “any government funding,” it does get money from a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions. Last year it got $470,000 from the program. (The ACLU’s 2002 annual budget, the most recent available, was $102 million.)

Now it had a choice: give up the money, or sign a promise certifying that the ACLU “does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on” government watch lists of suspected supporters of terrorism.

Trouble was, the ACLU had strongly opposed the lists, saying they were often inaccurate and violated the constitutional rights of some people.

But it really hated the idea of giving up the money.Source

So what did they do? Well, at first they decided they would try to trick the government. They decided to keep the money, AND keep hiring anyone they pleased, by what Nadine Strossen called a “clever interpretation.” Their solution was that if they remained ignorant of who was on the list, then they couldn’t “knowingly” hire anyone on the list. Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, tells the New York Times: “I’ve printed [the lists] out. I’ve never consulted them.”

To make a long story short, when The New York Times outted them, they caved in. But they didn’t cave in to the government, they just decided to forgoe the money, so they could still ignorantly hire people on the government watchlist. Isn’t that nice?

However, this isn't the end. The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations successfully challenged Office of Personnel Management’s Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) requirements that all participating charities check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for “terrorist activities” and that organizations certify that they do not contribute funds to organizations on those lists. This is something the ACLU finds worthy of celebrating. In my opinion this is reason to be suspicious of what the ACLU does with its funds.

It isn't a far fetched idea to wonder if the ACLU uses its funds to support terrorism. The ACLU's history is tainted in this arena.

In 1985 Samuel L. Morrison, an employee of the Naval Intelligence Support Command was convicted and sentenced for stealing classified spy satellite photographs from his office, cutting off the “secret” designation and selling them to a foreign publication. The ACLU claimed that Morrison had the right to steal and sell these classified documents and the under the First Amendment.

Positions like these might be easier to understand if we look at ACLU Policy #117. They title this policy “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies”. ”

Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluating foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations. Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by eliminating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.

Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries. Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records….”

The ACLU Defends the P.L.O.

“I’m afraid even the good guys on civil liberties are going to be against us on this one.” Those are the words of ACLU Executive director Ira Glasser on the ACLU’s decision to represent an agent of Yassir Araftat’s Palestine Liberation Organization.
I wonder if his definition of “good guys” meant American citizens who care about their country and are not willing to grant sworn terrorists complete freedom within our borders. If so, he is absolutely correct. We are against that one.
“Arafat’s group of ruthless murderers had set up an “information office” in Washington D.C, only a few blocks from the White House.

The ACLU Defends "Mad Dog" of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi.

“In 1985, the ACLU learned of an alleged plan by the CIA to engineer Qaddafi’s overthrow. Outraged, they put together a “strenuous” public protest against this proposed action.

In a letter fillled with self-righteous indignation, Morton Halperin, Director of the ACLU Washington office, expressed his opinion of that plan to Sen. David Durenberger, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with copies to everyone imaginable.

And to make sure no one was left out, the ACLU also issued a press release trumpeting it’s opposition to any attempt to oust Qaddafi.”

The ACLU has also shown itself a willing tool of the terrorists, waging a massive anti-anti-terrorism legal campaign. This pillar of the legal Left denounced the government’s requirement that men aged 16-25 holding “temporary visas” from nations with known ties to terrorism register with the INS; represented Sami al-Arian, the North American fundraiser and co-founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (filing a brief upholding his inalienable right to fresh briefs!); rallied on behalf of convicted al-Qaeda benefactor Maher Mofeid Hawash; urged local communities not to cooperate with federal anti-terror investigations; and opposed the FBI’s monitoring Islamist mosques. As David Horowitz notes in his book Unholy Alliance, radical Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer Ron Kuby notes the “passionate…identification” most lawyers feel with their clients, such as that of convicted terror enabler Lynne Stewart for World Trade Center bomber Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Given her aid for international Islamic terrorism, the government is right to keep a watchful eye on those who perpetually side with the enemy. Front Page Magazine

They have fought hard for the release of Abu Ghraib images depicting sickening torture of our enemies, further inflaming the propaganda war on the side of the enemy. The ACLU also submitted a 37-page report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee describing specific U.S. breaches of the political and civil rights covenant.

The report included sections on “Excessive Government Secrecy”; “Racial Profiling of the U.S. Arab, South Asian, and Muslim Communities”; “Criminalization of Political Protest”; “Increased Surveillance Powers”; and “Random Searches.”

Recently the ACLU have decided to represent two detainees who claim the U.S. Military threw them into lions dens. Somebody is lion alright. They have also accused the U.S. military of outright murdering 21 detainees. They have even advised the majority of the prisoners at Gitmo that they did not have to answer questions from military interrogators.

Actions like these have enraged groups like The American Legion, and Christians for Reviving American Values, who are asking Congress to investigate the ACLU. The American Legion is already mobilizing its members to fight the ACLU over issues such as the Boyscouts. The sympathy for the enemy also has them fired up. To many of these groups, and to many Americans, the perception is that The ACLU cares more about terrorists than it does about America.

As you can see, balancing national security interests with a respect for civil liberties is not the goal of the ACLU. Its goal is the absolute pursuit of civil liberties, without regard for its consequences. Gone are the the carefully worded policies that guided Union thinking during World War II. Gone, too is any kind of talk about the enemies of the United States. It is hard to imagine a person vile enought, or a crisis serious enough, to shake the ACLU from its absolutist position during wartime. The tragedy is it is not just the nation's security that stands to lose as a result, it is the cause of liberty itself.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Stop The ACLU Interviews Instapundit

2005-11-15T00:14:00.000-05:00

Check out Stop The ACLU's Interview with Glenn Reynold's, the Instapundit.

Top Ten Reasons To Stop The ACLU

2005-11-13T21:12:00.000-05:00

Most of you have realized that we have moved to Stop The ACLU.COM. I thought it was time to take down the redirect, and use this site as a backup/historical reference site. It still gets a few google search hits, and there is no need for people who are looking for specific information to get sent somewhere else. For those of you who haven't changed their links, and have just been following the redirect...please change your links to Stop The ACLU

I want to crosspost the following post, just for those who are looking for a good list of why we are who we are.

Top Ten Reasons To Stop The ACLU.

Stop The ACLU was started on February 9th, 2004. We started with high hopes, and we realized we were facing a goliath. There were many reasons why we thought the ACLU needed to be countered, and they are numerous. We wanted to provide a way to inform the public of the ACLU's agenda, as the MSM sugar coated it. We wanted to be a central database for people to gather, exchange ideas, and get actively involved in real ways of stopping them. It is a monumental task, exhausting, time consuming, and often frustrating. But it is a fight worth fighting.

We would be nothing without our supporters. To all of you, we appreciate the continued support. We have called you to action and you have answered. We raised $2,500.00 for an ad in the Washington Times, and I want to announce at this time that the check is in the mail as of Wednessday, Nov 8th. The ad should appear within the next two weeks. When it does, it will be scanned, and put up at Stop The ACLU for all to see. We will call you to action again, and again, and it is good to know that you will answer the call because you believe in this cause.

The ACLU have been laying low lately, but that is no reason to grow complacent. It is now that we should prepare to counter them. The Christmas season is around the corner, and the ACLU will be full force. Get involved in Operation Nativity.

There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. For this blogburst I decided to list my top ten list.

10. The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly...

My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.

ACLU POLICY “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”ACLU Policy #47

#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.

#7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it's the ACLU's top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU's pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

#6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.

#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of "seperation of Church and State", the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.

#4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don't practice the principles they preach.

Take a walk into the NYCLU’s Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you’ll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

#3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980's. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.

In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.

“The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”

The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.”

#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.

As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.

There is no doubt the The ACLU are perverting the Constitution.

#1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one?

There are countless reasons the ACLU needs to be stopped. So don't just stand by and complain, do something. Get involved. Here are some ways you can get involved to help us stop the ACLU.

Support and donate to organizations fighting them in Court. Here are the ones at the forefront.

ACLJ
Alliance Defense Fund
Thomas More Law Center

Join the Stop The ACLU Coalition

Help us write Churches to get involved.

Tell your Congress to support the Public Expression of Relgion Act of 2005. This legislation seeks to limit attorney's fees in Establishment Clause cases to injunctive relief only.

SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

We Have Moved

2005-08-21T18:19:00.000-05:00

Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here
Go here

We Have Moved

2005-08-21T17:17:00.000-05:00

If you are not redirected in 10 seconds go HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

We Have Moved

2005-08-15T01:12:00.000-05:00

If you are not redirected in the next 10 seconds, please CLICK HERE

Please update your links to www.stoptheaclu.com

www.stoptheaclu.com

www.stoptheaclu.com

www.stoptheaclu.com

www.stoptheaclu.com

www.stoptheaclu.com

www.stoptheaclu.com

www.stoptheaclu.com

ACLU And The Border Problem

2005-07-06T15:25:00.000-05:00

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.

ACLU Continues To Discredit Itself

2005-07-05T22:38:00.000-05:00

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

Christians Fight Back

2005-07-05T10:39:00.000-05:00

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

ACLU Attempt To Hide Atheist's Identity Fails

2005-07-04T16:52:00.000-05:00

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

Happy Independence Day

2005-07-04T01:10:00.000-05:00

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.

For God And Country Forever! Surrender To The ACLU Never!

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!

Sad News

2005-07-03T10:32:00.000-05:00

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.

ACLU Prepares To Bork Bush's Nomination For O'Connor's Replacement

2005-07-03T09:04:00.000-05:00

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

Remember The Alamo

2005-07-03T06:54:00.000-05:00

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.

VMI prayer plaintiff goes on to teach Sunday School

2005-07-02T13:40:00.000-05:00

***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.

Justice and Liberty For All

2005-07-02T11:47:00.000-05:00

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.

Just For Our MoonBat Guests

2005-07-01T15:14:00.000-05:00

Constitution of the United States
Adopted by convention of States, September 17, 1787; Ratification completed, June 21, 1788

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.

Clause 1:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Clause 3:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.

Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Clause 2:
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Excuse me... But I don't see the ability to make, write, or enact new law anywhere in this. Roe v Wade was new law. And the beginning of uncontrolled judicial activism. Since the 1972 decision, the high Court has been the example for lower courts in the federal system to render opinions not based on conflicts of the Constitution or Federal law, but on Liberal Politics.

And encouraging them to do this is the American Civil liberties Union. The ACLU wouldn't be so quick to file "friend of the court" petitions challenging that which has been unchallenged since 1620 if it were not for Roe.

Laws are written, debated, and passed by the Congress and approved through the power of his signature by the President of the United States. That, is how law is supposed to happen. Not 9 individuals who have no responsibility to their superiors. Because they have no superiors.

We have the power of the vote to remove a President, a Senator, a Representitive, Governors, State Legislators, in some states like mine State Supreme Court Justices, Mayors, Councilmen, and even in some places Dog Catcher. But we have no such power for a Supreme Court Justice. They have no direct responsibility to the American People. And because of this, they have been able to morph into an unofficial King By Committee as I have previously stated.

Today Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made the expected announcement that she is retiring from the Supreme Court effective to Confirmation of her successor. The only way these people get removed from the court is to die or resign. Doesn't anyone see a problem with this?

And with her resignation, the political war has already started.

"This is so important," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who noted that outside groups have attacked many nominees and taken "things in their past and distorted it completely out of proportion ... it has been an unfair, undignified, dishonest, really. A number of our senators, I think, have been caught up in that."

He added: "I just hope our Democratic colleagues here will not take those attack groups at face value ... they should not just be regurgitating up those charges, most of which are false." source

And the other side has added to this...

"The decisions handed down by the Supreme Court profoundly affect the daily lives of all Americans," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a statement. "The Court is the final guardian of our constitutional rights and liberties. That is why the process of filling a Supreme Court vacancy is so important.

"At this critical moment, the president must recognize the Senate's constitutional role. He should give life to the advice and consent clause by engaging in meaningful consultation with senators of both political parties." source

The Dumocraps don't want a change in the make up of the high court. First off, just because they can, they will thumb their noses at any nominee that the President puts forward. Next, they will attempt to drag this out so long, that the next President will have the appointment. Forcing Justice O'Connor to serve an additional 4 years on the court.

Plain and simple, idiots like Teddy the Lush want someone with his core beliefs on the high court.

Let's take a look at Teddy's beliefs.

Teddy believes that if you get drunk and drive your car off a bridge killing a passenger, that because you are from a privileged family you shouldn't be prosecuted. He believes that he and his family should be revered for making their family wealth by bootlegging liquor into the United States during prohibition. He believes that Massachusetts belongs to the Kennedy clan. He believes that since his brother John was such a loved President, that he has some special insight into what he would have wanted done.

Do you want someone who believes like him on the high court? I don't.

The left was prepared for this. They have an office already set up to combat ANY nominee that the President nominates.

"The nation deserves and I will select a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of," Bush said in brief remarks in the White House Rose Garden Friday in announcing O'Connor's retirement. "I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process."

America needs a "dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote," Bush said

Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and James Harvie Wilkinson III. Others mentioned are former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson.

Another prospective candidate is Edith Hollan Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was also considered for a Supreme Court vacancy by the first President Bush. source
President Bush could nominate the most fair minded, middle of the road politically judge to fill this seat on the Supreme Court and Teddy the Lush and his obstructionist cronies will oppose it.

It is time to push the button on the nuclear option.

Thank you Mudville Gazette and Outside the Beltway
Michelle Malkin has a great list of links on O'Connor's resignation. And here are a few more Right Wing News, Flopping Aces, Kill Righty,Mark In Mexico, Daily Inklings, Blogs For Bush, Captain's Quarters, GOPBloggers, Wizbang, The Volokh Conspiracy, SCOTUS Blog, Political Teen, Prolife Blogs, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller, Ace of Spades, Basil's Blog, Junkyard Blog, and Nickie Goomba

This Made My Day

2005-06-30T20:56:00.000-05:00

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

BlogBurst 6/30/05

2005-06-29T23:56:00.000-05:00

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

Freedom of Religion in America: Adieu!

Written by Lee Ellis
Wednesday, June 29, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can take comfort in the fact that the judicial year is over for the United States Supreme Court and that the worst court in history is no longer seated in session. We can also hope that at least 2 are expected to retire prior to the beginning of the next judicial year.

This past week's rulings have been nothing less than invasive. The Eminent Domain ruling is hopefully going to backfire on at least 1 of the 9 Justices. An effort to seize Justice Souter's home in New Hampshire to build a Hotel is in the works. This is not a prank. It's a real project. A project that the Justice himself helped to make possible.

Who do we have to blame for the current illogical activities of the high court? The American Civil Liberties Union that's who. The ACLU's promotion of judicial activism has led the 9 Justices to unofficially declare themselves King by Committee of the United States.

How else can we describe them? The Justices have taken it upon themselves to ignore the very document that they are to judge the application of other laws by. Laws passed by the legitimate body to do such legislating, the United States Congress.

The Supreme Court has ruled that you can seize private property and turn it over to a private development company for the purpose of generating more revenue for the local government. This is the common good that the high court has seen fit to make legal something that is in direct contrast to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

The Supremes have taken it upon themselves to make law instead of judge law. Starting with Roe v Wade, the high court has chosen to ignore the Constitution. No law on the federal level was in question in Roe v Wade. A state law banning a medical procedure was at issue. The last time I checked, medical procedures are NOT covered by the Constitution at all. And the court's decision to even hear the case was a violation of the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the

United States

by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” How can they forget that one? Think of all the Looney decisions that have come before the Supreme Court. How many of them actually contain violations of the Constitution? None of the religion challenges do.

Medical procedures aren't covered in the Constitution. And Congress hasn't attempted to pass a law forcing a national state run religion upon us. Did I miss an action by Congress? Have the legislators of this nation been corrupted by the Church of Scientology at the insistence of Tom Cruise? Did they pass a law stating that ALL Americans must convert to the Looney cult of Scientology? I don't think so.

But yet the Supremes have ruled consistently that a cross in public view and the 10 Commandments hanging on the wall violate the Establishment Clause. At what point was Congress involved with the 2 county courts in Kentucky? If they were, I didn't catch it.

The 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This Amendment doesn't say, Ohio shall make no law or California shall make no law, it says CONGRESS shall make no law.

It's time we take back our court. The Supreme Court is ours. We are the People in "WE The People of the United States..." It is time maybe to consider a Constitutional Amendment establishing a Term Limit for Supreme Court Justices. More to be released on this in a special upcoming posting. Stay tuned... you won't be disappointed.

