Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Dubunking the Seperation of Church and State Myth

Crossposted from http://www.constitutionallyright.com/2007/02/05/dubunking-the-seperation-of-church-and-state-myth/

While making my daily rounds through the Blogsphere this afternoon I came across an article over at ScienceBlogs.com regarding the idea of separation of church and state. Apparently the author Ed Brayton and another gentleman John Rowe have been going back and forth as to the true intentions of our founding fathers when the First Amendment was drafted.

My intentions of this article were to show that the Constitutions goal was not to remove religion from the States, but only from Congress. Ironically, in a prior article, Ed Brayton (who is a seperationist) makes the case for me.

Actually, Madison wanted the entire first amendment applied to the states initially, but that was voted down; they knew it would never be ratified that way by the states. Indeed, the states were so concerned about maintaining state authority over such matters at that point that the ultimate wording of the establishment clause was written to assuage those fears (it not only prevented the establishment of a national religion, it also prevented the Federal government from interfering with any state religious establishment.

James Madison was very outspoken in his desire to keep Government and Religion separated, however he was only one man and the States did not share his beliefs. The fact that he was the primary author of the Bill of Rights does not in and of itself make his beliefs law. The First Amendment was worded in such a way that only the powers of Congress were affected and not those of the States. This is the real issue of the establishment clause.

The Supreme Court made an error in judgment when entering the term 'separation of church and state' in the Everson decision. There is no need for me to point at that those words do not appear in our Constitution, everyone knows that. Most are also aware that in the Everson decision, the Supreme Court was quoting a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. What never is mentioned however is exactly what "State" Jefferson was referring to. The letter which was used to invent a separation between church and individual states was written by Jefferson in 1802 while he was President (1801-1809). Therefore the State Jefferson was referring to was not one of the States in the Union, it was the Federal Government he was referring to.

This is evidenced by the religious discrimination which took place throughout the States, even while Jefferson served as President. In many States at that time, Jews were not allowed to vote. As a matter of fact, Jews were not allowed to vote in North Carolina until 1860!

Now why would a President who firmly believed in a 'wall of separation' between church and state allow religious discrimination to occur? The answer is simple, neither Jefferson, nor Congress had the authority to stop it.

The Tenth Amendment gave authority to the States to decide for themselves what was best for their people, as long as it was not in contradiction with what the Constitution said. The 1st Amendment only applied to Congress; therefore the States were not in violation of it by making these laws.

I do not believe at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, in effect nullifying the Tenth, anyone had any idea at just how intrusive in the the States the Government would become. Due to recent lawsuits involving the Ten Commandments, the Mt Soledad Cross, the words "Under God", religion has all but disappeared from public view. This is by no means what the framers of our Constitution had intended.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently agreed with me:
First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our Nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. ACLU v. Mercer County December 20, 2005

If only all Judges realized this.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

ACLU Claims they are the Most Conservative Orginization in America

Crossposted from The Conservative Right

The ACLU took out a full page advertisement in the Washington Post today. Here is what they had to say:

Today, George Bush is expected to sign into law one of the most radical rollbacks of civil liberties in American history. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 eliminates the right of Habeas Corpus for detainees who could be held for years without charge, and guts enforcement of the Geneva Conventions. The law allows detainees to be sentenced to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses. And, it grants officials in the Bush Administration a retroactive “get out of jail free” card for war crimes.

The American Civil Liberties Union, meeting in convention in Washington today, stands in strong opposition to this law. Since its founding, the ACLU has led the fight to conserve our most precious liberties. We have been in the forefront of those seeking to conserve the system of checks and balances designed to prevent the very abuses of presidential power we are witnessing today. When it comes to defending the Bill of Rights, no organization in America is more conservative.

Let's gloss over the fact that the ACLU is attempting to portray itself as a conservative organization for a moment, so we can focus on the real issue. The blatant attack on Bush, and gross misrepresentation of the Military Commission Act. The ACLU argues that this Act 'guts enforcement of the Geneva Conventions'. No it does not! If we were to go to war with North Korea, the Military Commission Act would not apply, therefore any prisoners captured in that war would be subject to the Geneva Conventions. What this Act does is overturn a ruling by the Supreme Court which wrongfully states that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are subject to the Geneva Conventions. A close look at the Geneva Convention Treaties will show this was incorrect:

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favorable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

I find the last sentence here the most useful 'provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war'. Suicide bombers do not carry their arms openly nor do they respect the laws and customs of war when they kill innocent people along with themselves.

The ACLU charges that the Military Commission Act 'grants officials in the Bush Administration a retroactive “get out of jail free” card for war crimes'. No it does not! The bill states:

(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

What this clause does is allow the US government to treat certain prisoners, going back to Sept 11, 2001 as unlawful enemy combatants, see My Previous Article for more information on this.

