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

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Not Even A Seasons Greeting

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU Its that time of the year again. The time when the intolerant grinches like the ACLU start trying to fill their stockings with your tax dollars in their attempts to secularize Christmas. The ACLU try their best to deny their attacks on Christmas. They call those defending Christmas the well organized extremists out to make a buck in the guise of defending Christmas. This is of course false. The Alliance Defense Fund, just like last year, are offering their services to defend Christmas completely FREE! However, the lies continue again this year as the ACLU denies their attacks on Christmas. However, their actions speak louder than their words. Already the ACLU have began their attacks. They have already been successful in bullying the Berkley City Council into moving their Christmas nativity scene off public property. This, despite the fact that the display also included other religious and secular elements including a Star of David, Christmas trees, a Santa Claus figure, a Santa’s Mailbox, and a “Seasons Greetings” sign. In their latest attempt to censor Christmas they have sued the Wilson County School System outside of Nashville, TN. because their Christmas program includes "Christian themes and songs."

The plaintiffs and the ACLU allege that several kindergarten students role-played a nativity scene of the birth of Jesus—and had the audacity to sing “Away in the Manger” and “Joy to the World.” According to the ACLU, these songs are exclusively Christian in nature because they celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and are, therefore, inappropriate.

The ACLJ is defending the school in this case. The ADF has a long list of attacks on Christmas from the ACLU and its allies dating back from 2002 to the present. Yes, its that time of the year again. The season that I get bombarded with emails encouraging people to waste their money on a stamp for a Christmas card wishing the ACLU a merry Christmas. Don't get me wrong. I understand the sentitment behind the whole thing. I was all on board last year. If you really want them to have a Merry Christmas, or just feel like throwing your money away I won't discourage it. It will be about as effective as barking at the moon. Your Christmas cheer will be tossed in the mail room shredder and never reach any those you intended to send a message to. I propose that your money could be spent in a much more efficient manner. Save the money you would throw away on the stamp for a message destined to fall on deaf ears. There are many organizations out there fighting to protect Christmas and the expression of its true meaning. Why not take the money you would be throwing away on a noble yet ineffective gesture, and put it to real use as a gift to the organization of your choice that is out there fighting the ACLU? Sign the ACLJ's Petition here. Contribute Here. See the Alliance Defense Fund's educational on your rights here. Contribute Here. See the Liberty Counsel's free legal memorandum here (pdf). Contribute Here. Contribute to Thomas More Law Center here. Buy from the Bulldoze the ACLU store for great Christmas gifts.

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 200 blogs already on-board.

The Myth Behind "Separation of Church and State"

by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2000-2004

This country was established upon the assumption that religion was essential to good government. On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." (1) The First Amendment prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion to which the several states must pay homage. The First Amendment provided assurance that the federal government would not meddle in the affairs of religion within the sovereign states.

In modern times groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have attempted to create an environment wherein government and religion are adversaries. Their favorite phrase has been "separation of church and state." These groups have intoned the mantra of "separation of church and state" so long that many people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. In Proverbs Chapter 18, verse 16, the Bible says, "He who states his case first seems right until another comes to challenge him." I'm sure you have seen legal arguments on television where the prosecution argues to the jury that the defendant is guilty. Once the prosecution finishes the opening presentation, you believe that the defendant is guilty. However, after the defense attorney completes the rebuttal presentation of the evidence, you may be confused, or at least you acknowledge that the case is not clear cut.

The same is true with the phrase "separation of church and state." The ACLU and the liberal media have touted the phrase so many times that most people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. Nowhere is "separation of church and state" referenced in the Constitution. This phrase was in the former Soviet Union's Constitution, but it has never been part of the United States Constitution.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "It is one of the misfortunes of the law that ideas become encysted in phrases, and thereafter for a long time cease to provoke further analysis." (2) The phrase, "separation of church and state," has become one of these misfortunes of law.

In 1947 the Supreme Court popularized Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." (3) Taking the Jefferson metaphor out of context, strict separationists have often used the phrase to silence Christians and to limit any Christian influence from affecting the political system. To understand Jefferson's "wall of separation," we should return to the original context in which it was written. Jefferson himself once wrote:

On every question of construction, [we must] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the test, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was a part. (4)

Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated as the third President on March 4, 1801. On October 7, 1801, a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a congratulatory letter to Jefferson on his election as President. Organized in 1790, the Danbury Baptist Association was an alliance of churches in Western Connecticut. The Baptists were a religious minority in the state of Connecticut where Congregationalism was the established church. (5)

The concern of the Danbury Baptist Association is understandable once we understand the background of church-state relations in Great Britain. The Association eschewed the kind of state sponsored enforcement of religion that had been the norm in Great Britain.

The Danbury Baptist Association committee wrote to the President stating that, "Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals -- that no man ought to suffer in Name, person or affects on account of his religious Opinions." (6) The Danbury Baptists believed that religion was an unalienable right and they hoped that Jefferson would raise the consciousness of the people to recognize religious freedom as unalienable. However, the Danbury Baptists acknowledged that the President of the United States was not a "national Legislator" and they also understood that the "national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State." (7) In other words, they recognized Jefferson's limited influence as the federal executive on the individual states.

