.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Lobo's Links

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

One of our contributors, Craig McCarthy, set up a petition to stop taxpayer funding of the ACLU, quite a while ago. We are trying to help Craig reach at least 25,000 signatures. We are not that far away.

Just two days ago, I put up as one of Stop The ACLU's best posts of 2005, my interview with former ACLU lawyer, mr. Reese Lloyd. I had no idea it would be such great timing.

Mr. Reese strkes again in a podcast with Congressman Hostettler.

Rees Lloyd made the comments in an online podcast hosted by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in which the two discuss the congressman's legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square – such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal.

Lloyd, a California civil-rights attorney, is an officer with the American Legion who wrote a resolution passed by the national organization supporting Hostettler's bill.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.

Hostettler says some organizations have created a new civil liberty – a right to be protected "from religion, which is found nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights." The Indiana congressman blames "a very select group" for "perverting" the original statute, including the ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separate of Church and State.

"They use this statute to extort behavior out of individuals," the congressman said, citing the Indiana Civil Liberties Union threatening local educators. The group sent a letter to officials saying they would be sued and be forced to pay attorney's fees should any graduation prayers be offered at commencement ceremonies. The threat sent the message, Hostettler said, that individuals tied to school districts could be impoverished personally.

Said the lawmaker: "When officials see the potential threat of a lawsuit, they stop allowing children to write papers for English class – when they're asked to write about the most important person in their life and they decide to write about Jesus Christ."

Hostettler's bill would allow cases to move through the courts without public officials worrying about being held personally liable for thousands in attorneys fees.

"Let's let these cases go forward; let's let the courts decide what's constitutional and what's not, and let's not leave it up to the ACLU," he said.

Hostettler explained that while government entities can pay attorney's fees charged to individual elected officials, they don't legally have to, which puts the politicians on the hook.

Saying most taxpayers are in favor of allowing public religious expression, the congressman noted the irony of those same taxpayers being forced to pay the ACLU to sue their local governments.

"The current threat to public officials is very real; it's ongoing," Hostettler stated. "It's been the case for several years that public officials are scared to death to suggest any type of public recognition of our Christian roots. It's a problem that needs to be addressed in Washington, D.C."

PERA would prohibit damages, court fees and attorney's fees from going to plaintiffs in establishment-clause suits while keeping the original purpose of the civil-rights law, Hstettler says, to provide a means for those whose religious liberties have been blocked to find justice.

The congressman wonders why the ACLU would oppose his legislation since it still provides for "injunctive relief" – e.g., a court can rule in the ACLU's favor and force the removal of a Ten Commandments display – but takes out the monetary incentive for lawsuits.

"If they're not out for the money but are really out to preserve our civil liberties … then the ACLU should not be opposing my bill," Hostettler commented.

In the podcast, Lloyd decried the "terrorizing litigation tactics of the ACLU."

Said Lloyd: "Not only can the ACLU brings these suits and compel taxpayers to pay them to destroy the public display of our American history and heritage, but so can Islamist terrorists or Islamist sympathizers in our midst.

"All they have to do is walk into court, make their claim that they're offended by the sight of a cross or other religious symbol, and they're going to win the case because judges follow one another under stare decisis," or deference to precedent.

The judges would then order that fees be paid to the Islamists, Lloyd contends.

Lloyd said this issue came into focus for him when he witnessed the fight in San Diego, Calif., over a cross on a veterans' memorial on public land in the Mohave Desert.

"For me, that was the one step taken too far," Lloyd said. "Now, for the first time, the ACLU was attacking the very veterans who secured their freedom."

A civil-rights activist since the '60s, Lloyd worked with the ACLU in the '70s and was "very supportive" of the 1976 Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act because it was a "noble attempt to assure that people who had legitimate civil-rights violations and injuries could secure legal representation."

Stated Lloyd: "The ACLU has perverted, distorted and exploited the Civil Rights Act … to turn it into a lawyer-enrichment act."

Lloyd says the American people are "oblivious" to how many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are going to the ACLU each year.