I have been talking about misrepresentations in the media in regards to the Military Commission Act for the past month, and I am starting to wonder if any of these organizations have actually taken the time to read it, or if they are basing their judgment solely on propaganda released by other media outlets.

Now let's take a look at the laughable statement maid by the ACLU where they claim to be the most conservative organization in America. If you take a look in the upper left hand corner of my website, I have a definition of the word 'conservative' as taken from Webster’s. Notice the term 'Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change'.

So if the ACLU were truly a conservative organization as they claim to be, they would favor traditional views, such as marriage being defined as man and woman. They would not have fought to change the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the term 'Under God'. They would not be fighting the Boy Scouts of America for their policy of dis-allowing homosexual men from being scout leaders (Homosexual men taking 12 year old boys on camping trips would not be considered a traditional value). They would not be fighting the partial birth abortion ban. ( for those unaware of what makes it a 'partial birth abortion', it refers to a last term abortion in which the doctor pulls the baby out feet first while stabbing it in the back of the skull in order to kill it). I don’t believe the taking of innocent life’s would be considered a traditional view either.

I could go on and on about how far to the left the ACLU actually is, but let's face it, any American who follows this organization already knows it.

Pinged to Stop the ACLU

Monday, October 02, 2006

The Truth About the ACLU

Cross Posted from The Conseervative Right

I found this video on YouTube, it was just added yesterday. I am not sure of the origin, however it seems like the type of documentary which would be found on the History Channel.

Although the video is only 3 minutes its speaks volumes about the true nature of the ACLU and why it was founded. Just a quick look at the original members will tell you all you need to know:
  • Norman Thomas - Socialist Party Presidential Candidate

  • William Foster - Chairman, Communist Party U.S.A.

  • Max Eastman - Editor, Communist Party's The Masses

  • Harry Ward - Member of over 200 Communist Orginizations

  • The ACLU is following its founders theologies even to this day. They are openly anti religion, specifically Judeo-Christian religion. According to Reading About the World, Volume 2

    "There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

    Anyone who follows the actions of the ACLU closely can plainly see that they seek to abolish religion in this country.

    In a Previous Article I talked about how not only their fight for women's rights to have abortions, but their efforts to pursuade women to have abortions represents another of the Communist Parties beliefs. Eugenics.
    eu‧gen‧ics–noun (used with a singular verb) the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

    The ACLU also supports Euthanasia, another communist belief. Thanks to Jay at Stop The ACLU for the backup information on this:

    “In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread “mercy killing” of the sick and disabled.

    Code named “Aktion T 4,” the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate “life unworthy of life” at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry.

    The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler’s decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged “the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.”

    For more information I highly recommend reading ACLU Vs. America and visiting Stop The ACLU

    Thursday, September 28, 2006

    Abortion laws take second place to dollar signs

    Cross Posted from: The Conservative Right

    This is a wonderful article on World Net Daily that I urge everyone to read.

    Here are some excerpts:

    Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline believes that it is his job to see that the laws are followed, but he ran into a brick wall when he concluded the laws that apply to the abortion industry, such as reporting an assault when a 10-year-old has an abortion, ALSO must be upheld.

    An Ohio woman, Jennifer Jiroux, who works with Citizens for Community Values, told WND the nation needs more prosecutors like Kline. She cited as an example a recent case in which a 12-year-old was taken to an abortion clinic after an assault by a soccer coach, an assault that wasn’t uncovered until some teachers overheard school children teasing the 12-year-old.

    I find it utterly amazing that if it had not been for the teasing from school children, the sexual assualt on this young girl by a soccer coach may have gone unnoticed. The good news is there is currently a Bill in congress which could stop this from happening in the future.

    S. 403, rightly known as the Teen Endangerment Act is currently making its way through the legislature. The bill would make it illegal for anyone other than the girls parent to accompany her acroess state lines in order to get an abortion.

    Of course the ACLU is not happy about this, and has issued a Press Release :

    "More than anything, we want our teens to be safe. By passing this legislation, Congress would succeed only in further endangering already at-risk teenagers," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The reality is that the parents of most teens seeking abortions are aware of their daughter’s decision. But no legislation in the world can create good family communication. Rather than helping already frightened teens, this legislation may delay their getting the prompt medical care and counseling they need."

    Well if the parents are aware of their daughter's decision, this bill is a non issue to them. Mrs. Fredrickson makes a feeble attempt to argue here that this legislation would delay teenage girls from getting 'medical care'. You have to admire the spin the ACLU has attempted to put on this. Congress is trying to pass a law that would require parental consent for an abortion in turn preventing rapists from bringing their victim to the clinics, and they use the term denial of prompt medical care to argue their case.