Jefferson did not necessarily like receiving mail as President, but he generally endeavored to turn his responses into an opportunity to sow what he called "useful truths" and principles among the people so that the ideas might take political root. He therefore took this opportunity to explain why he as President, contrary to his predecessors, did not proclaim national days of fasting and prayer.

Jefferson's letter went through at least two drafts. Part of the first draft reads as follows:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion... (8)

Jefferson asked Levi Lincoln, the Attorney General, and Gideon Granger, the Postmaster General, to comment on his draft. In a letter to Mr. Lincoln, Jefferson stated he wanted to take the occasion to explain why he did not "proclaim national fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did." (9) He knew that the response would "give great offense to the New England clergy" and he advised Lincoln that he should suggest necessary changes. (10)

Mr. Lincoln responded that the five New England states have always been in the habit of "observing fasts and thanksgivings in performance of proclamations from the respective Executives" and that this "custom is venerable being handed down from our ancestors." (11) Lincoln therefore struck through the last sentence of the above quoted letter about Jefferson refraining from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion. Jefferson penned a note in the margin that this paragraph was omitted because "it might give uneasiness to some of our republican friends in the eastern states where the proclamation of thanksgivings" by their state executives is respected. (12)

To understand Jefferson's use of the wall metaphor in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, we must compare his other writings. On March 4, 1805, in Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address, he stated as follows:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General [i.e., federal] Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. (13)

Then on January 23, 1808, Jefferson wrote in response to a letter received by Reverend Samuel Miller, who requested him to declare a national day of thanksgiving and prayer:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provisions that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion [First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States [Tenth Amendment]. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority. (14)

* * *

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have every belief, that the example of State executives led to the assumption of that authority by the General Government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in State government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another.... [C]ivil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents. (15)

Comparing these two responses to his actions in the state government of Virginia show the true intent of Jefferson's wall metaphor. As a member of the House of Burgesses, on May 24, 1774, Jefferson participated in drafting and enacting a resolution designating a "Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer." (16) This resolution occurred only a few days before he wrote "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom." In 1779, while Jefferson was governor of Virginia, he issued a proclamation decreeing a day "of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God." In the late 1770's, as chair of the Virginia committee of Revisers, Jefferson was the chief architect of a measure entitled, "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving." Interestingly, this bill authorized the governor, or Chief Magistrate with the advice of Counsel, to designate days of thanksgiving and fasting and, required that the public be notified by proclamation. The bill also provided that "[e]very minister of the gospel shall on each day so to be appointed, attend and perform divine service and preach a sermon, or discourse, suited to the occasion, in his church, on pain of forfeiting fifty pounds for every failure, not having a reasonable excuse." (17) Though the bill was never enacted, Jefferson was its chief architect and the sponsor was none other than James Madison.

So what did Jefferson mean when he used the "wall" metaphor? Jefferson undoubtedly meant that the First Amendment prohibited the federal Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As the chief executive of the federal government, the President's duty was to carry out the directives of Congress. If Congress had no authority in matters of religion, then neither did the President. Religion was clearly within the jurisdiction of the church and states. As a state legislator, Jefferson saw no problem with proclaiming days of thanksgiving and prayer, and even on one occasion prescribed a penalty to the clergy for failure to abide by these state proclamations. Jefferson believed that the Constitution created a limited government and that the states retained the authority over matters of religion not only through the First Amendment but also through the Tenth Amendment. (18) The federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction over religion, as that matter was left where the Constitution found it, namely with the individual churches and the several states.
In summary, the First Amendment says more about federalism than religious freedom. In other words, the purpose of the First Amendment was to declare that the federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction in matters of religion. It could neither establish a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment clearly erected a barrier between the federal government and religion on a state level. If a state chose to have no religion, or to have an established religion, the federal government had no jurisdiction one way or the other. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant by the "wall of separation." In context, the word "state" really referred to the federal government. The First Amendment did not apply to the states. It was only applicable as a restraint against the federal government. The problem arose in 1940 (19) and then again in 1947 (20) when the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to the states. This turned the First Amendment on its head, and completely inverted its meaning. (21) The First Amendment was never meant to be a restraint on state government. It was only applicable to the federal government. When the Supreme Court turned the First Amendment around 180 degrees and used Jefferson's comment in the process, it not only perverted the First Amendment, but misconstrued the intent of Jefferson's letter.

There is nothing wrong with the way Jefferson used the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor. The problem has arisen when the Supreme Court in 1947 erroneously picked up the metaphor and attempted to construct a constitutional principal. While the metaphor understood in its proper context is useful, we might do well to heed the words of the United States Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist:

The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. (22)

Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" as a means of expressing his republican view that the federal or general government should not interfere with religious matters among the several states. In its proper context, the phrase represents a clear expression of state autonomy.

Accordingly, Jefferson saw no contradiction in authoring a religious proclamation to be used by state officials and refusing to issue similar religious proclamations as president of the United States. His wall had less to do with the separation of church and all civil government than with the separation of federal and state governments. (23)

The "wall of separation between church and state" phrase as understood by Jefferson was never meant to exclude people of faith from influencing and shaping government. Jefferson would be shocked to learn that his letter has been used as a weapon against religion. He would never countenance such shabby and distorted use of history.