The attorney pointed out many attorneys in cases brought by the ACLU are volunteers, so the fees the group is awarded normally do not go to reimburse an attorney but rather directly into the organization's coffers.

Hostettler's bill, which was introduced first in 2003 without success, currently has 35 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and sits in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

The Center For Reclaiming America claims that they have over 100,000 signatures backing this bill. Honestly, I don't know what they are waiting on. If we can up our petiton from 19,000 to 25,000, I will personally take the signatures to Congressman Hostettler myself....I promise you. I only live two hours from D.C.

SIGN OUR PETITON TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU ....and spread the word as far and wide on this petition as you can!


Saturday, December 24, 2005

The Christmas Guest

It happened one day near December's end
Two neighbors called on an old friend
And they found his shop so meager and lame
Made gay with a thousand bows of green
And Conrad was sittin' with face ashined
When he suddenly stopped as he stiched a twine
And he said "Oh friends at dawn today
When the cock was crowin' the night away
The Lord appeared in a dream to me
And said 'I'm comin' your guest to be.'

So I've been busy with feet astir
And strewin' my shop with branches of fir
The table is spread and the kettle is shined
And over the rafters the holly is twined
Now I'll wait for my Lord to appear
And listen closely so I will hear
His step as He nears my humble place
And I'll open the door and look on His face"

So his friends went home and left Conrad alone
For this was the happiest day he'd known
For long since his family had passed away
And Conrad had spent many a sad Christmas day
But he knew with the Lord as his Christmas guest
This Christmas would be the dearest and best
So he listened with only joy in his heart
And with every sound he would rise with a start
And look for the Lord to be at his door
Like the vision he'd had a few hours before

So he ran to the window after hearin' a sound
But all he could see on the snow-covered ground
Was a shabby begger who's shoes were torn
And all of his clothes were ragged and worn
But Conrad was touched and he went to the door
And he said "You know, your feet must be frozen and sore
I have some shoes in my shop for you
And a coat that'll keep you warmer too"
So with grateful heart, the man went away
But Conrad noticed the time of day
And wondered what made the Lord so late
And how much longer he'd have to wait

When he heard a knock he ran to the door
But it was only a stranger once more
A bent ol' lady with a shawl of black
With a bundle of kindlin' piled on her back
She asked for only a place to rest
But that was reserved for Conrad's great guest
But her voice seemed to plead "Don't send me away
Let me rest for awhile on Christmas day"
So Conrad brewed her a steamin' cup
And told her to sit at the table and sup
But after she left he was filled with dismay
For he saw that the hours were slippin' away
And the Lord hadn't come as He said He would
And Conrad felt sure he'd misunderstood

When out of the stillness he heard a cry
"Please help me, and tell me where am I!"
So again he opened his friendly door
And stood disappointed as twice before
It was only a child who'd wandered away
And was lost from her family on Christmas day
Again, Conrad's heart was heavy and sad
But he knew he should make the little girl glad
So he called her in and he wiped her tears
And quieted all her childish fears
Then he led her back to her home once more
But as he entered his own darkened door
He knew the Lord was not comin' today
For the hours of Christmas had passed away

So he went to his room and he knelt down to pray
And he said "Dear Lord, Why did You delay?
What kept You from comin' to call on me?
For I wanted so much Your Face to see"

When soft in the silence, a voice he heard
"Lift up your head, for I kept my word
Three times my shadow crossed your floor
And three times I came to your lonely door

I was the begger with bruised, cold feet
And I was the woman you gave somethin' to eat
I was the child on the homeless street.
Three times I knocked and three times I came in
And each time I found the warmth of a friend

Of all the gifts, love is the best
And I was honored to be your Christmas guest."

Merry Christmas everyone!

Linked at Stop the ACLU

Saturday, December 17, 2005

ACLU's selective indignation

Posted: December 17, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern - Jack Cashill

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union is expressing "shock" that the Bush administration had authorized NSA eavesdropping on the overseas communications of hundreds of people living within the United States.

If the ACLU or the New York Times, which is breaking the story, were shocked by the Clinton administration's politically motivated spying on innocent and often prominent American citizens, there is no easily discovered record of the same.

