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.

Labels: lawsuits, Obama, President, Supreme Court

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin

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

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

Sounds a lot like the ACLU's founding:

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

And if you still need a little more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"WARNING. Jesus is coming. RU Ready?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross posted from Is It Just Me?

Thank you Mudville Gazette

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

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

Wounded Warrior Project

Books For Soldiers

Operation Soldier

Operation Dear Abby

4 The Troops(Care packages)

Yellow Ribbon Campaign

Operation Hero Miles

Airforce Aid Society

Adopt A Soldier

Show Thanks

Support U.S. Troops(Care Packages)

Military Child Scholarship

Operation Mom

Say Thanks

Operation Uplink

Armed Forces Relief Trust

USO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you to Mudville Gazette and Wizbang

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

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

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

From the San Antonio Express-News

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

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

Why is that bizarre?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It's ironic."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***Please credit CourtZero.org***

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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