1. Ord. or 1789, July 13, 1787, Art. A III, reprinted in Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of American States 52 (1927).
2. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S . 347, 384 (1912) ( Holmes, J., dissenting).
3. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). See also McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948).
4. Thomas Jefferson to Messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins and Stephen S. Nelson, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, January 1, 1802, Pre sidential Papers Microfilm, Thomas Jefferson Papers , Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Ser. I, reel 25, November. 15, 1801 - March 31, 1802; Jefferson to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, Presidential Papers Microfilm, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Ser. I, reel 70. The letters referenced below can be found at this citation .
5. Daniel Dreisbach, "Sowing Useful Truths and Principles": The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the "Wall of Separation," 39 Journal of Church and State 455 , 459 (1997).
6. Id. at 460.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 462.
9. Id. at 463 n. 16.
10. Id. at 465.
11. Id. at 466.
12. Id. at 462 n. 13.
13. Thomas Jefferson to the Reverend Samuel Miller, January 23 , 1808, in Andrew A. Lipscomb et al., eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 11:428; Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805, n Andrew A. Lipscomb et al., eds ., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 3:378.
14. Thomas Jefferson to the Reverend Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 11:428.
15. Id. at 11:430.
16. J. Body, ed., The Papers of Jefferson 1:105.
17. Report of the Committee of Revisors Appointed by the General Assembly of Virginia in MDCCLXXVI (Richmond, Va., 1984) 59-60;
Julian P. Boyd, et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 2:556.
18. In the Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson wrote that the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States and that "no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States, or to the people. . . [and are] withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals." The Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions and Mr. Madison's Report of 1799 2-3.
19. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
20. See Everson, 330 U.S . at 1.
21. One of the early Supreme Court Justices, Joseph Story, wrote that "the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments , to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions. . ." J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 1879 (1833).
22. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S . 38, 106 ( Rehnquist, J., dissenting) .
23. Daniel Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists Revisited, 56:4 William and Mary Quarterly 805, 812 (1999).

Liberty Counsel - Post Office Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854 - Phone: (800) 671-1776 - Email:liberty@LC.org - ©1995-2006

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Dems To Fulfill ACLU Mission

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

When the Democrats had their victory in the elections the ACLU cheered! So did our enemies. Leading up to the elections the ACLU did not hide the fact that they wanted the Democrats in charge. The ACLU have a lot to cheer about. They know that the liberal left will help them further their agenda. We are already seeing it happen. The Democrats are the ACLU's best vehicle towards shaping America into their vision. The ACLU rely on activist liberal judges as their avenue of enacting their goals. It violated its own policy in order to stymie the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. It led the fight to defeat the confirmation of Robert Bork. It fought against John Roberts, and fought hard to keep Samuel Alito from joining the Supreme Court. They definitely have a preference for what type of judges they want on the Supreme Court. No doubt, one of their strongholds is having one of their own on the bench. With the current rumors on John Paul Steven's health, I'm sure they are thrilled with Schumer's latest proclaimation.

More than the inability to influence Iraq policy or the President’s tax cuts, Chuck Schumer says that the single greatest failure of the Democrats as an opposition party was allowing Samuel Alito to join the Supreme Court. “Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer, who orchestrated the implausible Democratic takeover of the Senate last week. “One more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.”

Schumer seems to be on a roll too. The ACLU have much more to cheer about. When it comes to the war on terror the ACLU consistently choose the wrong side. Despite recent polls indicating that most Americans do not feel civil liberties have been harmed by the war on terror, they have made a mantra over over the NSA surveillance program. They have called on their Democrat friends in Congress to shut down any attempt by the lame duck Congress to pass legislation that would further this program. They have reason to cheer once again as the Democrats have every intention to block NSA legislation. The Democrats have the ACLU talking points down pat.

There are a lot of bad bills that the Republicans may try to ram through, but here’s the worst of the worst - a bill to legalize the President’s warrantless wiretapping program. The White House is desperate to enact this bill, which allows the government to spy on American citizens, on American soil, without a warrant. If we want to show people that we have what it takes to govern, we need to start proving ourselves right now, from day one. Proving ourselves means standing up for Democratic values, and stopping the worn-out Republican agenda that Americans just rejected at the polls.

The ACLU expressed outrage when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 allowing us to harshly interrogate captured terrorists. Now that the doors of Congress have been opened up to the ACLU's buddies in CAIR, the ACLU have more reason to cheer. Sen. Patrick Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in an effort to create habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants. The ACLU has opposed searches of all kinds whether they are profiled, random, or across the board. I'm sure they are applauding the recent words of Pelosi, our new Speaker of the House. Read in full at Sweetness and Light.

"Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal conduct," Pelosi continued. "Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal.

Rumsfeld's resignation was not enough for the far left at the ACLU. They smelled blood and wanted more. They applauded but called for an immediate investigation into direlection of duty.

The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation from his post as Defense Secretary, and called on Congress to investigate the gross abuse of power committed under his watch. “Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation is a step in the right direction,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. “Rumsfeld is responsible for the torture and abuse of detainees in U. S. military custody and must be held accountable for the failures that occurred on his watch. He has placed the blame on junior military members and has been nothing but derelict in his duty. Congress must initiate an immediate and exhaustive investigation into his six-year-long record of unlawful activity, violations of the rule of law and complicity in the executive branch abuse of power.”