In May 1994, a Democratic Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. This speech-chilling law made it a federal crime, among other offenses, "to injure, intimidate or interfere with persons seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health-care services." At the time the bill was passed, 22 years after the passage of Roe v Wade, only one abortion doctor had been murdered in the United States. To put this in perspective, 41 cab drivers had been murdered in New York City just the year before without prompting federal legislation.

In August 1994, Attorney General Janet Reno established the Task Force on the Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy, often referred to as "VAAPCON." VAAPCON was charged with determining whether there was a nationwide conspiracy to commit acts of violence against abortion providers. This task force coordinated the efforts of the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, U.S. Postal Inspectors and U.S. Marshals.

The Clinton administration had convened no comparable task force to deal with another seemingly minor terrorist problem brewing at the time. In the year before VAAPCON was authorized, Islamic terrorists had bombed the World Trade Center killing six and causing a billion dollars worth of damage. Later in that year, the FBI interrupted the terrorists' planned "Day of Terror," in which they had targeted the U.N., the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge and the Manhattan Federal Building, all in New York.

"The Justice Department conducted a two-year grand jury investigation," the New York Times would later report matter-of-factly. "Agents pursued some anti-abortion activists using surveillance teams. But investigators never found a specific plot against abortion clinics and staff members."

The Justice Department itself acknowledged VAAPCON's failure. "The evidence gathered did not support a definitive conclusion as to the existence of a nationwide conspiracy," reads a later task force report on the subject. Still, VAAPCON showed the FBI and local police just how determined the Clinton administration was to protect the abortion industry. In 1995, Clinton would direct each of the 93 United States attorneys to establish a local task force to coordinate law enforcement efforts relating to clinic violence.

Even more problematic is that this investigation, unlike the post 9-11 NSA effort, was directed almost exclusively at the president's political enemies.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch secured a series of damning Justice Department documents. These revealed that VAAPCON had been used to spy on at least 900 groups and individuals. Among those targeted were Roman Catholic Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Feminists for Life, the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Bishops' Conference of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of these targets were explicitly Christian and openly opposed to anti-abortion violence.

"What in the world," asked Judicial Watch's general counsel at the time, Larry Klayman, "are Janet Reno, Hillary, Bill and their VAAPCON task force doing using law-enforcement personnel to infiltrate, collect and assemble database information of this type?"

There were many in the FBI as well who did not consider this either a valid or practical use of federal power. They did not object to the inclusion of suspected criminals in the investigation, but rather, as one senior FBI agent told the Washington Times magazine, Insight, "It was the collection of political and personal information on people such as the cardinal that many of us found objectionable." As the agent added, "This is obviously political in nature and something we work hard to avoid."

Although there is reason to be concerned about all government surveillance, it is the uses of that surveillance and the selective indignation of our watchdogs that the concerned citizen finds most troubling.

Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue.

It is clear that the left is suffering from "selective outrage" as well as the ACLU from "selective indignation"!

Linked at Stop the ACLU

Linked at Oblogatory Anecdotes

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Operation Nativity

Jeus is the Reason for the Season

Every year we watch as the secularization of the birth of Christ happens around us. This year people are being preemptive, and its been quite successful. Kevin McCullough has started a campaign to send the ACLU Merry Christmas cards. Another effort is out there as well called Operation Nativity.

Dr. Charles Nestor, director of The Truth Matters, is announcing a project called "Operation Nativity" with the goal of having Christians across the country set up nativity scenes on their own property.

Nestor states, "It's that time of year again. We're not even out of October and already the forces are aligning to prohibit the public celebration of the birth of Jesus.

"December 25 is the day in our culture that is set aside to acknowledge and to celebrate that Jesus of Nazareth was born. For Christians it is more than a day of feasting and the exchange of gifts, it is a holy and solemn time to join our voices in unison as the angels proclaimed on the hillside to the shepherds, 'Glory to God in the highest.'

"I am calling for Christians everywhere to join me in Operation Nativity. While we continue to support the public displays, let's flood the country with nativity scenes on our own properties!