    A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. —Dwight D. Eisenhower, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1953

    Wednesday, September 27, 2006

    ACLU Pushed Woman to Have an Abortion so they could Sue

    Crossposted from The Conservative Right

    This is a very interesting article in Insight Magazine and shows just how far the ACLU will go to advance their agenda.

    In her affidavit to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, Ms. Cano said she approached a legal aid office in Atlanta for help in regaining custody of her children and a divorce from her husband. She said she was taken advantage of by an "aggressive self-serving attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, the legal-aid attorney."

    Ms. Cano said she never signed an affidavit that said she did not want or could not care for another baby. The affidavit also raised the possibility that she might commit suicide.

    "I am 99 percent certain that I did not sign this affidavit,"

    Ms. Cano said. "I do not believe it is my signature on the affidavit, and Margie either forged my signature or slipped this document in with other papers while I was signing divorce papers. I never told Margie that I wanted an abortion. The facts stated in the affidavit in Doe v. Bolton are not true."

    Ms. Cano said her mother and the legal aid attorney tried to force her to have an abortion. She said she fled to Oklahoma and returned when she was assured that she would not have to undergo an abortion. Ms. Cano said she went to court where she was told by her attorney not to speak.

    Years after the Supreme Court decision, Ms. Cano sued to open up her records, a move opposed by Ms. Pitts Hames. The records showed that Ms. Cano had applied for abortion, was rejected and then sued the state of Georgia, all of which she said was a lie.

    "The basic thing is that Doe v. Bolton was fraud," Ms. Cano said. "None of this was my decision. None of this was me. I don't understand why no one took it upon themselves in such an important case, a case that allowed a law to be passed to take innocent human lives, to speak to the plaintiff in the case. Why they didn't speak to me?"

    Articles like this do not surprise me on bit. Back in the 1950's Dorothy Kenyon-lawyer, feminist, and veteran ACLU board member was trying to persuade the organization to fight abortion restrictions. She did not succeed; but attorney Harriet Pilpel took up the cause at a 1964 ACLU conference. Pilpel was an able lawyer and a strong personality; she was devoted to the cause of birth control and population control, including abortion. Her law firm represented the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and she did most of the work on that account. At some point Pilpel also became interested in eugenics, probably under the influence of the president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, who was also vice president of the American Eugenics Society. Eugenics is the effort to breed a "better" human race, partly by suppressing the birthrate of the handicapped, the poor, and minorities.

    Eugenics was also a very popular idea with the communist party, which the founder of the ACLU Roger Baldwin was a supporter of.

    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

    Monday, September 18, 2006

    ACLU is now the enemy of this country

    Here is a wonderful opinion posted in The Eastern Arizona Courier

    To the Editor:
    Hal Herbert, the Howard Dean of Graham County, and his sidekicks have a problem. They don’t seem to realize it but they have become the kooky fringe of what had once been a proud Democratic Party.
    I was born into a liberal Democratic family. The liberals of the 1950s, however, were more conservative than the Republicans of today. My father, a real estate attorney, did a considerable amount of free legal work for (and donated 10 percent of his annual income to) the ACLU. I’m glad that he isn’t alive today to see what has happened to this once noble institution. Run now by a radical homosexual, Anthony Romero, the ACLU spends its time and considerable resources suing communities to force the removal of nativity scenes from town squares, crosses from 50-year-old war memorials, suing the Boy Scouts to force them to use homosexual scoutmasters and suing the government over the treatment of terrorists.They have been defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association. I think we understand from the name what this group of degenerates stands for. The ACLU hates Christianity but loves Islam. They did nothing when the city of Hamtrammack, Mich., decided to allow its people to be subjected to two minutes of chanting in Arabic over loudspeakers six times a day beginning at 6 a.m.The duplicitous ACLU doesn’t practice what it preaches. It has investigated and kept secret files on its contributors and passed internal rules stifling dissent on its own board. A few months ago, a number of former directors, including the former chairman, sat in on a meeting as a protest against the leadership and direction of the current ACLU, but they were not permitted to speak. So much for free speech.
    The demented liberals side with our enemies, who are trying their best to kill us, and they intentionally hamstring our government’s effort to confine and interrogate terrorists.The New York Times, one of the many newspapers run by liberal nutcases who inherited their money and didn’t earn it, disclosed secret government wiretaps of terrorist phone calls and the fact that we were tracking Bin Laden by his satellite phone, ruining both programs.You want to shake these guys and ask whose side they are on, but, sadly, I think everyone now knows. These pathetic individuals honestly think George Bush is the enemy, not the terrorists. An association of looney (but tenured) college professors now teach students that the U.S. Government blew up both the levees in New Orleans and the World Trade Center. These liberals are truly the Fifth Column. The modern-day Quislings may one day suffer the same fate.While some people think the general air of nuttiness surrounding politics these days is responsible, I don’t. These shameful appeasers are either traitors who should be imprisoned or they are just plain crazy and belong in a mental hospital. When the terrorists hit us again, I hope people remember who in our midst hurt our ability to track them down beforehand. Remember that two of the 9/11 terrorists were spotted as suspicious by a ticket agent before the fatal flight left Boston — airline lawyers were called and told the agents they were afraid of a lawsuit and they had to board the two passengers. You know what happened next.It’s time to bring back shunning and ostracism. Why help those who are aiding the enemy?Say what you will about free speech, but when your free speech is going to get the rest of us killed, buster, you are done talking. The majority of sane Americans do not want the noisy liberals to endanger us any longer. It is time to put an end to this insanity.