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

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

Some of The Sites Already on Board:

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

Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge

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

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Outside the Beltway

Petition to Stop Judicial Tyranny

2005-06-28T17:18:00.000-05:00

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!

Another One of My Rants

2005-06-28T04:12:00.000-05:00

Cross-Posted At Conservative Angst

If you are reading this to edify yourself with facts and statistics, you are in for a shock. I am writing a good old fashioned Rant.

I guess I'll start with something that Al Gore said in the 1992 election. "Everything that should be up is down and everything that should be down is up." That is my assessment of the Educational system in America.

This writing was to be a facts, facts, and more facts sourced and mind blowing. It is mind blowing alright. I found that the material I was researching is far too vast to put into a simple blog. This info is stuff that books are written about.

One fact that I did come across was the 2003 International Mathematics score card. No surprise. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, "U.S. 15-year-olds performed below the international average of 29 industrialized countries in both mathematics literacy and problem solving in 2003."

We are the richest nation on the planet. More technology originates from the United States than anywhere else on Earth. We spend more money on Education than any other nation. But yet, our students are below average in the basic skills.

No wonder so many bankrupt people are roaming around. If you can't add and subtract, you can't handle money. If you cannot multiply, you cannot factor interest payments and savings. If you cannot divide, you cannot plan a budget.

The same score card also stated the following:

The OECD average score of males was greater than that of females in combined mathematics literacy and in each of the four mathematics subscales in 2003. Males outperformed females in two-thirds of the participating countries in combined mathematics literacy; Iceland was the only country where females outperformed males. In the United States, males outperformed females in both combined mathematics literacy and the space and shape subscale. No such sex difference was detected among U.S. 15-year-olds in their performance on the other three subscales. In 33 of the 40 countries, including the United States, there were no performance differences between males and females in problem solving.

Is it any wonder why the numbers of home schooled children are on the rise? Religious based education has always been a cut above public schools. And the National Education Association is dead set against public funding of private education. Why? Because they loose money.

It only makes sense to me to pay the same amount of money that would be spent on a child in public school, to a private school to off-set tuition. But of course, the NEA lobby has nixed that each time it's been proposed on a large scale.

Several years ago, Cleveland had a school voucher program (the first in the country) to do just that. We are talking about a public system that for the bulk of the 80's was under threat of state take over. Cleveland Public Schools have been mis-managed for decades. But of course, the NEA which at that time was the NEOTA in Ohio, challenged and got the voucher program over turned as it violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to divert public funding to a private, religious based school.

Smaller class sizes, fewer distractions, personal instruction, and morality are taught in these schools. Test scores are higher in private school educated students than public school students. This has always been a fact.

My nephews have a couple of friends, brothers, who are home schooled. Their mother doesn't work and is available to teach them during the day. Of all my nephews' friends, these two boys are the most well mannered children I have ever met. They are respectful and bright. They don't make the errors that my nephews make. In other words, they are never in any trouble.

There are organizations of home schooled children that meet for the social aspects surrendered when deciding upon home schooling. These kids take trips to the Science museums, aquarium, the zoo, and the like. It gives them an opportunity to interact with other children and engage in a educational experience. And the best part of it is, the schooling parent is there too.

Hillary Clinton came up with an idiotic concept while she and her husband were infesting the White House. They stated, "It takes a village to raise a child." Bull! It takes a parent.

The communal implications of a village raising a child is anti-American. And as such dangerous as a program. Thank GOD that the Constitution has a term limit for Presidents. My fear is the politically incompetent will elect her President one day.

She is already setting herself up to be the first woman President of the United States. And I shutter at the thought.

Education will suffer under the stupidity of an idea like a village raising a child. Especially with the number of pedophiles in our communities. If you haven't noticed, the number of teachers charged with having sexual relationships with minors in their care is on the rise. And barely a week goes by where a child or group of children hasn't gone missing.

In our fast paced world we have become blinded by the quest to achieve at the expense of our children and our communities. If a child is lucky enough to live in a home with 2 parents, both must work to maintain a comfortable lifestyle.

But all too often in this day in age, single mothers are left to raise children on there own. Working sometimes two jobs to pay the bills. No luxuries in families like these. And more importantly, no supervision.

Gang activity, drug use, theft, and other criminal enterprises are influencing our kids. Televisions and video games are babysitters. The days of the quaint term of "latch-key kids" have morphed into a situation where children are out on the street rather than in their home studying. Or worse yet, plopped down in front of the television playing a video game.

I was a latch-key kid. But when I was a child, our afternoons were spent riding bicycles, playing baseball, or football. We filled our time with activity. Now, if a kid isn't an over weight couch potato then they are a thin gang member.

Activities such as the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts and their sister organizations Girl Scouts and Brownies, are under attack by the American Civil Liberties Union. American... ha... Not hardly. The ACLU's quest to remove GOD from public institutions such as schools, military bases, police and fire stations, has led to a drop in the number of charters the Boy Scouts of America and their companion organizations have issued.

This atheist organization has been on a mission to sanitized our nation from the influences of GOD, morality, and freedom since 1920 under the guise of protecting the very freedom they are seeking to remove.

Where were they last week when the Supreme Court ruled that a community could seize your home under eminent domain in order to develop the property for a private enterprise? They weren't protecting the rights of the home owners. No, they were too busy finding a gay rights advocacy program to fight for in federal court, or a monument to deface by taking any reference to GOD or the symbols of religion from them, or worse yet, finding a NAMBLA member to protect.

Liberals, their ways, their organizations, and their politics makes my physically ill. Every time I write about the ACLU I have an overwhelming urge to wash my hands. If I were speaking this out loud, I would wash my mouth out with soap for mentioning that vile organization.

Because it is the ACLU that has led the efforts that created the problems that I've outlined here in this post. They are responsible for the destruction of the American Way and pushing the American Dream out of the reach of those who need to dream the most. Children.

End of Rant (for now)

Please stop by the ACLUBulldozer online store and pick up a bumper sticker or t-shirt. All proceeds go to advertising for a national march on state ACLU offices. Help put an end to the evils of the Most Dangerous Organization in America

The Supreme Court, 10 C's, & Public Displays

2005-06-27T20:03:00.000-05:00

In true activist fashion, the Supreme Court today released 2 decisions on public displays of The 10 Commandments. Failing to define a clear line in the sand, the US Supreme Court today left more questions then answers.

In McCreary v ACLU, the high court ruled that the 10 Commandments were placed inside the courthouses with the intent of promoting religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

In the 5-4 split decision, Justice Souder writes for the majority, "The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the 'First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.'" He goes on to state, "Manifesting a purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion, generally, clashes with the 'understanding, reached ... after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens.'"

I have a problem with this. First of all, Congress didn't attempt to pass a law establishing a national religion as stated in the text of the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." And because Congress, or any other branch of the federal government, wasn't involved in the posting of the 10 Commandments in these 2 courthouses this is a state matter.

The 10th Amendment states, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " Search as you may, but you will not find any provision in the Constitution that prohibits states from establishing religion or regulating it. And since Congress played no part in this case what-so-ever, I am not convinced that the 1st Amendment was being violated.

What this comes down to is, the ACLU through their efforts since 1920, has convinced the federal court system that their responsibility is to interpret the Constitution under a phantom "spirit" of the document. The fact that the document took 11 years to author and pass and the language used was specifically selected to remove any doubt as to the intent of the document, is immaterial to the ACLU and the liberal left.

The other case decision related to the 10 Commandments the court released today was Van Orden v. Perry. This case is centered around a monument of the 10 Commandments on the State House grounds. The monument is 1 among many on the grounds and has been there since 1961 without challenge.

Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist wrote, "According to Judeo-Christian belief, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning."

Rehnquist also said that the statue's placement on the grounds among secular monuments was "passive," rather than confrontational. Rehnquist was joined in his opinion by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas. Justice Breyer wrote his opinion separately.

Justice Stevens, writing the dissent on behalf of O'Connor, Souter and Ginsburg, said there was nothing passive about the display.

Having noted that the first commandment "I am the Lord thy God" is more boldly displayed than the other nine, he wrote, "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the 'Judeo-Christian' God."

Again, same thing... Why was this even heard? It didn't even start as lawsuit. This is a state matter. Congress was not involved in the placement of this monument.