"Think with me what could happen if on lawns in every community, on business property, on church lawns, at Christian schools, on empty land, and literally everywhere you looked, there was the depiction of the scene that recognizes the birth of Jesus.

"Simple cutouts are available. Many already own lighted sets. It could be a family project, filled with opportunities to teach children about the events surrounding the birth of the Savior.Source

We are all for this, and encourage everyone to join in this expression of Christmas. And we want to take this idea and run with it! Decorate your blog for Christmas with a nativity scene, in support of religious expression, and as a sign of your support for stopping the ACLU. The ACLU will be busy this Christmas season, lets be prepared.

Please download the pics, and host them yourself...I can not afford the bandwidth of hotlinking. If you want to put the nativity scene pic in support of Stop The ACLU, and to decorate your blog for the Christmas season, copy the code below, and replace the URL of the pics with the downloaded pic that you host.

Merry Christmas ACLU

If you want to put the Homeland Holiday Advisory System, copy this code.

Holiday Advisory

If you decide to add these to your sidebar, spread the word with a post, and then let us know with a trackback! Here's to the Christmas holiday!

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

Under the Name of Liberalism: Neo-Socialism-Part II

Gary Schneider

July 18, 2003

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential Candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Whether through design or happenstance enabled by apathy, this country is increasingly becoming a nation created more in the vision of Karl Marx than that of Thomas Jefferson—and most of us have nary a clue. The principles of individual religious and economic freedom, protection, property ownership and laissez faire government have given way to religious oppression, government-forced redistribution of the wealth, deliberate promulgation of government dependence and a pronounced degradation in our cultural and political discourse. Indeed, from the creation of a newly-ordained proletariat (the anointed "oppressed groups" by the Left) to the systematic and efficient redistribution of wealth via the levying of a multitude of ("progressive") taxes, Socialism is alive and well in America.

The obvious corroboration to this perspective is our progressive tax system. Though originally unconstitutional, the levying of taxes has been a part of American national heritage starting with the Revenue Act of 1791; and upon the enactment of the 16th Amendment in 1913—which gave Congress the authority to lay and collect taxes on income—our fate was sealed. Though all developed countries require some form of taxation to sustain the functioning of their governments, the collective tax burden of Americans has now increased to a point where the average family now pays more in taxes than they do for food, clothing and shelter (Source: Americans for Tax Reform). And through a various mix of Income, Consumption and Payroll taxes, Americans can now look forward to working about 150 days a year just to cover Federal taxes alone. For some additional perspective, at the turn of the (20th) century Americans only worked about 20 days to cover their federal taxes (Source: Tax Foundation/CNN Lou Dobbs MoneyLine, "Bush signs tax cut into law" - Aired May 28, 2003).

But what is perhaps most disconcerting is not the dramatic and consistent increase in the amount taxes owed by Americans over the years, but rather the disproportionate application of the tax burden (the proportion of "regressive" to "progressive" taxation), for this is where the true economic battleground for the soul of America takes place. Socialist doctrine states that what is earned by any one individual should be dispersed as needed to others who have less until economic parity is achieved. Now logic (that somehow still seems to escape the Left) and history tell us that this theory in practice acts as a disincentive to innovation and productivity and, in turn, stifles economic growth and the improvements in standards of living and individual freedoms that necessarily follow.

Representative of how far down this path to perdition we are, recall that currently the top 50% of tax payers (Average Gross Income >$27,682/year) pay about 96% of Federal Personal Income Taxes; conversely, the bottom 50% are responsible for only about 4% of the Federal income tax burden. Broken down further, the top 25% pay around 84% and the top 5% account for well over half (56.4%) of Federal Personal Income Tax paid (Source: Tax Foundation, "Newest Data Show High-Income Taxpayers Earning and Paying More" – November, 2002). This gradual and sustained shift of the tax burden to a small minority of taxpayers is patent Socialist policy—and Liberals want to confiscate and redistribute more. If provided with the opportunity in the next election, you can expect they will push to further shift the cost of an already oversized government to those they choose to consider rich while offering more voter bribes, in the form of new government handouts to their constituencies.

