Wednesday, August 30, 2006

ACLU wants protesters at funerals

According to Vindy.com the ACLU has filed a lawsuit in Ohio based on a new law that would prevent protesters, and political demonstrations at funerals from coming within 300 feet from the service (or about 1 city block). Apparently the ACLU feels this is too restrictive, "The breadth of it is astounding. It literally chills all speech," according to Jeff Gamso, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio.

No Jeff! What is "chilling" are the cold hearted people who use funerals as an opportunity to make political statements while spouses and children grieve over their lost family member.

The law was sponsored by Rep. John A. Boccieri, a New Middletown Democrat, who stated this legislation was put forth in part because of actions by Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. These religious fanatics would use military funerals as a chance to gain attention for their message that God is punishing the United States for accepting homosexuality. Rep. Boccieri did the humanitarian thing by sponsoring this law which would allow the family members of fallen soldiers the opportunity to grieve for their loved ones in peace.

Only in a country that even allows such organizations as the ACLU to exist would their ever have to be a law that states you cannot protest at a funeral. However I believe the most significant part of this article was Boccieri stating that the ACLU didn't testify before lawmakers when the measure was being considered. If you were to write a letter asking Jeff Gamso why they didn't challenge this law prior to it being enacted, I am confident he would tell you it was because they were unaware such legislation was being considered.

The real truth is they purposely waited for the law to be passed, because had they argued against it prior to it passing, and the law never came into fruition, they would be unable to use American tax dollars to go to court and fight against it.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

ACLU sais let suspected terrorists in

In yet another move by the ACLU to undermine the security of our country, today's New York Times reports they are coming to the aid of 2 suspected terrorists in Pakistan. Muhammad Ismail, a 45-year-old naturalized citizen born in Pakistan, and his 18-year-old son, Jaber Ismail, who was born in the United States recently tried to return to the United States after 4 years in Pakistan only to find out they were on the Terrorist Watch List.

Back in April of this year Muhammad's nephew Hamid Hayat was convicted of supporting terrorists by attending a Pakistani training camp. In an interview with FBI agents following his arrest Hayat informed them that his cousin Jaber Ismail had also attending a Pakistani training camp. Apparently the ACLU doesn't feel this is reason enough to have Ismail on the terrorist watch list.

Federal authorities said that the men, both Lodi residents, would not be allowed back into the country unless they agreed to FBI interrogations in Pakistan. Jaber has since met with officials at the US Embassy in Pakistan, however his father refuses to do so. When asked to take a polygraph test, Jaber refused.

Now lets get one thing straight... this is not a case of profiling. The FBI received information that Jaber had attending a Pakistani Terrorist Training camp. Now here comes this young man trying to return to the United States after being in Pakistan for 4 years doing "religious study". I applaud the FBI and Department of Homeland Security for denying him access to this country until he submits to a polygraph test to determine if he has indeed attending a terrorist training camp.

The ACLU on the other hand believes "They want to come home and have an absolute right to come home," according to Julia Harumi Mass a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. An absolute right?? The term absolute right reflects rights that cannot be taken away, such as Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion. Suspected terrorists DO NOT have an absolute right to enter this country, even if they are US citizens!

Jaber Ismail sais he has never attending a terrorist training camp, the FBI sais take a polygraph test and testify to that affect and we will let you back in the country. Ismail sais no. Does he have something to hide? Has he indeed been attending a terrorist training camp these last 4 years in Pakistan? Is he coming back to the US with intentions of killing innocent citizens? Who knows?

But until we DO know for sure... would anyone feel comfortable letting him enter our country?

Monday, August 28, 2006

And the Hypocrisy continues

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the ACLU. They now find themselves in the unfortunate but very laughable position of fighting both sides of the same battle. According to a recent report in USA Today , the ACLU is arguing in New Jersey that a child can sing the song Awesome God in the schools talent show, while in Nevada they are arguing that the school valedictorian had no right to make reference to "the Lord" in her speech.

Huh?

How could 1 organization (who is partially funded by taxpayer dollars by the way) possibly be going to court representing opposite sides of a similar issue? Are we now to believe that the interpretation of the constitution varies from state to state, and what is free speech in New Jersey is not in Nevada?

Or maybe... just maybe, what the ACLU is trying to do, and have been trying to do ever since they were found in 1920 (by a know communist), is to distort our view of the constitution so much that it is deemed irrelevant. Why else would they constantly be in a court room trying to re-interpret the constitution to fit their needs, even if their needs change from day to day.