As Bill O'Reilly would say, "Go have another glass of Koolaid."

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway

The Growth of the Hive

2005-06-27T00:25:00.000-05:00

What I like to call the Hive the informal socialist apparat that uses liberal rhetoric differs from the classic Left in its avoidance of naming its ultimate goals. Today the old socialists and Communists of yore seem quaintly naive in their ingenuously open espousals of revolution.

In the old days The New Republic could say: "In order to have socialism, we must have a new Constitution." Socialists recognized frankly that socialism would be impossible under the Constitution, and they didn't pretend otherwise. The Old Left proclaimed its creed boldly, hoping to galvanize the masses.

That changed when the "progressives" saw that honesty, for their purposes, was not necessarily the best policy. Even the "working classes" feared and hated socialism, so there was no prospect of socialism's winning through either bullets or ballots.

At this point the progressives adopted a subtle strategy: they chose evolution over revolution. Instead of abolishing the Constitution, they would control its interpretation. It would become a "living document" of fluid and adaptable meanings. If you can't win by the rules, change the rules! And do it in such a way that most people hardly notice you're doing it.

Except for its Communist minority, the Hive has never been directed by commands from above. Instead it uses peer pressure, verbal signals, and the amorphous power of "public opinion." It accustoms the general public to accepting its definitions of discrete "issues," couched in reformist, seemingly "pragmatic" language, so that the bees " the agents of the Hive " range from conscious ideologues to passive dupes.

The Hive is so powerful in controlling public opinion that it has transmuted its ideology into etiquette. "Politically correct" language, extending even to pronouns, is largely Hive-imposed. "Everyone" is no longer "he," but "he or she"; homosexuals are "gays"; unborn children are antiseptic "fetuses," and those who kill them are no longer abortionists, but "abortion providers." Old words like fornicate, promiscuous, and unchaste are replaced by the bland sexually active.

The archetypal Hive institution was the American Civil Liberties Union. In 1927 its long-time leader, Roger Baldwin, visited the Soviet Union, where he said there was no need for a civil liberties union, since the "working class" already ruled in Russia. Later, two top officials of the American Communist Party would be appointed to the national board of the ACLU. Subservience to Stalin was fully compatible with devotion to American "civil liberties" as defined by the ACLU.

Liberals revere the ACLU as the "watchdog of the Bill of Rights," but this depends on whether you count the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments as part of the Constitution. The ACLU never has. It upholds peculiar interpretations of other amendments, using the First Amendment to defend Communists and pornographers. (It likes to point out that it has also defended neo-Nazis and Klansmen, but there's a big difference: the ACLU has never welcomed such "right-wingers' to its national board.)

In the name of "rights," the ACLU has actually campaigned to lead the federal courts to strike down the laws of the states, thereby usurping the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. It has never defended property rights or opposed taxation; and above all, it has made systematic legal war on federalism. All its efforts have tended to promote the socialist model of totally centralized and secularized government. And it has done much to change the U.S. Supreme Court's understanding of the Constitution, wildly inflating the meanings of a few pet clauses while reducing inconvenient clauses to dead letters. The remaining powers of the states now exist only by the sufferance of the Court.

Not that the Court was hard to seduce; during the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt appointed a series of Hive liberals Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas and subsequent presidents added Earl Warren, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The ACLU reading of the Constitution has become the standard accepted by the courts, lawyers, legal scholars, and the media. And nobody describes the ACLU as "socialist," despite its history and the obvious pattern of its pursuits.

The Court scored one of the Hive's greatest coups when it ruled in 1973 that laws against abortion, state laws, of course, violated the Constitution. This ruling (supported by the ACLU, of course) capped a long Hive campaign of twisting words from their accepted meanings. (Though it says it favors "choice," not abortion as such, the Hive has no objection, of course, to forced abortion in Communist China.)

Roosevelt himself was an enemy of individual rights; his agenda was collectivist, directed against private property, and he readily used the FBI and IRS to punish his opponents. He also put Japanese-Americans into wartime concentration camps. He showed favor to the Soviet Union from the first year of his presidency through World War II and allowed Communist penetration of his administration. He remains a hero to the Hive.

After Roosevelt's death Martin Dies, Richard Nixon, Joe McCarthy, and the House Un-American Activities Committee sought to purge Communists in government. To the Hive, this period remains "the era of McCarthyism,"a period of "hysteria" and "witch-hunts," "one of the darkest moments in our nation's history." What this boils down to is that the "progressives," for once, were on the defensive. Soviet agents, far from being imaginary "witches," had infiltrated even Roosevelt's inner circle and the Manhattan Project, enabling Stalin to get nuclear weapons.

Here the Hive's rhetoric reached its highest level of fluidity. At first, McCarthyism purported to mean false charges against innocent liberals of harboring Communist sympathies. Later, when the taboo on Communism had been struck down, the Hive celebrated even real Communists, the Hollywood Ten, Lillian Hellman, Paul Robeson, as "victims of McCarthyism," virtual martyrs in the catacombs. Merely to identify Communists as Communists, it turned out, was persecution, "McCarthyism." Its real sin was not libel, but (accurately) "naming names." At a deeper level, the sin was principled disapproval of socialism. And the Hive's real target, all along, was anti-Communism.

Such shifting definitions are central to the Hive's modus operandi. But most people don't notice its semantic bait-and-switch operations. Today the media have passively accepted the Hive's account of the "devil of McCarthyism." Despite the complicity of American Communists in the Soviet mass murders, the Hive treats them as an oppressed minority of "idealists," devoted to "civil rights" and "social justice."

Many Hive causes have had Red roots. I've mentioned the ACLU. W.E.B. DuBois of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was an avowed Communist. Such feminist leaders as Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and Susan Brownmiller started out as Communists; feminism is not so much anti-male as anti-Christian. The "women's movement" is the ladies' auxiliary of the Hive.

The Hive's three general targets are private property (which provides material independence of state power), the family (which affords loyalties prior to the state), and religion (which claims authority above the state's). Property is attacked under the guises of civil rights, affirmative action, antitrust measures, discouraging smoking, consumer protection, environmentalism, equality, gun control, and tax equity; the family, under the guises of sexual freedom, contraception, "choice,""gay rights" (including homosexual marriage), women's rights, children's rights, divorce reform, and opposing censorship; religion, under the guises of separation of church and state, state education (in which prayer is forbidden, the Hive's notion of "religious freedom"), teaching Darwinism as "science," and demands for female, married, and homosexual clergy. (The Hive even has its theologians, such as Richard McBrien of Notre Dame, who labor to eliminate supernatural revelation and authority from religion.)

The elections of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush showed that the Hive's hegemony over American public discourse had failed to eliminate popular conservative sentiment. Moreover, the Hive's Queen Bee died when the Soviet Union collapsed.

I used to doubt that the Hive could continue to exist without the Soviet Union. I was wrong. Bill and Hillary Clinton have given the Hive new life and energy.

Clinton seems never to have been an outright Communist or sympathizer. He advertised himself as a "New Democrat," unlike the McGovernite left. He gives lip service to property (he favors a "strong economy"), the family (with touching constant references to "our children"), and religion (quoting the Bible incessantly). Nevertheless, the concrete measures he favors always centralize power at the expense of private life, whether the measure is national health care or job leave for new parents. Bill and Hillary (renowned for advocating children's rights) have won the loyalty of the Hive, which ferociously defended him against impeachment (denouncing "sexual McCarthyism"). Favoring abortion and homosexual rights, they have made the sexual revolution the agenda of the federal government.

The Hive has adapted surprisingly well to the failure of socialism. Faced with the triumph of market economies, it now concentrates its energy against its ultimate target: Christianity. And it has an ideal front man in Clinton, who, Bible in hand, professes Christianity even as he works to subvert it.

During the Cold War, the Hive was anti-American. But under the Clinton regime it has become pro-American. The U.S. Government has replaced the Soviet Union as the Queen Bee, the vehicle of "progress" around the world.

And why not? By now the U.S. Government has abandoned the Constitution and incorporated most of the goals of the Hive. It may not exemplify the old socialist dream, but it's about as good as it gets.

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

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

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

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

End of my 3 day (with an intermission) Rant

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway

A Time Line History of the ACLU

2005-06-26T11:01:00.000-05:00

Loathed by Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell. And with good reason. They represented American Nazis in 1978, NAMBLA in 2000, and they consistently oppose any governmental endorsement of religion. That includes school-imposed prayers, as well as nativity scenes and Ten Commandments monuments on public property.