No wonder the ACLU cheered the Democrat victory. They have much to be happy about. The ACLU rode into town on the back of the donkeys. While things have changed in their favor, the reality of the treat we face has not. It is more important now than ever for the Republicans, despite being the minority, step up to the plate and fight against this far left agenda. 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 200 blogs already on-board.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

ACLU Thinks Election Was All About Them

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

So, America voted for change? They should be careful what they ask for because they will get it. For those that voted or stayed home in order to send the Republicans a message on election day...congratulations! Your all important "lesson" will now backfire in your face. You just cut off your nose to spite your face. Not only have you helped to give both Houses over to the left, put Nancy Pelosi in as the Speaker of the House, and completely destroyed any chance of getting a Constitutionalist majority in the Supreme Court, but groups like the ACLU seem to think this election was a mandate for their insanities. Look, you can't say we didn't warn you.

Yesterday voters nationwide rejected candidates who failed to uphold civil liberties and rejected ballot initiatives that undermine fundamental freedoms of all Americans.

"American voters have reinvigorated our system of checks and balances essential to stopping the abuse of power," said Anthony D. Romero, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director. "Voters finally had enough of the 109th Congress that repeatedly rubber-stamped legislation that violates our basic rights. Voters also rejected many state ballot initiatives designed to restrict civil liberties and meddle in our personal lives. The 110th Congress should take note - voters rejected political scare tactics and government power grabs in favor of civil liberties and policies that keep us safe and free."

Ah, the old "Safe and Free" banner! Since when did the ACLU care about us being "safe"? So now the ACLU is promoting itself as a champion of both safety for our citizens and of freedom. What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety; in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil.

They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations. That is just naming their actions off the top of my head. The fact is that the ACLU is making America less safe.

If what the ACLU means by political scare tactics are the warnings about the NSA surveillance program being put into jeopardy and other liberal techniques of surrender and stupidity then I must disagree. Perhaps the American people fell for the scare tactics of groups like the ACLU. It isn't a scare tactic to state the truth about the threats we face from our enemies, and the threats still remain. The beat goes on.

In several congressional races voters rejected the strategy to paint national security as a polarizing issue. In Ohio, incumbent Senator Mike DeWine was defeated. DeWine sponsored legislation that condoned the president's warrantless wiretapping program.

Looks like that is exactly what the ACLU is saying. America voted against effectively listening in our enemies plotting to destroy us. "Safe and Free" once again. Pundits and talking heads take note...it wasn't about Iraq, the ACLU say it was civil liberties stupid!

As a non-partisan organization, the ACLU takes no official position in any race for elected office.

....except when they want to. Then they take out full page political ads opposing candidates that they do not like. They didn't hide the fact they wanted a Democratic controlled Senate to kill the NSA program.

"The American people have spoken," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The lame-duck session should not be used to ram through proposals that the American people have clearly rejected. The rule of law has been seriously compromised over the past five years, and lawmakers must now seek to reaffirm our commitment to fundamental freedoms."

Oh, that isn't the message you meant to send by staying home and pouting over overspending and the lack of immigration reform? Well, that is the message the left received as you handed them the power to speak on behalf of the majority. Their beloved ACLU says you clearly rejected the kind of proposals they wouldn't like. You wanted immigration reform? Ha! You just kissed that goodbye to hell. Say hello to amnesty.

As Ace says so simply:

"Punishing" politicians doesn't make sense when you wind up enacting the very policies that caused you to want to lash out in the first place.

Sure, the GOP are to blame for their many mistakes but the reaction to that was up to the individual voters at the end of the day. It looks like some Conservatives decided to punish themselves by punishing the GOP. The left's voting I can understand. What doesn't make sense to me that so many were willing to shoot themselves in the foot by empowering and emboldening the very party that will make sure the policies they were protesting continue and the ones they want will never happen. Well, the fight continues and now it we just have to fight that much harder.

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 200 blogs already on-board.

Linked at STOP the ACLU

Monday, November 06, 2006

Democrats Join With Communists, Socialists and Terrorists

WASHINGTON – "The Nov. 7 midterm elections are less than six weeks away. The stakes have never been so high: Control of the House and Senate and governorships nationwide. A recent poll shows that 75 percent of voters are disgusted by the Republican majority House and Senate, the highest disapproval rate since 1994. They are frustrated at Bush's endless Iraq war, by Republican cronyism and corruption, tax giveaways to the rich, cutbacks in vital services, and criminal negligence in the wake of Hurricane Katrina."

A last-minute pitch by the Democratic National Committee for a sweep in tomorrow's midterm congressional elections?

No. It's an official appeal by the National Board of the Communist Party USA on behalf of Democrats. In fact, all of the energies and resources of the Communist Party are being diverted to support the Democratic Party in tomorrow's election, according to the CPUSA's official website.

The party urges members to get involved in the election at every level – including the following ways:

* "Volunteer to phone bank with your union, neighborhood association or political organization."

* "Go door to door in your neighborhood or in citywide mobilizations on behalf of candidates you support."

