Ban The ACLU !!

Dubunking the Seperation of Church and State Myth

2007-02-06T17:03:00.000-05:00

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.

ACLU Claims they are the Most Conservative Orginization in America

2006-10-17T14:38:00.000-04:00

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

The Truth About the ACLU

2006-10-02T15:50:00.000-04:00

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

Abortion laws take second place to dollar signs

2006-09-28T13:14:00.000-04:00

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

ACLU Pushed Woman to Have an Abortion so they could Sue

2006-09-27T15:11:00.000-04:00

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

ACLU is now the enemy of this country

2006-09-18T15:59:00.000-04:00

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

House Judiciary Committee Passes PERA

2006-09-11T16:49:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-09-11T09:17:00.000-04:00

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

2006-09-11T08:45:00.000-04:00

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.

'Sexual indoctrination' bill vetoed

2006-09-07T14:37:00.000-04:00

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took a big step today in vetoing a bill which had been passed by state legislature which would have prevented any school teaching materials or activities from "reflecting adversely" upon homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders. Way to go Arnold!!

According to World Net Daily Craig DeLuz, president of the Robla School Board, said SB 1437 would have allowed only "positive images of homosexuals in any context of education."
"Meaning that if you wanted to talk about the spread of AIDS, if you wanted to talk about high-risk sexual activities, male-to-male sexual contact could not be mentioned because you'll have violated SB 1437," he said. "But that's the truth! What kind of law hides the truth?"

But I think CCF Latino spokesman Luis Goldamez said it best:
"We can no longer allow girlie-men in this state or any state to dictate to our children what they're going to teach them. We need to see them face-to-face and tell them, we have our pants on the right way, we are men and women, we are not confused. And if anyone needs to teach our children, it needs to be us parents, not girlie-men from this building or any other building,"

Although I am happy to see that this bill did not become law, I have to admit I am a little worried. How the hell did it pass state legislature??? California already has strict discrimination and anti-harassment laws, specifically in regards to homosexuals... why did they feel a need to pass a law that would prevent schools from teaching anything that would reflect adversely on homosexuals?

Waste of Taxpayer money???

2006-09-07T08:58:00.000-04:00

According the the Times Union a Jacksonville newspaper, American Atheists Inc have filed a lawsuit over the cities "Day of Faith". And here is the kicker... they are suing on behalf of taxpayers!

The Times Union reports "A Day of Faith: Arming Our Prayer Warriors featured short sermons by several Christian ministers, prayers and religious music. One Muslim and one Jewish leader also participated.... The mayor has also noted that secular nonprofit agencies were heavily involved in the effort."

So what we have here is a Town wide event sponsored by numerous charitable organizations in an effort to try and lower the homicide rate, which at the time stood at 96 for the year. But because there were religious leaders there who encouraged the group to pray, the American Atheists say taxpayers should not have to foot the bill.

I have a question for American Atheists Inc., lets say hypothetically a Judge rules in your favor and sais the Town had no right to spend $101,000 to hold this event... where do you think the money will come from? Anyone else think it is moronic to sue on behalf of taxpayers, when it will obviously be taxpayers footing the bill? And lets not forget those legal fees!

And here comes the ACLU. According to the article :
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Jacksonville, meanwhile, has filed records requests with the city seeking information on who was invited to the rally and its funding.
Chapter President Ken Hurley said he's received some of the requested documents and that he has forwarded them to ACLU attorneys for review. But he said it is far too early to predict whether the organization will also file a lawsuit.
"You can't expect that but you can't rule it out, either," Hurley said."

Who are you kidding Ken? The only way the ACLU wont get involved in this thing is if the case is settled before the lawyers figure out how much they can bill the taxpayers for suing them!

Score one for the children

2006-09-06T09:41:00.000-04:00

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that a convicted child molester has no fundamental right to visit a public park. According to the Indianapolis Star Michigan City adopted an ordinance in 20002 banning Robert E Brown from city parks "after they said Brown visited Washington Park almost daily, staring at children through binoculars and taking photographs from his van. Brown denied the allegations."

The ACLU obviously stepped in to defend Mr Brown. Once again putting the rights of convicted felons ahead of those rights of the innocent, the ACLU argued that this law deprived him of his 14th Amendment due process rights.

14th Amendment due process rights??? Are they out of their %*$#ing minds? What are they suggesting by using the term due process, is it that Michigan City had no right to ban him from the park until he committed a crime in that park, was arrested for it, was convicted by a trial jury, and had exhausted his appeals?

"As a practical matter of ensuring public safety, Mr. Brown is not just another patron of the public parks," Judge Kenneth Ripple wrote in the ruling. "He is a convicted child molester whose frequency of attendance and atypical behavior while in the park justified the concern of those public officials charged with ensuring the safety of members of the public who visit the recreational site."

I couldn't have said it better myself! Considering this is by no means the first time, nor will it be the last time the ACLU has defended the rights of convicted child molesters to congregate where children play, I can only hope more Judges read this ruling and take note.

Let sex offenders live near schools??