ACLU strangely refuses to take a position on the civil liberty issue of gun rights.

1919 Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer claims that communist agents have constructed a plan to overthrow the American Government on November 7th, 1919, the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Palmer and his assistant J. Edgar Hoover arrests over 10,000 suspected anarchists and communists and holds them without trial, ultimately releasing all but 247, who are deported to Russia. These mass arrests become known as the Palmer Raids.

Jan 1920 Palmer arrests 6,000 more suspected communists and holds them without trial. He announces that the communist revolution is planned for May 1st as justification.

1920 ACLU is founded in response to the Palmer Raids. Roger Baldwin is named first director of the ACLU.

1950 Roger Baldwin steps down as director, but continues work as spokesman for the ACLU. Patrick Murphy Malin becomes director, and starts the ACLU on greater membership, growing it from 9,000 to 60,000, mostly through the founding of local chapters.

1963 John de J. Pemberton becomes Executive Director of the ACLU.

1970 Aryeh Neier becomes Executive Director of the ACLU.

Jun 1978 Ruling in favor of the ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court commands that the predominantly Jewish city of Skokie, Illinois allow the National Socialist Party of America to march down its streets.

1978 Ira Glasser becomes Executive Director of the ACLU.

25 Sep 1988 During one of the Presidential debates, Vice President George HW Bush paints his opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, as practically un-American: "He said, 'I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.' That was what he said. He is out there, on out of the mainstream."

23 Sep 1991 ACLU Answers. Issue: Pornography "We support the prosecution of child pornographers under existing laws for the harm they inflict on children. But we believe government may not restrict the distribution of child pornography once it has been published."

1997 Reno v. ACLU

16 May 2000 After winning a $328 million wrongful death suit against the murderers of fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley, his parents file suit against NAMBLA for inciting the crime. The ACLU agrees to represent the organization, much to the dismay of almost everyone on Earth.

Dec 2000 Shirley Parraguirre, clerk of Clark County, Nevada, announces plans to require fingerprinting and police background checks of ministers performing wedding ceremonies. The proposal is rescinded after the ACLU points out that neither Jesus Christ nor Martin Luther King, Jr. would be allowed to marry people under the rules.

May 2001 Anthony D. Romero becomes ACLU Executive Director.

8 Sep 2001 In an editorial, Bill O'Reilly claims that the ACLU supports the practice of pederasty because they defended NAMBLA in court.

13 Sep 2001

During an exchange with Pat Robertson on the 700 Club, fellow televangelist Jerry Falwell declares that America's immorality is what caused the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center:

FALWELL: I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."

ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged". In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time -- calling upon God.

9 Jan 2004 On The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly makes a comparison to the Third Reich: ?The ACLU is the most fascist organization I have seen in decades. They want to tell you how to live. They don?t want to abide by the Constitution. They want to go around the Constitution. They?re intellectual fascists, and they use the courts as their Panzer divisions.?

12 May 2004 The ACLU announces a settlement with Stevenson High School in Sterling Heights, Michigan. The school had omitted valedictorian Abby Moler's submission for the 2001 yearbook because it contained a quote from the Bible (Jeremiah 29:11). The Michigan chapter of the ACLU sued the school on behalf of Moler, claiming that they violated her right to free speech. The school ultimately agreed not to censor yearbook submissions on the basis of religious or political speech.

Then there is the 45 goals of the Communist Party in the US as described and outlined in the Congressional Record of January 10, 1963. These items were excerpted from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen.


1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike

It seems that the biggest advocate of these priciples has been the ACLU. They have captured one of the political parties. Liberals make up the bulk of the over 400,000 + membership. Why? Because liberals are easily influenced by words such as civil liberties. And the liberal party in the US is the Dumocraps. And what kind of proof do I need? Howard "YeeeHaaaw!" Dean is the Chairman of the DNC.

The facts of this organization are that they have no respect for the values that made America great. From its founding 85 years ago by 2 self-proclaimed Communists with ties to over 300 Communist front organizations to their full filling of the 10 Platforms outlined by Karl Marx.

Take a look at the 45 items read into the Congressional record on January 10, 1963. Of those items, how many have been championed by the ACLU? The answer is most of them. And those on the left still continue to defend this organization. Why? Ignorance... there is no other word for it.

More to follow.

The ACLU--Against Sexual Abstinence

2005-06-24T09:11:00.000-05:00

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

ACLU: Do As We Say Not As We Do

2005-06-23T19:50:00.000-05:00

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

I know I'm a day early but when you catch the ACLU with its pants down well, you have to point it out.
Hypocrisy abounds and the "cherished" idealism of the pontificating popinjays of the left is cast to the wind.
After persecuting organizations for any perceived exclusionary tactics, here they go with prejudice, bigotry and no due process, excluding one of their own. I hope he sues the pants off them and they are banned from the public feeding trough. Maybe some conservative group can defend this man's rights in court.

The ACLU may fight for those holding unpopular beliefs and taking controversial stands, but the ACLU of New Mexico suspended an entire chapter of the organization because a member of the board of directors is leading the state's Minuteman group.

The state organization suspended its Las Cruces chapter after learning that a member of the group's board, Clifford Alford, was heading the formation of a Minuteman group 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 civilian border patrol group, no longer had authority to act or speak on behalf of the ACLU.

"We will not tolerate racism and vigilantism in the leadership structure of our organization,'' Mitchell told the Albuquerque Journal. "They are repugnant to the principles of civil liberties and the mission of the ACLU.''

Alford has said he's not a hateful vigilante and that he would like to see immigration policy reformed. He has said that if the federal government allowed more immigrant workers to enter the country legally, many problems on the border would be solved. He reportedly scouted the New Mexico-Mexico border two weeks ago for sites to station his 42 volunteers to detect illegal immigrants sneaking into the country. His group plans to offer food, water and medical aid while reporting the illegal immigrants to the U.S. Border Patrol.

Mitchell said the ACLU was not trying to muzzle Alford. It is just a matter of not wanting him representing the ACLU in a leadership position. When Alford refused to resign, the state board decided over the weekend to temporarily suspend the 14-member southern board until new elections are held. Mitchell said the ACLU's rules do not provide a means for removing a single board member, so the entire board had to be suspended.

"We are not going to tolerate anyone depriving anyone of liberty without due process of law, not going to tolerate vigilante groups on the border without speaking out against them and without monitoring," Mitchell said.

Alford said the dust-up is the result of a lack of understanding about how the Border Watch group plans to operate. He said the ACLU didn't ask questions, "just attacked."

Thanks to WorldNetDaily.

Go to Stop The ACLU and join the battle to save our nation.

Click Image Below To Join

Thank you Mudville Gazette

Stop The ACLU BlogBurst 06/23/05

2005-06-22T23:01:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." Roger Baldwin 1935

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From aclu.org

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

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

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

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

· ACLU letter to the Senate opposing the flag amendment

· ACLU letter to the House opposing the flag amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The House & Senate

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

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

Congressional Emergency

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

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

Thank you Mudville Gazette

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

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:

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

Why does the ACLU want Gitmo trials?

2005-06-21T18:45:00.000-05:00

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

The Truth About The American Civil Liberties Union

2005-06-20T23:01:00.000-05:00

First In A Multi-Part Series

I've touched upon this information in the past. But, because some that troll here and elsewhere still insist on making me prove my points, I will do so again.

The reason why there is no recent information on this Communist Front Organization is that they are extremely clever in cover up operations. They rarely give anyone a glimps into the inner workings of their organization.

And with the latest news of them attempting to covertly destroy documents by shredding them over the objections of their records keeper, makes me believe that finding out what was in those documents will be an impossibility.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 87TH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

The Truth About The American Civil Liberties Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

What others think of the ACLU

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

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

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

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

Section III

Odd Coincidences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Soviet dialectician's definition of a Communist front

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

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

The ACLU Supports "Peaceful Protesters"

2005-06-20T10:16:00.000-05:00

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!

At Least Some People Get It...

2005-06-19T10:07:00.000-05:00

Pittsburgh Pennsylvania is a heavy Union town. There in turn, a heavily "blue" area of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which is a "blue state" traditionally. I say "blue state" with tongue in cheek because they have 2 Republican Senators. The unpredictable Arlen Specter and the very Conservative Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum is up for re-election in the mid-term and as a nation we cannot afford to lose such a active voice in the Senate.