    Justin SalemPima

    Monday, September 11, 2006

    House Judiciary Committee Passes PERA

    FreeRepublic.com reports "On Friday the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee passed the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), also known as HR 2679. This bill will go to the full House for a vote. The bill's intent is to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by state and local officials that results from the threat that a plaintiff may seek damages and attorney's fees. If the bill passes, advocacy groups like the ACLU would no longer be able to use the threat of monetary awards to force the removal of Ten Commandments displays, Nativity scenes, crosses from city seals, or the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance."

    Another article reported:
    "Most Americans remain unaware the ACLU and other organizations have been reaping millions of dollars in taxpayer-paid attorney's fees from lawsuits against veterans memorials, the Boy Scouts, the public display of the Ten Commandments and other symbols of America's religious heritage. In recent testimony to the Senate, Rees Lloyd, former ACLU attorney and Department of California District 21 Commander, provided these examples of ACLU awards of taxpayer money: Approximately $950,000 in attorney fees was awarded to the ACLU in a settlement with the City of San Diego in its lawsuit to drive the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. In the Judge Roy Moore Ten Commandments case, the ACLU received $500,000. In a recent "Intelligent Design" case against a school board, the ACLU received $2 million in attorney fees by order of a judge -- although the law firm that represented the ACLU informed the court and public that it had acted pro bono and waived any attorney fees; these fees were pure profit to the ACLU."
    PERA is a huge step in limiting the amount of frivolous lawsuits from groups like the ACLU. No longer can they sue schools over Christmas Trees, or a Picture of Jesus which has been hanging in the hallway for 38 years with the township footing the bill for their attorneys. Lets see how important these issues really are to the ACLU once their legal costs have to come from their own pocket!

    Illegal immigrants Suing?

    According the the Associated Press 7 day laborers, some of them illegal immigrants are suing Mamaroneck NY for prohibiting the use of a park as a worker pickup site. Although this lawsuit was not filed by the ACLU it certainly has their stench attached to it.

    The article states "They [the day laborers] seek an injunction against what they describe as official harassment that violates their rights to free speech, free association and equal protection. The workers, all using the name John Doe in the lawsuit, claim the village "has embarked on a deliberate and coordinated campaign to harass plaintiffs and other Latino day laborers to deter them from soliciting work in the village."

    As far as I am concerned, the only rights any illegal immigrant has it the right to go back to their home country and re-enter the US legally! They certainly should not have the right to file a lawsuit against a town, in which taxpayers will now have to pay for the towns legal defense, aside from the costs associated with any trial held in a public court i.e. the Judge, Clerks, Court Reporters etc.

    And since when can a plaintiff enter a courtroom under an assumed name? 7 John Doe's are suing a town. I wonder if the Judge decides to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs in this case, if we will also decree that the check be made payable to "John Doe"?

    Despite what ACLU sais BoyScouts have rights

    In a case that never should have made it to a State Supreme Court, the Oregon State Court overturned a lower courts decision that stated a Public School which gave the Boy Scouts of America equal access to the school for recruiting was discriminatory.

    The Boy Scouts of America's Legal website reports that the lawsuit was filed by "An atheist mother represented by the ACLU complained that allowing Boy Scouts to recruit in public schools on the same basis as other groups discriminated against her atheist son who attends Portland public schools."

    I am sure I am not the only one who feels this was a blatant waste of taxpayers money, and should never have seen the inside of a court room much less a State Supreme Court. The ACLU had the nerve to argue that by treating one group equally the school board was discriminating. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

    The most frightening thing about this case however was not the frivolousness of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU, we are used to those by now, it is that a lower court had initially ruled in favor of the atheist mother stating it was discriminatory! It is pretty scary that in this country we have Judges with such a warped view of reality.