Lobo's Links

Obama Hates the First and Second Amendment

2008-09-28T01:15:00.000-07:00

Because of Obama's hatred towards freedom of speech, Dan Riehl suggested hosting the NRA ads Obama's lawyers are trying to silence on our blogs. Obliged.

Cross posted from Stop the ACLU

Never forget...

2008-09-11T01:53:00.000-07:00

One Party's Trash is Another Party's Treasure

2008-09-06T11:58:00.000-07:00

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU:

My co-blogger Roger wrote about this on the September 1st, and yes the entire Democratic party should be ashamed. Of course, they aren't. So, why wouldn't people question your patriotism when you treat the flag like this?

This morning, Republicans tell me that a worker at Invesco Field in Denver saved thousands of unused flags from the Democratic National Convention that were headed for the garbage. Guerrilla campaigning. They will use these flags at their own event today in Colorado Springs with John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Before McCain speaks today, veterans will haul these garbage bags filled with flags out onto the stage -- with dramatic effect, no doubt -- and tell the story.

"What you see in the picture I sent you is less than half of total flags," a Republican official emailed. "We estimate the total number to be around 12,000 small flags and one full size 3×5 flag."

I'm not sure what the DNC was supposed to do with unused hand-flags, frankly. But the Republicans are obviously questioning someone's patriotism here.

Yet the story has a happy ending. One party's trash is another party's treasure! Country first indeed!

The flags are on their way to a McCain Palin rally in Colorado Springs where the Boy Scouts and Veterans of Foreign Wars will distribute them to the GOP faithful.

FOX:

Boy Scouts have arrived with 84 trash bags full of bundles of flags at the site of a McCain rally scheduled to begin at 12:30 p.m. local time in Colorado Springs.

The campaign says the flags were recovered from Invesco Field after the Democrats concluded their convention there, and they are going to be used as part of the warm-up ceremonies before McCain takes the stage for the rally.

FOX News has been told a vendor at Invesco Field found the flags, which were going to be thrown out, and turned them over to the McCain campaign.

Veterans in Colorado Springs are expected to distribute the flags to the audience at the rally.

Obama has faced questions about his patriotism since the beginning of the Democratic primary, and has set up a Web site specifically designed to fight such charges.

Ed Morrissey:

Didn't anyone make arrangements for better disposal of these flags from Invesco? At the very least, they were an investment that could have been re-used at rallies in Colorado as well as the rest of the nation during the general election. Instead, they've handed a dramatic moment to John McCain and Sarah Palin, as well as relieved them of the cost of 12,000 such flags -- as well as a full 3?x5? flag that also wound up in the trash.

Remember when the DNCC was supposed to be the "greenest convention ever"? How they worried about the color of the food and using organic materials in their merchandise? I guess we can see where the "green" concern ends ... at red, white, and blue.

By the way, just so you know...here is the proper way to dispose of the American flag.

Drew M.

Now they'll whine about how it wasn't their fault and it's not like Obama was personally tossing flags in the trash and in some sense that's true. But appearances matter and this just feeds into the perception that patriotism as most Americans understand it (something other than endless criticism of the country) is simply a card Democrats play at election time.

I wonder why anyone would get that idea?

The photo above is of one of Obama's best friends and mentor, Bill Ayers the American hating domestic terrorist.

Was Hamdan's Trial Fair?

2008-08-14T19:48:00.000-07:00

Crossposted from STACLU:

After years of litigation a verdict was finally reached for Salim Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden’s driver and detainee accused of war crimes. While cleared of conspiracy he was convicted on multiple counts of material support for terrorism. Legal groups like the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights quickly criticized the ruling. Certain media elements were not far behind. Much of the criticism was understandable, and much was distorted through the lens of bias. Most of the criticism ended up being deflated after a surprisingly lenient sentence of five and a half years, including five years and a month already served. This sentence fell short of the thirty years to life the prosecutors wanted. Even one of Salim’s defense attorneys admitted the verdict was fair and just. However, a fair outcome doesn’t necessarily reflect a fair process. So, are the military tribunals for the Guantanamo detainees fair? To answer this question we must critically look at both sides of the argument, the details of the process itself, and understand how we arrived at this point.

When war has been declared the United States has made use of military tribunals to try captured enemies outside the scope of conventional civil and criminal matters, historically providing a trial for combatants acting in violation to the Rules of War. The Geneva Conventions established what most countries have adopted as the international standard regarding such rules.