I found this through a Google Alerts search done using ACLU as the keyword. It is from the opinion page of the Pittsburgh Times-Review. It must be a letters to the editor type of thing.

ACLU prayer rugs

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Has anyone wondered why the ACLU has not filed a suit to stop the government from paying for Qurans and prayer rugs for Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?

If the government were paying for Bibles and rosary beads, the ACLU would be raising hell.

I think this demonstrates that the ACLU is not really concerned about the separation of church and state (in this case, mosque and state). It is concerned only about the influence of Christianity, because it knows Christianity stands in the way of its real goal, the same goal of other leftists, which is the supremacy of the state.

Frank Haller
Scott

We all know that this is exactly what is going on. We have been focused on this since the founding of the Coalition and this blog.

Supremacy of the state being the goal of the ACLU is Communism. And it re-hashes the words of co-founder Roger Baldwin.

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

And we still field rhetoric that this was the goal of the ACLU in the 1920s and 30s. When in fact, their efforts back then were needed and affected real change in the world. It seems that the Communism angle and goal of this front organization has stepped up since the end of the cold war.

Perhaps it was stepped up since the Civil Rights Amendments were passed since the only high profile issue to them was abortion. But as long as our efforts were focused on defeating the Soviet threat, they got away with corrupting our system from within.

But it does seem that since the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Bear in 1991, certain predictions by Nikita Khrushchev have slowly come to pass. But instead of burying us with their rockets, it has been their ideals.

Khrushchev was regarded by his political enemies in the Soviet Union as a boorish, uncivilized peasant, with a reputation for interrupting speakers to insult them. The Politburo accused him once of 'hare-brained scheming' - referring to his erratic policy. He repeatedly disrupted a United Nations conference in September-October 1960 by pounding his fists on the table and shouting in Russian during speeches. On September 29, 1960, Khrushchev twice interrupted a speech by British prime minister Harold Macmillan by shouting out and pounding his desk. The unflappable Macmillan famously commented: "I should like that to be translated if he wants to say anything."

At the UN two weeks later, Lorenzo Sumulong, the Filipino delegate, asked Khrushchev how he could protest Western capitalist imperialism while the Soviet Union was at the same time rapidly assimilating Eastern Europe. Khrushchev became enraged and informed Sumulong that he was "kholuj i stavlennik imperializma," which was translated as "a jerk, a stooge and a lackey of imperialism," then removed one of his shoes and made a move as to bang it on the table.

During a Big Four summit in Paris on May 16, 1960, Khrushchev demanded an apology from U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower for the U-2 Spy Plane Crisis. This ended the conference. Later that year at the UN, he blasted Western interference in the Congo.

At another occasion, Khrushchev said in reference to capitalism, "We will bury you." This phrase, ambiguous both in English and in Russian, was interpreted in several ways. He is famous for boasting to the U.S. President: "We will bury you. Our rockets could hit a fly over the United States."

Perhaps Khrushchev's meaning of our violent demise was over stated, but he in fact has been proven quite the visionary. We are no longer the moral nation that we once were. We do not have the ideals outlined in the services of the many churches each and every Sunday. Our communities have been stripped of enforcing morality codes by the threat of legal action from the ACLU.

Our cash strapped local and state governments have been strong armed in the best tradition of Soviet Russia. By being forced into policies that are contrary to the best interests of the masses of their citizens for the convenience and pleasure of the few.

And that is the true evil of this organization. That they are able to put forth their agenda without actual challenge. These local and state governments cannot afford to take on the mighty ACLU with their 400,000 + membership's dues money added to the funding that they are able to extort from the federal government.

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 funds for the purpose of recovering legal fees in Establishment Clause challanges to the 1st Amendment. 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 Put A Stop To The Most Dangerous Organization In America. We are trying to organize a march on all of the ACLU state offices in all of the 50 states. To help in this matter, we are trying to raise money to pay for advertising in our nation's newspapers promoting the march. You can help. Visit Bulldoze The ACLU online store and buy a bumper sticker or t-shirt. All of the proceedes will be going into advertising for this march. Thank You.

Thanks to Mudville Gazette Outside The Beltway

Oh My God, Not The Military Recruiters!

2005-06-18T03:17:00.000-05:00

Cross-posted from An American Housewife

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

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

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

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

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

Article - Takes you to another site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's now or never

2005-06-17T20:52:00.000-05:00

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.....

ACLU distorts our past and subverts our future

2005-06-17T03:30:00.000-05:00

Re-printed from Ft Wayne.com

Fran Quigley’s Friday guest column and its inaccurate conclusions cannot go unchallenged.

The ACLU and its affiliates have twisted the original intent of the First Amendment. They have taken words from Thomas Jefferson and wrenched them out of context. Sadly, nobody in the mainstream press has called the ACLU on their misapplication of the Constitution.

Quigley wrote, “Madison and the framers deliberately steered away from church-state entanglement.” They steered away from sectarianism.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed by Madison at age 32 because of his constitutional scholarship, said in his commentary on the Constitution: “The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mohammedanism or Judaism or infidelity by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government.”

Story also said, “We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity . . . Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

Patrick Henry, the firebrand of the revolution, said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not upon religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

James Madison said, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves and to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Those are the very Commandments which the ACLU and their ilk are feverishly fighting to remove from all public property. What do you suppose Madison would have to say about that? As I have related in previous columns, this perverted interpretation of the Constitution did not happen until the “Everson” decision in 1947. It should also be noted that an ACLU lawyer named Leo Phoeffer wrote a friend-of-the-court brief for “Everson” and gave it to Hugo Black’s law clerk, who put it on Black’s desk. The words “wall of separation between church and state” were in that brief, lifted completely out of the context of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. We shouldn’t be surprised, however. ACLU founder Roger Baldwin was a communist who said he “would stand with Russia against the world.” It shouldn’t be any wonder that the ACLU would labor to subvert our heritage and Constitution.

I leave you with George Washington’s words from his farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

That is exactly what the ACLU is doing. So whenever you hear someone from the ACLU talk about the Constitution, bear that in mind!

Douglas H. Wellman is a resident of Fort Wayne.

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

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

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

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

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

End of Rant

Congressional Emergency

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.

The ACLU's Policy to legalize the distribution and possession of child porn.

2005-06-16T17:00:00.000-05:00

Isn't it odd that this week's topic and the biggest court decision of the year are about the same subject?

The ACLU's position on the distribution and possession of child pornography and Michael Jackson's acquittal all in the same week. We couldn't have planned this better. We decided on this topic last Friday without even discussing the Jackson trial at all.

Well first off, I think that Jackson is guilty as sin. BUT, I also feel that the prosecution was tainted by the past actions of this family. It is my opinion, the reason Jackson picked this child was because of his families background involving lawsuits. I think that he knew that he would be able to cover his sick tracks by taking advantage of the press that could work against an accusation. What he didn't count on was the zeal of the prosecutor. This same zeal which led to the trial also clouded his judgment.

That being said, Jackson is the type of "person" that would benefit from the legalization of the possession and distribution of child porn. Michael Jackson and NAMBLA would be fueled by such a miscarriage of justice. And the perpetuation of crimes against children would continue to expand.

This year alone, several high profile cases involving children being abducted for the satisfaction of a sexual deviance and we are still talking about the possibilities because the ACLU continues to believe that owning this trash should be legal. Images of children engaging in sexual acts expands the need for predators such as the likes of John Evander Couey to act on their urges. Urges sparked and heightened by these very images.

Where is the conscience of the ACLU? Do they not see that these images are harmful to the children of this nation? Can they not make the connection between the legalization of this material and pedophilia? A blind man can see this. But the ACLU continues to push issues like these.

This all falls into the Communist agenda in America. Destroy the morality of this nation and Communism would have no obstructions. And how do they do this? By starting in the schools, television, video games, and other child rich activities.