"Rich" is typically defined as any individual or family with a net income that puts them in the top 20% of earners (an adjusted gross income of about $67,000/year); and of these, nearly one-third are small business owners reporting business income. Recall that small business owners are America's leading source of employment. (Source: Tax foundation, "Own a Business? You May be Rich", May 5, 2003).

It is fair to say that Liberals will not be satisfied until they have effectively bought a majority of their voters by relieving them of their tax responsibilities and garnishing them with more government handouts paid for by a small minority of Americans. If, or when this occurs, it will be nearly impossible to enact any tax cuts of consequence, while making it easier to raise them.

Nevertheless, in this (still) free American society, governmental policy requires the popular support or acquiescence of the people in order to be enacted or sustained—and support for most Liberal-Socialist policies can only be acquired and sustained through the exploitation of class envy, fear mongering, factual or historical revisionism and Constitutional subversion.

Constitutional subversion, though, is perhaps most critical to the Left because Socialism, almost by definition, is unconstitutional. Having recognized this strategic truth, Liberals have undertaken to manipulate and divide the hearts and minds of Americans.

On this point, it is worth noting the uncanny correlation between the key positions and constituencies of the Democratic Party and the Socialist Party USA as represented in their "Principles":


"Socialists struggle for the full freedom of women and men to control their own bodies and determine their own sexual orientation."

"People of color, lesbians and gays, and other oppressed groups need independent organization to fight oppression. Racism will not be eliminated merely by eliminating capitalism."

"The cleanup of the contaminated environment and the creation of a nuclear-free world are among the first tasks of a socialist society."

"No oppressed group has ever been liberated except by its own organized efforts to overthrow its oppressors…. They can grow only in the course of popular struggles, especially those of women, labor, and minority groups. The Socialist Party works to build these organizations democratically."

Ironically, though, the very groups they claim to be advocating for are those that they are exploiting.

Foundational to Socialist doctrine is that oppressed groups ("proletariat") rise against their oppressors, as that is the key ingredient to inciting activism toward a Socialist system. Therefore, the promulgation of the perception of oppression (to pit one group of Americans against another) is critical—and we witness this during nearly every election cycle or major policy initiative.

I do not contend that there is some nefarious, smoke-filled back room conspiracy out there plotting to convert America to a Socialist state; rather, I contend that a conspiracy is not necessary. Socialist policy is now an institutionalized element of America's political structure and mindset. Many, if not most, Americans who subscribe to such Liberal policy are unwitting in their complicity to it; having fallen victim to the mind-numbing propagation of lies, revisionism and singular perspective with which they are inundated.

But imagine for a moment if Liberals were, without mitigation, allowed to be successful in implementing just a few of their pet policies, programs and perspectives:


The top producers (individual and corporate) would pick up nearly 100% of tax burden.

An entirely government-owned and -operated school system (no school choice).

Government-paid childcare.

Socialized medical coverage.

The eradication of religious perspective in public and political discourse (thus, our Founder's perspective).

The acceptance of the U.S. Constitution as a "living document" ("the transportation into the Constitution of the principles of a Liberal culture that cannot achieve those results democratically". Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America")

The repeal of the Second Amendment.

This translates to a (near) complete Socialist state, a neutered populace and the assured decline, as proved by history, of a once great nation.

By 1970, Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican and Democratic parties had adopted every plank on the Communist/Socialist party platform and they no longer had an alternate one on which to run. (Source: telemanage.ca).

It remains up to us whether or not they turn out to be unquestionably and irreversibly prophetic.

Additional resources:

Communist Goals, by Chuck Morse, May 9, 2003, Newsmax.com.

The grand deception, by J.R. Nyquist, September 06, 2001, Worldnetdaily.com (see J.R.'s website here for his writings since September 2001).

Is national sovereignty history?, by Geoff Metcalf, October 1, 2000, Worldnetdaily.com
For your analysis, by Geoff Metcalf, October 25, 1999, Worldnetdaily.com.