The perception pushed by some is that combatants held at Guantanamo deserve protection under the provisions provided by the Geneva Convention. Others argued that the essence of the Convention is the distinction between lawful combatants and civilians and that terrorists violate this by being non-uniformed, negating this distinction and endangering innocent civilians. This argument applies that Prisoner of War status and the rights that come with that should not extend to those that violate its rules. The Supreme Court settled this argument in 2006 in favor of extending many of these rights to captured combatants held at Guantanamo. This decision was Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld which extended certain rights to the detainees and placed limits on the authority of the executive branch. This decision was the catalyst for Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006 authorizing the establishment of military commissions within the parameters set by the Supreme Court.

The 5-4 ruling in Boumediene vs. Bush threw another wrench into the efforts to prosecute prisoners at Guantanamo by determining that habeas corpus rights extend to these prisoners and that the Military Commissions Act unconstitutionally suspended those rights. Defense lawyers used this ruling in an attempt to delay the military trial of Salim Hamdan, but were unsuccessful in their argument that the procedures violated certain constitutional rights. District Judge James Robertson ruled against delaying the trial on the grounds that these arguments could be raised on appeal after the completion of the trial. How this ruling’s precedent will affect future proceedings against Guantanamo detainees is yet to be seen.

Determining whether the military commission process is fair requires looking at several factors. Hamdan’s trial served as a test case for the government prosecutors and the detainee defense lawyers. Behind Hamdan there are around 80 other Guantanamo detainees, including five alleged September 11th plotters, the Pentagon intends to try before the commissions. It is important to observe Hamdan’s case to determine the probability of fairness in future military commissions because of the precedents it has set.

Most of the key criticisms in Hamdan’s case were addressed. The concern that evidence obtained through coercive interrogation would be used was alleviated when the judge excluded statements obtained from Hamdan prior to his arrival at Guantanamo. Concerns remained over allowed statements obtained after his arrival due to defense allegations they were obtained through abusive procedures. However, no convincing evidence was presented to prove these allegations. Defense attorneys were also given adequate opportunity and access to challenge secret evidence. Many other points exist in favor of the fairness in this trial including the fact that Hamdan’s conviction is automatically appealed to a military appellate court. That court can reduce, but cannot increase, his sentence. Hamdan can then appeal to U.S. civilian courts as well. However, many legal concerns remain such as the question of whether his prosecution violated the Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws. Concerns addressed in Hamdan’s case do not guarantee future trials will be addressed similarly, but recognized respect of precedent makes it probable.

In my opinion, Salim Hamdan received a fair trial and a lenient but just sentencing. The system in place for future military trials is still not perfect, but provides more protections and rights for captured enemy combatants than ever provided in history. Certain elements definitely need to be addressed while others are yet to be determined. The legal journey to refine the process has only begun.

Posted as a part of a Stop the ACLU Blogburst. Visit Stop the ACLU if you would like to participate...email jay-at-stoptheaclu-dot-com.

Google Shuts Down Anti-Obama Sites on its Blogger Platform

2008-06-29T14:22:00.000-07:00

-By Warner Todd Huston

It looks like Google has officially joined the Barack Obama campaign and decided that its contribution would be to shut down any blog on the Google owned Blogspot.com blogging system that has an anti-Obama message. Yes, it sure seems that Google has begun to go through its many thousands of blogs to lock out the owners of anti-Obama blogs so that the noObama message is effectively squelched. Thus far, Google has terminated the access by blog owners to 7 such sites and the list may be growing. Boy, it must be nice for Barack Obama to have an ally powerful enough to silence his opponents like that!

It isn't just conservative sites that Google's Blogger platform is eliminating. For instance, www.comealongway.blogspot.com has been frozen and this one is a Hillary supporting site. The operator of Come a Long Way has a mirror site off the Blogspot platform and has today posted this notice:

I used to have a happy internet home on Blogger: www.comealongway.blogspot.com. Then on Wednesday night, June 25, I received the following e-mail:

Dear Blogger user,

This is a message from the Blogger team.

Your blog, at http://comealongway.blogspot.com/, has been identified as a potential spam blog. You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

It turns out that there is an interesting pattern where it concerns the blogs that Google's Blogspot team have summarily locked down on their service. They all belong to the Just Say No Deal coalition, a group of blogs that are standing against the Obama campaign. It seems the largest portion of these blogs are Hillary supporting blogs, too.

All I can say is, WOW! If Google is willing to abuse its power like this even against fellow leftists, what does it plan against conservatives, the folks Google hates even more!?