And for the benefit of the nay sayers on the left who think that I'm attempting to blow smoke up the collective asses of America by accusing the ACLU of backing something without proof, I have a court case to back my position up. The case is New York v. Ferber, and the ACLU filed the amicus (friend of the court) brief in 1982. And here is the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States courtesy of Cornell University Law School.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

458 U.S. 747

New York v. Ferber

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK

No. 81-55 Argued: April 27, 1982 --- Decided: July 2, 1982

A New York statute prohibits persons from knowingly promoting a sexual performance by a child under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such a performance. The statute defines "sexual performance" as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and "sexual conduct" is in turn defined as actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals. Respondent bookstore proprietor was convicted under the statute for selling films depicting young boys masturbating, and the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute violated the First Amendment as being both underinclusive and overbroad. The court reasoned that, in light of the explicit inclusion of an obscenity standard in a companion statute banning the knowing dissemination of similarly defined material, the statute in question could not be construed to include an obscenity standard, and therefore would prohibit the promotion of materials traditionally entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Held: As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 753-774. (a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children for the following reasons: (1) the legislative judgment that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child easily passes muster under the First Amendment; (2) the standard of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, for determining what is legally obscene is not a satisfactory solution to the child pornography problem; (3) the advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for, and are thus an integral part of, the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation; (4) the value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd exhibitions is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis; and (5) recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the First Amendment's protection is not incompatible with this Court's decisions dealing with what speech is unprotected. When a definable class of material, such as that covered by the New [p748] York statute, bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection. Pp. 756-764. (b) The New York statute describes a category of material the production and distribution of which is not entitled to First Amendment protection. Accordingly, there is nothing unconstitutionally "underinclusive" about the statute, and the State is not barred by the First Amendment from prohibiting the distribution of such unprotected materials produced outside the State. Pp. 764-766. (c) Nor is the New York statute unconstitutionally overbroad as forbidding the distribution of material with serious literary, scientific, or educational value. The substantial overbreadth rule of Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, applies. This is the paradigmatic case of a state statute whose legitimate reach dwarfs its arguably impermissible applications. [W]hatever overbreadth may exist should be cured through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which [the statute's] sanctions, assertedly, may not be applied. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, supra, at 615-616. Pp. 766-774. WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 774. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 775. BLACKMUN, J., concurred in the result. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 777. [p749]

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

" The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit." n id= ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of the ages of its performers; this would be " a gross violation of privacy."

And this is the organization that so many liberals believe is protecting the civil rights of Americans. On the contrary, they are destroying your civil liberities from within. By hiding their subversive agenda in the least likely of places.

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:

Congressional Emergency

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.

When Children Are Hurt For The Pleasure Of Adults

2005-06-16T11:00:00.000-05:00

Re-printed from Is It Just Me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ACLU has this to say about child pornography:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

Stop the ACLU Blogburst: Spread and Promote Child Pornography

2005-06-15T23:01:00.000-05:00

Quotes from Twilight of Liberty by William A. Donahue:

"Students of liberty, from John Stuart Mill to Thomas Emerson, have all intentionally excluded children from their formula for freedom. The ACLU does not-not even when the subject is pornography.

In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography."

The case is...: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747

It can be found here.

Quotes from Twilight of Liberty:

" The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit." n id= ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of the ages of its performers; this would be " a gross violation of privacy."

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:

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

ACLU demolishing the Los Angeles Seal: A Call to Action from David Horowitz

2005-06-14T19:53:00.000-05:00

The one on the left was the official seal from 1957 until last September, when L.A.’s Board of Supervisors voted to abolish it in favor of the one on the right.

They did this because the ACLU threatened to sue Los Angeles County. Do you see the little cross on the old seal? Look closely. To the ACLU this is violation of the separation of church and state. So the supervisors reacted just as so many governments do nowadays – rather than fight to keep their seal, they voted 3-2 to get rid of the cross.

Help us fight the ACLU in court to stop this outrage and get the old seal back.

The meaning of the cross is historical, not to promote a religion. Everything on the old seal represent a part of Los Angeles’ history. The cross represents the importance of the Catholic missions in the founding of Los Angeles. The stars next to it represent the film industry. The tuna represents the fishing industry and the cow the dairy industry.

And look what else the supervisors did: They replaced the central figure in the seal. The woman in the old seal is Pomona, the Etruscan goddess of gardens and fruit trees. She is holding in her arms a sheaf of grain, an orange, a lemon, an avocado and grapes to represent L.A. County’s agriculture.

The new seal shows a Native American woman who is supposed to represent the early inhabitants of the Los Angeles area. An Anthropologist who is familiar with the papers from the Smithsonian’s research concerning Indian Goddesses has suggested that she actually appears to be a depiction of the goddess Nautsiti, from the Keresan Pueblo tribe of New Mexico.

The ACLU and its allies want to remove every vestige and symbol of Judaeo-Christian religion from our public life, but apparently not symbols of primitivist religions. As long as the religion had nothing to do with the creation of American democracy, it’s okay. This is part of the same leftist attitude that motivated Michael Newdow to try to ban the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and it’s the reason that Ten Commandment plaques are being removed from courthouses and squares in towns all across America. They want to take away Americans’ religious heritage, a heritage that was crucial to the American founding and the freedoms we enjoy today.

The attitude of these “liberals” is a bullying attitude, and it’s working. Cities, towns, and counties are ridding themselves of crosses and Ten Commandments plaques rather than fight the ACLU and its leftwing allies.

But some are going even farther – they want to remove every symbol of Western civilization too. The ACLU wasn’t threatening to sue L.A. County about the goddess at the center of the seal. But on their own they decided to replace her with a Native American woman.

Isn’t this typical of the Left? Here’s what they are telling you with these actions:

Christianity is bad; Native American religion is good.
Native Americans are interchangeable; a New Mexico tribe’s goddess can represent California’s early people.
Real history is irrelevant; the European culture which actually created the state of California is suspect. The history they make up is what counts.
Traditions don’t count; the left’s preferences do.
The ACLU can do what it wants; you can’t stop them.

Is that how you want America to be? I don’t. I want to fight the ACLU on this issue – and win. That’s why the Center for the Study of Popular Culture is working on two fronts to reverse the actions of the county supervisors with the most powerful arguments possible against the ACLU’s position.

We have brought a case in state court, with me, the President of the Center as the lead plantiff, — Horowitz, et al. vs. County of Los Angeles, et al. that challenges the constitutionality of the county’s decision to change the seal. It also challenges the county’s decision to go ahead and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the change even though there are both court cases and an initiative pending.

And we’re also filing an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a case is pending in Federal Court on the constitutionality of the county’s action.

We have terrific lawyers working with us who are experts on the establishment clause of the First Amendment. I am very hopeful that we can win.

This is one of our most important cases among the many we have been involved in, and are involved in now, to defend America’s Judaeo-Christian principles, individual rights, free speech, non-discrimination, and the rights of private organizations.

For example, we have had to establish a Boy Scouts Defense Fund because we have had so many cases involving the attacks on the Scouts by the ACLU and other groups. We are representing a teacher who lost his job over his conservative beliefs; and in another case a white applicant who was discriminated against on the basis of his race when he applied for a position as a firefighter.

We need to raise $25,000 right away for our legal work.

Will you take a moment right now to help with a contribution? Click this link to make a gift of $35, $50, $100 or more. It is costly to prepare and file legal cases, and our cases are vitally important.

America was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles. The Declaration of Independence tells us that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Our Creator, not the government or the ACLU.

The First Amendment to the Constitution tells us that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The ACLU and its leftist allies think that putting a cross on a county seal is an establishment of religion. They think that just about any display of religion – a nativity scene at Christmas, the Ten Commandments in a park, the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, a prayer at a graduation – is unconstitutional.

That’s bad enough. But they go even farther. They’re trying to wipe our history clean of any religious influence. And we say that is showing unconstitutional hostility toward religion.

The court decision in Los Angeles County will affect far more than just Los Angeles. All around America, where the ACLU is trying to intimidate local officials into wiping out religious expression, this case will be the weapon our side can use to fight back.

We need your help to win. Please give what you can today by going to this link right here. We need to win this case and the other significant cases we are involved in to turn the tide against the ACLU and the left

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

David Horowitz, President & Founder
Center for the Study of Popular Culture

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

Petition To Congress To Investigate ACLU Document Shredding

2005-06-14T05:32:00.000-05:00

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

Salute to a Hero: W. Garrett Chamberlin

2005-06-14T01:09:00.000-05:00

I'm cross posting this for NY Girl. She brought this to my attention the other day. And while Jay is out of town, I thought that rather than try to find something to write about, I'd use what she has already written. She doesn't (yet) have contributor status so I agreed to post this for her. If you have a minute, follow the link to her site and check out what else she has written.