* "Know and discuss with voters the basic issues. Explain why changing Congress is so crucial to reversing the extremist, right-wing thrust of the Republicans."

* "Volunteer to be a poll watcher or election judge on Election Day."

* "'Protect the vote.' Volunteer with groups working to prevent the right wing's 'voter suppression' and 'vote theft' tactics. Know the election laws and be an advocate for people whose right to vote is under attack."

* "Register your family, neighbors and co-workers to vote and bring them to the polls on Nov. 7."

* "Help give reminders and rides to get out the vote on Election Day."

The major emphasis of the Communist Party campaign for Democrats is the war in Iraq – and support for the plan by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., for early withdrawal.

"The pressure for troop withdrawal is growing, so much so that earlier this summer Democrats introduced two resolutions in the Senate," explained a story in the party's People's Weekly World newspaper. "One, authored by Senator Kerry, envisions a short exit strategy and a role for the international community. The other, which has the support of nearly 40 Democratic senators and may be re-introduced this fall, calls for troop withdrawal beginning this winter, but the flaw is that it leaves the process open-ended, which is precisely what Bush does."

The party believes the Democrats will withdraw early from Iraq if they take power in tomorrow's election.

"The media spin has been that the Democrats are split on the war. The real story is that 85 percent of the Democrats in Congress voted for withdrawal and are in step with the majority public opinion," explained another article on the party's website. "Eight months ago, two Democratic senators were for withdrawal; two months ago it was four. This past week 39 Democrats in the Senate voted for withdrawal and the need for non-military support for the reconstruction of Iraq."

Just so there could be no mistake about the party's intentions to support a Democratic Party victory, Judith LeBlanc, national vice-chairwoman of the CPUSA, added: "The Democratic Party and its candidates are only as strong politically and economically as the mass movements behind them. The greater participation of the Party and Left, the more effective the movements are, the more likely we can deliver a blow to the Right in November."
The Democratic Party has refused to respond to WND's story last week that quoted a variety of Middle East terrorist leaders urging Americans to vote Democratic.

JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.

The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America's war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

Terror leaders reject Nancy Pelosi's comments on Iraqi insurgency

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."
The Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee is officially urging its members[such as Nancy Pelosi] [ ] added by siteowner... to work for the election of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

"Kerry was hardly the first choice of our members," said Frank Llewellyn, national director of the DSA. "Most supported Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean in the Democratic primary elections and would be very critical of Senator Kerry's voting record on trade issues, as well as his support for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq; but the most important concern of our members now is to defeat Bush."

The DSA is the largest socialist organization in the U.S., with 5,500 members and local organizations in many large cities. It is affiliated with the Socialist International, a federation of the world's socialist, social democratic and labor parties. It was founded as a group determined to push the Democratic Party to the left and has worked closely with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The statement urged DSA members to participate in get-out-the-vote and voter education projects with other progressive organizations.

"It is very important that progressive movements keep organizing and mobilizing so that we will be in a position to make demands on a new administration," Llewellyn continued.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus
is a socialist-leaning bloc of about 60 votes or nearly 30 percent of the minority vote in the lower chamber. Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the DSA.

Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WorldNetDaily, the Congressional Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of the Congress. Another officer of the Progressive Caucus, and one of its guiding lights, is avowed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.

The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.

"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."

Nevertheless, the goal of the Democratic Socialists of America has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Another song removed after WorldNetDaily's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."

In the last three years, the Progressive Caucus has been careful to moderate its image for mainstream consumption.

"The members of the Progressive Caucus share a common belief in the principles of social and economic justice, non-discrimination and tolerance in America and in our relationships with other countries," the group's statement of purpose explains. Most of the members of the Progressive Caucus, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, opposed authorizing the war on Iraq. In fact, most Democrats in the House opposed the war resolution. Then House Minority Leader Gephardt and 81 other House Democrats supported the move.
If you are not planning to vote, you are effectively, albeit passively, supporting all of the above. If that is the case, then stand by the courage of your conviction and take that knife out now, and cut your nose off.

I too wanted to punish my party, but after considering the above, I realize that there is no way I intend to allow my 12 grandchildren to have to suffer my foolish pride.

As far as I'm concerned, my not voting (and voting conservative), would be no different than our troops laying down their arms and letting the enemy win.


Linked at Stop the ACLU

Friday, November 03, 2006

Value Voters Must Storm Polls in November

By David Barton

We are quickly approaching a vital time in our nation’s history - the 2006 elections. The 2004
elections set in place some positive new trends among Christian voters, and we are looking for more of the same in the 2006 election cycle. This year, we will elect new U. S. representatives and senators who will not only represent us and our values, but who could change the face of the nation in regards to judicial appointments.

The media is well aware of what is at stake in our nation and has already been talking about the impact that values voters could once again have. Except, this time, their speculations are that many values voters will be, and already have been, tempted to sit out the 2006 elections. They say that we have accepted the popular idea that we should punish our elected officials by just staying home this November. While that notion may be present in the minds of some, we must see the greater picture – who will we actually punish by staying home? Will it be the House and Senate – or will it be our families, our friends and even our nation because we didn’t get out to vote for the candidate who would best represent our values?