A Decomposition of the Liberal Mind: Neo-Socialism-Part I

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

'Merry Christmas' to the ACLU

Posted: December 2, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern - Kevin McCullough

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

For the last 10 years, there has been an annual rite of passage that Americans have come to expect. Every year, following the reflective and family oriented Thanksgiving Day celebrations, better than 90 percent of Americans begin their own celebrations of their dearest holiday of all. Nearly 96 percent of Americans observe in either cultural, religious, or community way the holiday of Christmas.

Some attempt to deny the religious aspect of their celebration and stick exclusively with the "secular" or "historical" or "heritage" types of observances. Atheists for example still put up a Christmas tree and exchange presents.

But Americans celebrating Christmas is not the rite of passage I'm talking about.

Rather it is the public assault against Christmas as is initiated each year by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has taken it upon themselves – as a badge of honor, if you will – to attempt to systematically expunge the terms, definitions, and in many cases the symbols of the holiday from municipalities to school districts, and from clothing stores to home improvement centers. Through threats, intimidation and – in increasing numbers of actual cases of litigation – the anti-God organization leads the charge. In large part because the towns, schools, and businesses they prey upon are small and uninitiated, they give up from fears of a costly legal battle.

And while the ACLU's advance seems unstoppable, little has been done to reply to their increasing desire to devour every public institution and re-conform it to an atheistic viewpoint that is every bit as much an expression of religious speech as anything they protest.

And this year, the examples stretch from Massachusetts to Georgia.

Well enough is enough.

My fellow New York-based broadcasters are doing what they can. Bill O'Reilly is nightly uncovering the ACLU's exploits and exposing them to the cable news universe. My friend John Gibson has written a best-selling book titled "The War On Christmas," which documents the worst examples from recent years of the ACLU's assault on Christmas.

Yet in my way of thinking, we have not answered the ACLU on their own terms properly.

Until now.

Beginning this week, and extending for the next 25 days, I am actively encouraging you to fight back against the ACLU onslaught – and doing so in such massive numbers that they will be forced to sit up and take notice. The plan is simple: Drown them in wishes for a "Merry Christmas."

What an increasing coalition of bloggers, media personalities, and public figures will be calling for over the next number of days is for you to send a "Merry Christmas" card to the national headquarters of the ACLU. Make sure the card is not a generic "Happy Holidays" card, but rather a specific "Merry Christmas" card. And if you're really up for some fun, hand write a personal paragraph inside, explaining to the ACLU staffers why Christmas is such a valued treasure to you personally. Send it to:

"Wishing You Merry Christmas"
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

Be kind, be polite, and heap lots of fiery hot coals upon their heads by doing it all with a grin on your face, and kindness in your tone. It will be far more infuriating to deluge them with correspondence that is argued logically and politely, from classy people, who love their families, their communities and their holidays. We would like to see more than 100,000 Christmas cards be flooding in to the national offices, so get your kids and spouse to write one as well.

Ongoing progress of the campaign over the next 25 days will be documented here. Already there is a fast growing number of large blog, talk-radio, and media personalities (Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Radio Blogger) contributing to the cause. But spreading the word is something we would appreciate – 100,000 Christmas cards is no small endeavor.

There are many different ways to fight back against those who seek to destroy that which is sacred to us. But if we will not stand up for what we love, who will?

And by the way ... if nobody has told you yet: "Merry Christmas!"

Related Special Offers:

John Gibson's "The War on Christmas"


Kevin McCullough is heard daily from 1 to 4 p.m. EST in New York City on AM 570 WMCA, and in New Jersey on AM 970 WWDJ. Additionally, you can read his daily postings at The KMC Blog. For information on how to bring "The Kevin McCullough Show" to a station near you, call Dave Armstrong at 201-298-5700.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Many Modern 'Liberals' are Indeed Un-American

By JB Williams
Dec 3, 2005

First, many modern liberals aren’t liberal at all today. Instead of seeking to expand personal freedom and liberty like the liberals of old, they seek to remove freedoms and liberties from others to support their federal dependency. There ain’t nothin’ American about that!