Thank you to NY Girl for this excellent piece.

Cross posted from NY Girl

A bit of good news on the immigration issue. W. Garrett Chamberlain, the police chief of a small New Hampshire town, New Ipswich (cool name isn't it?), has done the unthinkable: he has arrested illegals on the charge of trespassing. His decisive actions has inspired another town, Hudson, N.H. to act in concert.

This has the Mexican government in a tizzy, for they know that should this case be won, the precedent it sets will unleash a storm of arrests & deportations. The awareness that an event such as this might force them to take measures to reform the Mexican government & society such that its citizens do not have to migrate illegally to seek employment is not to their liking.

To avoid befalling such a fate, the Mexican government has hired a lawyer for the illegal in question in the New Ipswitch case, guess who helped them do it? The ACLU using the tired old race baiting technique.
"The Mexican government was understandably worried that this could become the charge du jour across the country," said Claire Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire American Civil Liberties Union, which helped find the lawyer for Ramirez. "They worry about vigilante police chiefs who will round up people based on the color of their skin."

The article keeps mentioning the demographics of the towns, which are mostly white, as well as the idea of the insular New England town. Gratuitous quotes like this one, from Prof. David H. Watters, director of the Center for New England Culture at the University of New Hampshire
"There is also an old tradition in New Hampshire of 'warning' people who were not born there out of towns. That sensibility still survives."
are sprinkled liberally through out the article to try to make this seem like a purely New England issue fueled by racism & ignorance. But, even the MSM is forced to concede the popularity of the chief's actions by mentioning that there is wide local & national support for his bravery.

Keep an eye out for this case, the ACLU will fight tooth & nail for this, therefore, so should we. It could end up going to the Supreme Court.

Thanks For Your Support!

2005-06-12T23:01:00.000-05:00

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.

Shredding Shredding Shredding

2005-06-12T11:31:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the Arthur Anderson case, the Supreme Court has ruled that the company could not be reasonably tried for wrong doing for shredding documents when they had no reason to believe they were committing a crime. And in doing so, the Court has given the green light to the ACLU to do the same.

Now I don't have any idea what the ACLU is shredding. But in this day of presumed guilt facilitated by groups such as the ACLU, one must be cautious of mass shredding of documents. When you start to destroy large numbers of documents out of character, it tends to lead those who are observing to believe that there is something there to hide.

The American Civil Liberties Union is a secret society. They hide all aspects of their activities until it benefits them to release them. More often then not, they stay out of the limelight. Preferring to only speak publicly in court. And in doing so, subverting the legislative process by cleansing the nation through judicial review. By creating law where non exists.

What evidence do I have? None. You can't get any. They will not publish their own policy manual. Call them and ask for a copy of it. The answer you will receive is... uh... I don't know... Do you know why? Because their own people have never seen one.

This Organization gets funding through winning lawsuits. They take cases pro bono and get paid from the federal government when they win. Since they receive federal funding, their books should be open to the public. We as citizens should have the opportunity to view their books. We as citizens have a right to know how our money is spent. But they will not let us see those books.

And now they are shredding documents over the objection of their own records keeper. I wonder why. What are they hiding? Stay tuned... Maybe we'll find out.

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. 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.

Patriot Act To Be Strengthened: ACLU Snivel, Whine

2005-06-11T02:04:00.000-05:00

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

ACLU--Protecting Your Beard

2005-06-10T23:00:00.000-05:00

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

ACLU Suffers Loss In Fight Against Cross

2005-06-09T23:00:00.000-05:00

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

It is always good news when religious liberty is upheld in our Country. It reignites hope! Bravo to this judge. However don't let your guard down. The people won this one, but we will see the ACLU attempt to destroy our religious expression again. Let's not allow them to use our money when they do.

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

Crossposted at Crosses aCross America

Thank you to Mudville Gazette

Thank You!

2005-06-09T19:06:00.000-05:00

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

Interview With A Former ACLU Lawyer

2005-06-07T23:00:00.000-05:00

"For 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."

What a great man, and a great organization! We all need to stand up, and demand of our representative to "represent" us! Mr. Lloyd is going to keep in touch with me, and I'm sure we will hear more from him in the future. I hope so.

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!

Sites Already on Board:

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

Thank you to Outside The Beltway and Mudville Gazette and Wizbang

Crosses Across America

2005-06-07T19:55:00.000-05:00

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

Getting Sued For Jesus

2005-06-07T12:20:00.000-05:00

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

You see folks? Censoring the name Jesus is now under the banner of protecting civil liberties. It has gotten way out of hand, and it is happening all across the nation. The anti-Christians are on the march! Please make a stand with us!

Contact Your Representatives and tell them to support The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. This legislation will stop these groups from collecting attorney's fees when filing a suit under the establishment clause.

Help Us Raise Money To Advertise A Nationwide March On ALL The ACLU Offices...Shop The Bulldoze The ACLU Store

Thanks to Muddville Gazette

Get Rid Of That Cross!!!

2005-06-06T23:39:00.000-05:00

For the past week we have been voicing our support for HR 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) of 2005. And this is a case that would potentially be affected by it should it already be law. In San Diego, California, there has been a fight over a cross put upon Mount Soledad.

Decades ago, private citizens placed the cross on that site to honor Korean War veterans. In 2004, President Bush signed legislation designating the site a 'National War Memorial'. Now, an atheist who travels the road overlooked by the cross has complained. And with the help of the American Communist Lawyers Union, successfully got a federal judge to declare that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and ordered it removed.

The people of San Diego County have a ballot issue on the matter coming up for a vote on July 26. But now the attorney for Philip Paulson, James McElroy has filed lawsuits against 3 radio personalities, a state Congressman, and SoledadNational.com Director Phil Thalmeimer over the language used on the ballot issue.

The language objected to reads, "Vote Yes to transfer the land to the federal government and to permanently preserve Mount Soledad -- as it is where it is." And another statement that reads in part, "as in the case with Mount Soledad, wherever veterans are honored with the symbols of the fallen, an intolerant few will launch frivolous lawsuits that waste our tax dollars."

The five men named in the suit believe that they will prevail in court. They plan on standing by the wording in question.

This is a classic reason why, we need PERA 2005 to pass. The ACLU's motivation in this case is federal funding. Remove the monetary motivation and you remove the reason for the suit.

This Philip Paulson must really be a weak minded individual if the sight of a cross on a hill can effect him in such a way as to be offended by it. What kind of power can a cross have over someone who doesn't believe in its meaning? How can the sight of it just cause such an offense in the mind of this individual as to promote a reason to sue?

The answer is simple. Money. He proclaims himself an atheist and manufactures an offense so as to get paid for something that he hasn't worked for. The lure of easy money. Because what is the optimal result for him? He wins, the cross gets removed, he gets damages for his offense, and his lawyers get more money to file more frivolous lawsuits.

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. 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.

Islam in the Public Schools Part 4--Endorsement of Islam

2005-06-06T05:41:00.000-05:00

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

Petition To Congress To Investigate The ACLU Document Shredding

2005-06-05T19:30:00.000-05:00

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.

Our friend The American Patriots has put together a Petition to Congress to investigate the ACLU Shredding. Make sure to go thank them.

To: U.S. Congress and the American People

There are but a few reasons to shred documents despite the wishes of your records manager. Either you have done something illegal or you have done something that violates the trust of an organization’s membership. According to the New York Times, The American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding documents at a frenetic pace despite the wishes of their records keeper. Since the ACLU is funded largely by the tax dollars of United States citizens we demand that the ACLU immediately disclose why they are shredding these records despite the advice of proper counsel.

We also demand that an independent party be assigned to ascertain the contents of these documents to ensure no laws have been broken and that the members of the ACLU have not been defrauded. Since the ACLU frequently files requests to gain access to the records of multiple government agencies, we demand quid pro quo. We demand that the ACLU proves to the American people that they are not engaged in illegal or unethical activities and ceases the shredding of documents until a thorough investigation is complete.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

You Can Sign It Here

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

And...Contact Your Representative and urge them to support Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005

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

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway

Honoring Reagan

2005-06-05T18:56:00.000-05:00

One year ago today, this great American went to be with his Heavenly Father.

"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.