The notion that our Congress deserves “to be punished” in such a way is questionable at best. We must remember that we have seen them administer the appointment of two excellent Supreme Court justices, pass three laws adding further limitations on abortion, uphold the president’s veto on embryonic stem-cell research, and appoint several dozen conservative judges in the lower federal courts.

This election cycle, evangelical Christians must prove rumors of decreased voter turnout incorrect and show up like they did in 2004 – setting record numbers this November. If you are reading this article and are concerned about important issues such as the sanctity of life, the Biblical definition of marriage, the freedom of religious expression, and passing more moral legislation, you have the opportunity to make a difference in your state – and the nation – this November at the polls. We must not accept the mainstream media’s prevailing assumption that conservative values voters have already conceded defeat.

Needless to say, a shift in the current majorities would make things difficult for the final two years of President Bush’s time in office. Most significantly, President Bush’s ability to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court and other federal courts would be severely hampered if we lose any of our conservative senators, as all of these appointments would need approval of the Senate.

Given the heightened level of contention in judicial appointments, as exemplified in the hearings for U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, a Senate majority friendly to the president’s appointments has become all but essential to the approval of future appointments. It is possible that neither Alito nor Roberts would have been approved had the conservatives not held a majority. A change in the Senate majority as a result of the fall elections would most likely translate into the blocking of all of Bush’s judicial appointments in his final two years, including the possible appointment of a third Supreme Court justice.

Indeed, it is highly possible that at least one justice will retire before the end of President Bush’s term, thus enabling Bush to make his third appointment to the Supreme Court. John Paul Stevens, the senior member of the court, has hinted that since he was appointed by a Republican president, he feels that he ought to retire under a Republican president. This is tremendously important because Stevens has consistently ruled against family and traditional values during his time on the Court. Some even believe him to be the most liberal member of the court, consistently voting in favor of abortion and gay rights. If Stevens does in fact retire, it provides an incredible opportunity to replace a consistently liberal justice with a solid conservative – one who would support our values. Yet again, if conservatives don’t maintain a majority in the Senate, worrying about a possible Supreme Court appointment may well be a moot point.

Both sides of the debate will acknowledge that a third Bush appointee would have a tremendous impact on the future of the court. Conceivably, it would create the five-vote conservative bloc that those dedicated to traditional Christian values have been working toward for so many years. This kind of majority would make it possible for the court to revisit many cases that have undermined the Constitution in the past few decades. Of course, it is impossible to say for sure what a more conservative court might accomplish – whether they would overturn decisions altogether or whether they would make new decisions that effectively weaken these previous decisions.

However, in looking at decisions that were decided 5-4 with Stevens as a swing vote or 6-3 with O’Connor (now replaced by Alito) and Stevens voting against the conservative minority, it is possible to arrive at a good estimation of some of the important cases that stand a good chance of being reconsidered. Rufus King, signer of the Constitution, clearly stated the guidelines for judges when considering cases before them: “The judges must interpret the laws; they ought not to be legislators.” Evidently, looking at many of the cases that are decided by the Supreme Court today, one would think the opposite is true.

The Court has clearly overstepped its bounds and has “legislated” what we are, or are not, allowed to do or say. Some of their outlandish decisions are found in cases such as: Kelo v. City of New London – a 5-4 decision regarding eminent domain, in which the Court ruled that it was acceptable to take private property for the purpose of economic development; Lawrence v. Texas – a 6-3 decision in which the Court struck down the prohibition of homosexual sodomy; McCreary v. ACLU – a 5-4 decision ruling that a display of the 10 Commandments in courthouses violated the Establishment Clause; Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe – a 6-3 decision stating that student-led prayers at football games were unconstitutional; Lee v. Weisman – a 5-4 decision where it was determined that clergy-led prayers at graduation ceremonies were unconstitutional; Romer v. Evans – in a 6-3 decision, the Court said that Colorado’s amendment to prevent special rights for homosexual was unconstitutional; Planned Parenthood v. Casey – a 5-4 decision that reaffirmed the Roe decision; Stenberg v. Carhart – a 5-4 decision found that Nebraska’s statute criminalizing partial-birth abortion was illegal (We may already have the needed five votes to overturn this in next year’s federal challenge to partial-birth abortion – Gonzales v. Carhart.); and perhaps what is arguably the most offensive decision of them all – Roe v. Wade.

As it now stands, one additional justice would provide an excellent chance of overturning this ghastly decision that has enabled the murder of millions upon millions of pre-born innocents. Thomas Jefferson warned what would happen if the Court began to take these types of liberties not granted it by the Constitution: “[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” Clearly this has become the case today.[emphesis by siteowner]

But with an additional conservative 5th Supreme Court justice and conservative lower federal court justices, it is quite likely that these outlandish cases would become less and less precedent. And, it is quite likely that Roe v. Wade should not be difficult to overturn, at least in theory.