Just so you don’t miss the point, let’s keep it simple and straight forward. People from other countries who hate American principles are called “anti-American”. People from America who hate those same American principles are called “un-American”. Too simple?

Oh I know - it’s politically incorrect to use the term “un-American” when referring to people who call themselves American. That’s as good a place to start as any. Unlike the French, real “Americans” couldn’t care less about political correctness. So get over it and learn to accept whatever title you have earned.

Frankly, there is no more appropriate term than “un-American” to describe the behavior of many liberals living in America today. Being born or legally residing in America does not make one American. Sure, legally it does, but that’s all. Being an American requires much more than just calling this piece of real estate home.

What is an American? If America is an idea, a vision, a set of common beliefs based upon a love and respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, freedom, self-governance and self-determination; - then being an American must mean being one who upholds, supports, protects, promotes or defends these principles.

American is an overused term today, just like the term “hero”. I saw Chris Matthew’s from Hardball interviewing one of the congressmen recently scuffed up in an auto accident while joy riding around Iraq the other day, referring to him as a “hero”. Why, because he visited Iraq and got scuffed in a car wreck? I’m not sure how this qualified the good congressman as a “hero”, but it did in Matthews mind.

On the other hand, if getting three purple hearts in three months, all from self-inflicted surface scratches, none of which required medical treatment, qualifies you as a “hero”, why not a scuff from a fender-bender?

Some call Rep. Jack Murtha a “hero” and I’m not suggesting he isn’t. But did he earn this title by actually performing some act of notable heroism while serving in Vietnam? He might have? Or did the act of serving alone earn him the title? I don’t know his war record, but I’m pretty willing to call just about anyone who ever wore a US military uniform a hero. So fine…

I have enormous respect for Murtha or anyone who ever wore a US uniform in defense of my country. But I’m not sure that this act alone makes anyone a “hero” by definition. Certainly, many over the years have served in uniform, who were not a “hero”, like the kid that rolled a hand grenade into his CO’s tent at the beginning of Gulf War II, or the people caught playing stack-the-naked-terrorist at Abu Ghraib prison. Soldier yes – hero no!

The point is - calling everyone a hero dishonors those who have actually earned that title. Likewise, calling everyone an American just because they legally reside in America dishonors those who earn that title by loving, supporting and defending those good ole American principles.

Is it possible to be an American if you don’t believe in, support or defend fundamental American principles? The truthful answer is no, it isn’t. America is nothing more than a belief system based upon a set of principles. We can disagree on the details of implementation all we want. But if you don’t hold dear those basic American ideals, or if you spend your time fighting against those principles, you are not American, no matter what the address on your ID says. Both American and un-American are behavioral patterns, not just legal terms of residency.

This is the basis in which so many of today’s so-called “liberals” qualify as un-American and like it or not, real Americans who do uphold true American principles have run out of tolerance for those who don’t. Hence, the recent willingness to call them as they see them…

Liberals are confused and perplexed by this recent development. They are offended that anyone would dare call them just what they are on the basis of how they behave. But isn’t it about time we start calling things what they are, while we still remember what they are?

What would you call a congressman who used his Top level Security clearance to view Top Secret intelligence concerning a known enemy of America, only to then privately travel halfway around the globe to tell all he knew about Top Secret policy plans, helping our enemy prepare a defense?

We use to call someone like this a traitor, guilty of treason. Today, we call him a patriot for boldly demonstrating his dissent against American policy. His name is Senator Rockefeller…and he did just that in 2002, while Chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. American or un-American behavior? You tell me…

What about someone who stands before an international audience including our enemy and calls American soldiers, currently risking life and limb in defense of our nation “Nazis”? American or un-American behavior? His name is Senator Dick Durbin and he has clucked for the international camera more than once, calling his country a terrorist state operating “Gulags”. An act of American patriotism or anti-Americanism?

How about a Senator whose military band-of-brothers call him “unfit for command”, who recruited a few socialist America-bashing billionaires in an effort to buy a ride in the oval office chair he would win no other way? American or un-American? His name is John Kerry, and he wants to try again in 2008.