2006-09-03T09:32:00.000-04:00

What else should we expect from a group which fights for the rights of organizations such as NAMBLA? The ACLU is now opposing a law which would make it illegal for Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders who offended against children from living within 2,500 feet of any school, day care, or recreational place. Seems like a reasonable law to most people, but not the ACLU.

According to an article in the Milford Daily News John Reinstein, legal director for the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union, said such ordinances violate the civil liberties of sex offenders, who have already paid for their crimes.

He called the ordinances a "scatter-shot response to sex offenders, heading in the wrong direction."

No that is not a misprint, this is a direct quote!! He actually said it violates the civil liberties of sex offenders!! Hey John, what about the rights of the children? What do you suppose John Reinstein would do if a convicted sex offender who targeted children moved in next door to him? Presumably, because he would have already paid his debt to society, Mr. Reinstein would probably invite him over for coffee, or ask him to babysit his children. Right?

Lets not forget we are talking only about people convicted of Level 2 and Level 3 sex crimes against children. Children being the key word in this sentence. Do you think the parents of a 12 year old girl who was violently raped would ever agree that her rapist has paid his debt to society? Do you think Mr. Reinstein would agree to having this same individual living across the street from the school that his own 12 year old daughter attends?

Absolutely not!

One more time on Wiretapping

2006-09-01T15:23:00.000-04:00

The ACLU plans on running a new campaign entitled "don't spy on me". What the ACLU hopes to do (aside from using taxpayer dollars in an attempt to undermine our governments security) is gain enough support from American Citizens that Congress will start to listen to their propaganda.

Interestingly enough, I took a look at their website and their very first argument for sending this e-mail was "The recent terror plot exposed in the United Kingdom highlights the need to make sure our anti-terrorism resources are focused on al Qaeda operatives and not wasted on innocent Americans who have done nothing wrong. "

What does the ACLU think the NSA is doing??? Does the ACLU realistically think that the NSA and FBI are tapping into phone lines to find out who has been cheating on their taxes? Or maybe this multi-million dollar program is being used to find out who everyone is voting for in the upcoming elections?

Get a clue ACLU! "Innocent" Americans have nothing to fear from this program. The point of this program was to identify American citizens who were making contact with individuals on the Terrorist watch list. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, neither the NSA or FBI listened to any phone calls between 2 US citizens here in America, only when the phone call went overseas to 1 of about a dozen countries were the calls checked to see what the intentions were. Furthermore I do not believe any information obtained would be used in prosecuting individuals (I doubt any of our liberal judges would allow the tape of such conversations to be admitted into evidence). The information obtained would be used only to inform the FBI when and where a possible attack may occur so it can be stopped. All you have to do is read this recent article in USA Today to understand the necessity of this program.

I realize that the idea of the FBI listening to your phone calls may not be very popular in our "free" country, but lets face the facts... in a truly "free" country, one with no authority, no supervision, no accountability, we would have Anarchy. The sole purpose of Government is to protect the people, and our Armed Forces soldiers swear to defend our country from "all enemies, foreign and domestic".

As a law abiding citizen, I am 100% for this program and hope the judges ruling is overturned, and the NSA is allowed to continue. For those of you who are against this program, may I ask... What is it you have to hide?

ACLU worried of racial profiling

2006-09-01T10:43:00.000-04:00

In what seems to be a perfectly harmless program run by the American Trucking Association in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security designed to inform law enforcement officials of possible threats to bridges and other landmarks, the ACLU has decided to speak out on it because it may lead to racial profiling.

"This has the potential to be vigilante justice," says Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty project. "We are in danger of turning truck drivers into barely trained, inadequate police intelligence officials" who focus on "people of color."

Vigilante Justice?? The program asks truck drivers to report suspicious activity to a toll free number, such as someone photographing a bridge, or a garbage truck on the street at 5pm on a Sunday evening. Noone has asked, or will ever ask the men and women of the American Trucking Association to attempt to detain anyone they spot doing suspicious activities. All that is asked is they report it, much as New York City Subway riders are asked to report suspicious activity on the trains.

What I think is happening here is the ACLU is guilty of exactly what they are trying to stop... racial profiling. Every time a program is instituted with the goal of subverting terrorism the ACLU immediately yells "racial profiling". Is that because the ACLU is aware that 99% of the terrorist acts which occur in the world are from people of Middle Eastern and South Asian decent?

This program mentions nothing of race, nor has there been any indication that since its inception in 2003 there have been any reports that were based strictly on race. So why is the ACLU speaking of racial profiling? Its very simple... the program is designed to stop terrorism, and the ACLU treats the word terrorist as synonymous with the word Muslim.

ACLU wants protesters at funerals

2006-08-30T14:51:00.000-04:00

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.

ACLU sais let suspected terrorists in

2006-08-29T10:07:00.000-04:00

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?

And the Hypocrisy continues

2006-08-28T14:36:00.000-04:00

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.

ACLU shows how hypocritical they can be

2006-08-25T13:24:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-25T08:35:00.000-04:00

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!

Illegal Immigration Relief Act

2006-08-24T09:37:00.000-04:00

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.