It would no doubt be a momentous victory to overturn Roe, lifting this federal protection of abortion and again allowing each state to determine its own laws. The first step toward this and any other victory is participation in the 2006 elections. We must retain a pro-life, pro-family, pro-values majority in the Senate, or this discussion of judges is quite possibly a vain debate. To retain this majority, Christians must be involved and vote this November! Consider what Charles Finney, great evangelist in the 1800s, cautioned: “[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics. . . . God cannot sustain this free and blessed country which we love and pray for unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. … He [God] will bless or curse this nation according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].” [emphesis by siteowner]

It is vitally important that Christians not become lax in their stewardship of the country God has given us. The implications of this election will last far into the next centuries and what we do at the polls this November may well determine the political and national destiny of our children, our grandchildren and their children. Heed well what the Rev. Matthias Burnett cautioned in 1803: “Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you.” Remember to vote this November for the candidate who best represents your values.

David Barton is president of WallBuilders, an organization dedicated to presenting America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built. For more information and a list of resources please visit the Web site at www.wallbuilders.com or call 817-441-6044. WallBuilders, P. O. Box 397, Aledo, TX 76008.

For voter registration forms, along with voter registration deadlines for primary and general elections, absentee ballot information, and actual primary and general election dates: Go to www.valuesvoters.com and select your state of residence, or contact your secretary of state.

The only thing I would add to this is; Our military is "in country" suffering and sacrificing, fighting and dieing for our rights and Liberty- the least we can do is to vote to protect our rights and Liberty. git'er done!

Thursday, November 02, 2006

NYT: Saddam Was Close to Nuke;November Surprise?

by Oak Leaf on 11-02-06

The New Yorks times confirms that in 2002 Saddam Hussein’s “scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away:”

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing a nuclear armed Iraq and possibly a nuclear armed Iran. Well,there is your talking point Tony Snow.

From National Review:

I’m sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?

What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been “no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat”, for the past three years solid. Now we’re being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.


I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a “Boy, did Bush screw up” meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the “there was no threat in Iraq” meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh… al-Qaeda.

The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivious to it.

The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn’t dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn’t work. It can’t be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it’s in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.

Blue Crab Boulevard

Let me put this another way: You cannot simultaneously hold the position that Saddam did not have WMD programs and that he had advanced knowledge of nuclear weapons that would be of use to Iran. You cannot simultaneously believe Iran has a peaceful nuclear program and a need for advanced knowledge of nuclear weapons.

This may be a surprise too far if it was intended to damage Bush.

Flopping Aces

I find it funny the lengths the NYT’s will go to in trying to destroy the Bush Presidency, and then shooting themselves in the foot….I mean WHO are they to question the release of sensitive information?

Captain Ed has much more with an awesome post: Here is just a bit.

This is apparently the Times’ November surprise, but it’s a surprising one indeed. The Times has just authenticated the entire collection of memos, some of which give very detailed accounts of Iraqi ties to terrorist organizations. Just this past Monday, I posted a memo which showed that the Saddam regime actively coordinated with Palestinian terrorists in the PFLP as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On September 20th, I reposted a translation of an IIS memo written four days after 9/11 that worried the US would discover Iraq’s ties to Osama bin Laden.

It doesn’t end there with the Times, either. In a revelation buried far beneath the jump, the Times acknowledges that the UN also believed Saddam to be nearing development of nuclear weapons:

Also see Hot Air
Michelle Malkin
Sister Toldjah
Dan Riehl

UPDATE:JVERITAS Responds to the 11/3 NYT Article Regarding Iraq Nuclear Program.

Linked to Stop the ACLU

DUmmie Dems Delve into Delusion

liberals don't believe that our soldiers should enjoy and exercise the rights they are fighting for.

Comments lifted from democraticunderground (DU)

46. While on duty and while wearing the uniform no less. tsk tsk

The rest of them show their "Support" for our troops.

Laughing until their various limbs become detached suddenly or their minds become forever polluted/corrupted by what they see and do daily. Laugh it up.

I thought that the guys in that photo were laughing with Kerry,
not at him.

But they're NOT making fun of Kerry's comment. They're making fun of
Kerry's comment as twisted, manipulated and prevaricated about by the Neocons in Washington for political purposes.
Big difference.

The photo was photoshopped from another post on here yesterday.

"I support the troops," but this crew is a bunch of deluded A**HOLES!

Yes a lot of them are mindless low hanging fruit

Glad to see their steady diet of Rush Limbaugh and copious free time allows them to paint banners like high school cheerleaders to take potshots at the real enemy - American Democrats trying to get them home.

I feel real uncharitable about this group - I'd love to hear wtf is going on in their pointy little heads, you know, if they ever actually come home.

Those soldiers demonstrated just how smart they really are.

Ridicule the guy who wants to get you out of there. Help the guy who might cause you to come home in a body bag from a failed foreign policy adventure. We'll see how amused they are next time an IED blows up in their faces.

Any sympathy Americans started to have for the troops who are literally "stuck" over in Iraq just went down the drain...."oh, well, I guess they WANT to be there."

The fact is, they have violated a federal law, a blatant Violation of the Hatch act..

If they engaged in partisan activity against Bush a.) while on duty and b.) while wearing the official military uniform, they would surely be pulling some extra duty at the very least.

Truly INTELLIGENT People Understood the Joke (was about Bush) Sorry the Rethugs are so STUPID and DENSE!

Kerry merely stated an inconvenient truth.
The the cannon fodder are composed mostly of the poor and less well educated.
He should have stated the case even more clearly than he did.

Now I'm off to shower...