The examples of un-American politicians are nearly endless today. How about the people who vote for them? Hate capitalism? That’s a shame since America was designed, founded and became the world’s most prosperous and generous nation on the basis of a free-market capitalist economy. Capitalism = Americanism…

Hate religious speech? That’s too bad… The founders seldom completed a single sentence without referring to their religious beliefs and they wrote the First Amendment for the purpose of insuring that free religious expression would always be part of the social discourse in this country. Fundamental morality and free religious expression = American.

Believe in abortion? Unfortunately for you, the American founders wrote about an inalienable God given “right to life”, not any right to abort life for convenience sake, which has become the single largest affront on life, liberty and happiness in America today. Abortion = un-American.

Patriot, one who loves, supports and defends his country. Nowhere can you find a definition of patriot that says one who hates, undermines, circumvents, attacks and seeks to destroy the founding principles of his country.

In the federal government you trust? Sorry… Not an American concept - a socialist concept. Hate corporations? Is profit a dirty word in your world? Looking to vote yourself money from the treasury by electing officials willing to rob others on your behalf in exchange for your vote? Again, as un-American as robbing your next-door neighbor just because he has more…

You can call yourself anything you want, it’s America. But the rest of us get to call you what you actually are…”un-American”. If you spend your time or vote for people who spend theirs, attacking fundamental American principles, there is no more appropriate term available.

If you want us to stop calling you un-American, try acting American. If you don’t love, support, promote and defend true American principles and ideals, you are by all accounts, un-American.

Why are pro-abortion people offended when someone calls them a baby killer, but not offended by the act of killing babies itself? I have never figured that out???

The same people are offended by just about everything America is, ever was or was ever intended to be. So why aren’t they proud of the title un-American? They are clearly proud to be un-American, just not happy with the title that accompanies their behavior. Why?

I believe in fundamental American principles and would proudly die defending those ideals. I am proud to be a true American. If I were proud of socialist principles, I’d be just as proud to be called a socialist. Why aren’t they?

Well, offended or not… they had better learn to live with the title they have worked so hard to earn. Acting against America IS by definition un-American.

Deep down, they know who and what they are. They don’t find it the least offensive to be un-American. But being called un-American is quite another story…

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy.

Linked at Stop the ACLU

Linked to Cao's trackback party

Friday, December 02, 2005

ACLU Loses In Bag Search Case

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

In a victory for National Security, and the American citizen not to be blown up, a judge ruled today against the ACLU, and for NYC Subways in their effort to protect their citizens.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled on Friday that police had a constitutional right to randomly search passengers' bags on the New York City subway to deter terrorist attacks.

U.S. District Judge Richard Berman ruled the searches were an effective and appropriate means to fight terrorism, and constituted only a "minimal intrusion" of privacy.

"The risk to public safety of a terrorist bombing of New York City's subway system is substantial and real," Berman wrote in his opinion.

"The need for implementing counter-terrorism measures is indisputable, pressing, ongoing and evolving."

Random bag searches began on July 22 after a second set of bomb attacks on London's transit system.

In a statement, Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised the ruling, calling bag searches a "reasonable precaution" that police would continue to take.

The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), which had sued to stop the searches, plans to appeal, Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a statement. She said the "unprecedented" bag search program violated a basic freedom.

Well of course they plan to appeal, they wouldn't want common sense to prevail! I understand the ACLU's concern on this. No one wants to live in a police state. However, I think they are completely overzealous in this. The majority of people do not mind being searched if it means they will live another day. Besides, the ACLU would have another fit if we were to try to implement profiled searches. And they have even proven through their lawsuit in Tampa against Raymond James Stadium that they are against searches across the board. The irony is that on their own building they have a sign that says you may be subject to search upon entering. The ACLU have twisted a legitimate attempt to protect NY's citizens into a scare tactic method completely overexaggerated. Why can't they see what most people can? The threat of being blown up is a greater risk, than the far fetched idea of a police state.

PC Free Zone 

Only The Truth is Spoken Here

My Blogroll

Help Fight The ACLU


by Blogger