Friday, August 25, 2006

ACLU shows how hypocritical they can be

Today's New York Daily News features an article about Javed Iqbal, a resident of Dyker Heights Brooklyn who was recently arrested for offering to install the illegal terrorist channel "al Manar". This station which is controlled by Hezbollah promotes "...Suicide bombings and calls for violent attacks against American troops in Iraq" according to Mark Duboqitz, head of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies which is a terrorist media watchdog. He goes on to say "It [al Manar] is being used to raise money... By broadcasting bank account numbers where viewers can donate money to Hezbollah and other terror organizations."

Almost immediately the NYCLU, which is the New York chapter of our friends at the ACLU spoke out on Iqbal's behalf. Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU stated "In a free society all speech is protected regardless of the view point"

Oh really?? Isn't this the same organization who had the word "Christmas" removed from the calendar in Covington Georgia? Demanded all churches in Brow Bridge Louisiana take down their nativity scenes? Aren't they currently threatening to sue a Louisiana Parish should a volunteer group go ahead and erect a privately-funded memorial to Katrina victims on private land because it will include a cross? Where is the Freedom's here Mrs. Lieberman?

Once again our "beloved" ACLU is attempting to fight for the rights of the wrong. They intend to argue that it is unconstitutional to make a television station illegal because of the First Amendment. Amazing isn't it? The same group which wanted to change the Pledge of Allegiance because it said the word "God", now wants the government to allow a television network which promotes violence against American soldiers to air in this country.

I strongly urge everyone reading this blog to click the link on the right, sign the petition to stop the Federal Government from sending our tax dollars to support this Anti-American organization.

P.S. I hope you all will join me in sending Christmas cards to the ACLU headquarters this year, not as an expression of religion but as an expression of contempt for everything the ACLU stands for.

State Police officer under investigation for doing his job

Only in America! Only in a country with such organizations as the ACLU could this possibly happen. In the ACLU's latest act of indecency against the American people, they have filed a complaint on Rhode Island State Trooper Thomas Chabot for detaining 14 people who he suspected were in this country illegally.

The Providence Journal reports that Trooper Chabot pulled over a van for failing to signal when changing lanes. Upon asking the 14 passengers of the van for identification he learned 11 of them were in this country illegally. The 11 passengers in question were detained, turned over to the proper immigration authorities and now face deportation.

The ACLU stipulates that this "an egregious case of racial profiling, from beginning to end". Lets pretend for a moment that statement is true. Does it change the fact that these 11 people were here illegally? Does this mean now these 11 people have a right to file a lawsuit (with legal representation provided by our beloved ACLU of course) for false detainement? The answer to me is quite simple. NO!

What Trooper Chabot did was his job. He witnessed a traffic violation and proceeded to pull the van over. He asked the passengers for valid identification. Upon learning of their immigration status he turned them over to the proper authorities. What the ACLU needs to be reminded of is that every citizen of this country is required to carry proper identification at all times, and law enforcement officials have every right to ask you to produce such identification regardless if you have committed a crime. I myself have been stopped by a Police Officer while walking down the street ( at 4 am and visibly intoxicated) and asked to produce ID, which I was more than happy to do.

Its time someone reminds the ACLU what the "A" stands for. I would like to invite everyone to visit http://stoptheaclu.com . For the record I am not affiliated with this website except that I am an avid reader of their articles and 100% support what they are trying to do. STOP THE ACLU!

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Illegal Immigration Relief Act

In a country which has been overburdened with illegal immigrants and day workers, towns are starting to take matters into their own hands. With the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, towns like Hazelton Pennsylvania have begun passing Illegal Immigration Relief Act's, which are designed to stop companys from employing illegal immigrants, as well as fining landlords for renting to them. But not if the ACLU has anything to say about.

Apparantly the ACLU (the "A" stands for American by the way) along with other civil rights groups have filed a lawsuit against Hazelton and other towns who have passed similar laws, stating these laws are "unconstitutional". Although I am sure this case will be put before a liberal judge who will agree with the ACLU, I personally cannot find anything in the constitution which protects the rights of illegal immigrants. In a recent Reuters report Omar Jadwat, an attorney for the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project was quoted as saying "This mean-spirited law is wrong for many reasons but the most obvious is that the city does not have the power to make its own immigration laws".

I wonder what the wrong reasons would be? Could the wrong reason be that Hazelton would prefer the companies in its town employ tax paying citizens as opposed to those in the town (as well as the country) illegally? And what exactly is "mean spirited" about penalizing American companies who pay illegal immigrants below minimum wage, while citizens of this great country are unemployed?

I can only hope the judge this case goes before is not some bleeding heart liberal, and can see this law for what it is, which is simply a case of stopping people here illegally from benefiting from the rights that previously were only provided to citizens.