Cast of Characters: Part II (Thomas Sowell)

Who are the Democrats who will take over key Congressional committees affecting the destiny of this nation if their party wins the House of Representatives?

Do we really want Congressman Alcee L. Hastings, who was impeached as a federal judge and removed from the bench due to charges of accepting bribes, put in charge of a committee handling top secret national intelligence?

Do we really want far-left Congressman Dennis Kucinich to be chairman of the subcommittee on national security?

This is the same Dennis Kucinich who once introduced a bill "to abolish all nuclear weapons," who has refused to condemn Hezbollah terrorists, calling instead for us to have a "recognition that connects us to a common humanity and from that draw a flicker of hope to enkindle the warm glow of peace." Poetic but dumb.

Do we really want John Conyers to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, when he has already indicated that he wants to use that position to impeach the President -- which is to say, to absorb endless hours of White House staff time answering his charges instead of spending those hours dealing with one of the most dangerous international situations ever faced by this nation?

Then there is Congressman Charles Rangel, who has favored tax increases time and again and bitterly denounced tax reductions equally as often and as loudly. He would become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, in charge of tax legislation, if the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives.

On the Senate side, do we really want Senator Pat Leahy to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he and Ted Kennedy pioneered the techniques of character assassination of judicial nominees known as "Borking"?

Click on title for full article.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

ACLU Want Worker Rights For Illegal Aliens

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

I was going to talk about the dishonest argument the ACLU made in its attack on Hazelton, PA for trying to crackdown on illegal immigration problems. They argued that it was not the place of small communities to create laws fashioned to their own unique problems on illegal immigration, but the Federal government's responsibility. Of course this argument does not reflect the ACLU's true beliefs on the topic. If the Federal government created a similar law as Hazelton the ACLU would find a different argument to oppose it. The argument was, however, good enough to convince a Clinton appointed judge to temporarily block their ordinances.

I was going to show the ACLU's real agenda for illegal immigrant. Well, they just showed a lot of it themselves in press release.


The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Employment Law Project and the Transnational Legal Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law today filed a petition urging the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to find the United States in violation of its universal human rights obligations by failing to protect millions of undocumented workers from exploitation and discrimination in the workplace.

The ACLU is basing its argument on stating the United States has violated a vague International Human Rights Treaty signed in 1948 called the AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN. This treaty states that, "Every person has the right to work, under proper conditions, and to follow his vocation freely, insofar as existing conditions of employment permit." As I said, the treaty is vague. Nowhere in the treaty does it define what proper conditions are, however another section does state that the duty of every person to obey the law of the country in which he may be.

Current immigration law provides criminal sanctions for employers who hire illegal aliens. In other words it is a crime to hire an illegal alien...period. The ACLU tries to hide this fact by omitting the word "illegal" and replacing it with "undocumented". Illegal aliens are criminals and hiring a criminal to work is a crime also. In essence the ACLU is attempting to grant the same rights and benefits that a law abiding citizen enjoys to international criminals.

“The most poorly paid and least desirable jobs in the United States are filled by undocumented immigrants, yet the government increasingly limits the safeguards available to this population, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and workplace discrimination,” said Claudia Flores, an attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “The United States government has an obligation under universal human rights norms to protect vulnerable populations, such as immigrant women, and has failed in this regard.”

Undocumented immigrants make up nearly five percent of the U.S. labor force. However, employment and labor protections under state laws have been either eliminated or severely limited for undocumented workers in some states. These include such basic workplace protections as freedom from workplace discrimination and entitlement to hold an employer responsible for a workplace injury.

The ACLU ignores the fact that these "undocumented workers" don't have a right to work here in the first place, and that those hiring them are breaking the law. The United States can not enforce or provide protections for criminals in the work place. They can't even enforce laws against hiring them in the first place. If any illegal immigrant is being exploited it is from an employer that is providing them with much more of an opportunity than they could ever find in their own country and at the expense of American jobs and law. The real way to stop the exploitation is to stop the illegal hiring.

“International human rights law requires the United States to apply its workplace protections equally and without discrimination based on immigration status. We bring this petition to cast a global spotlight on the U.S. government’s poor human rights record in protecting undocumented workers from discrimination and to demand accountability from states and the federal government, all of whom are obligated to protect and defend human rights,” said Chandra Bhatnagar, a staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program.

What a load of bull! The ACLU goes on to list the individuals on their petition which includes illegals that want handouts for injuries in jobs they acquired illegally instead of accepting the responsibility they knowingly took upon themselves by breaking our laws.

The ACLU fights every effort the U.S. attempts to secure its borders and enforce illegal immigration laws. Their hostility towards the Minutemen's efforts to enforce the border is all too telling. They align themselves with open border advocates and even help illegals get into the country.

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

Front Page Magazine has a lot on this issue. Here is more on the ACLU's opposition to fighting the illegal immigration problem.

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

The ACLU is attempting to circumvent our current laws with a vague international treaty all in the name of granting criminals rights and benefits at the expense of law abiding Americans. If you think that illegal immigration is a problem now, just imagine how it will increase if the ACLU is successful. In the process the ACLU is threatening our very sovereignty.

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 200 blogs already on-board.

PC Free Zone 

Only The Truth is Spoken Here

My Blogroll

Help Fight The ACLU


by Blogger