Here is a list of the Blogspot blogs that have been frozen by Google thus far:

Blue Lyon @ http://bluelyon.blogspot.com

Come A Long Way @ http://comealongway.blogspot.com

Hillary or Bust @ http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com

McCain Democrats @ http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com

NObama Blog @ http://nobamablog.blogspot.com

politicallizard.blogspot.com @ http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com

Reflections in Tyme @ http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

Reclaiming the Power of Hate

2008-06-14T13:58:00.000-07:00

Written by Roger W. Gardner

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/

Published by Wake up America -- December 2, 2007
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/12/reclaiming-power-of-hate.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The war with Japan is still being fought.
Not on the battle field, but in the business arena".
-- Col. Nate Edwards (Ret.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asked if they'd really like to kill a German, the GI in WWII Europe answered Yes 7% of the time. When asked the same question about the Japs in the Pacific the answer was Yes 44% of the time.

What accounted for this tremendous difference in our attitudes towards the Germans and the Japanese? We were in the midst of the bloodiest war the world had ever known, and both the Germans and the Japanese were our bitter enemies. Yet while the American people had no difficulty conjuring up a healthy hatred for the Nazis, and the average GI in the European Theater soon learned to despise his Nazi adversaries, and, holding them in special contempt, eventually had no qualms about shooting the notorious SS troops on sight, none the less, throughout that monumental conflict, as the above statistics suggest, the American people, and the average GI, both held conflicted views about the German people themselves.

Throughout our relatively short national history, we had enjoyed long generational ties with Germany and with Germans. We had learned to admire that advanced Germanic culture and those admirable Teutonic traits of hard work and efficiency, diligence and discipline. We listened appreciatively to their magnificent classical music (which they had all but invented) and avidly studied their writers and philosophers. We shared a common bond, unique to those members of the Western World. And perhaps most importantly, we shared a common religion -- and although it had perhaps become somewhat theologically awkward -- at times we both prayed for victory to the same Christian God.

For these reasons and many more we were, at least partially, able to buy into the argument that the German people were a basically decent people who had either been seduced or terrorized into accepting the lunatic racist visions of the Third Reich. (The degree to which this comforting paradigm still has validity is, of course, highly debatable). But those were our views at the time. And these unspoken cultural ambiguities were often reflected in the actions and attitudes of both adversaries on and off the battlefield. As an example of this subliminal cultural affinity, consider the following statistic: During the entire course of WWII only 2% of Allied POWs died while in European captivity.

Now, what about the Japanese?

In the first place, after December 7, 1941, they were no longer referred to as the Japanese. They were simply, and disdainfully labeled Japs, and later, Nips. Although there was a small but thriving Japanese-American population on the West Coast and on the American island of Hawaii, few if any cultural bonds existed between the Japanese and American peoples. And, of course, after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese-American community was looked upon, somewhat understandably, with growing suspicion. (Our moral justification for the subsequent internment of our Japanese-Americans is a complicated and contentious subject which deserves to be treated in a separate article). Suffice it to say, that the Japanese, unlike the Germans, were a completely different race from a strange and utterly alien culture. Their religion appeared to us to be a weird conflation of Shintoism and Emperor worship, their political ideology was grounded in the unyielding brutal code of the Samurai warrior.

Since the end of the First World War, the Japanese national character had become more and more militaristic, aggressive, imperialistic and -- in a reactionary nationalistic backlash against those cultural inroads made by the Caucasian West into their traditional inbred, closed society -- they had become defensively and virulently racist -- anti-white, anti-Western, anti-colonialist.

Beginning with their brutal and unwarranted invasion of Manchuria in 1931, through the subsequent horrors of their infamous Rape of Nanking, and the innumerable and unimaginable acts of inhumanity committed against captured enemy soldiers and innocent civilians alike, throughout their conquered territories in the Southeast Pacific, the fearsome Japanese soldier accumulated a long, despicable record of sadistic barbarism unmatched in modern times. (An appalling record of rape and government-sanctioned sadism for which they -- unlike the Germans -- have to this day never adequately apologized).

After the Battle of Midway, as the war in the Pacific gradually turned against those at first seemingly-invincible Japanese forces, and as the inevitable and dire fate of the Empire of the Rising Sun became increasingly apparent, the scale of Japanese atrocities grew exponentially.

In stark contrast to that 2% of POWs who perished in European POW camps, an incredible 37% of Allied POWs would die under horrendous conditions in the Japanese prison camps. To be captured by the Japanese during WWII was for many, quite literally, a fate worse than death.

Considering that the American public had first become aware of the Japanese war machine through that treacherous and unprovoked sneak attack on an American Naval Base, during a time of peace, while the Japanese ambassadors were at that very moment meeting their American counterparts at the State Department, the Japanese people quickly became something else; they became Japs. A brutal and inferior race of savages to be distrusted and despised. A race, in short, to be hated.

And hate them we did. We hated them openly, willingly and without reservation. And we didn't just hate their leaders or their armies and their navies, we hated THEM, the Japs themselves, the bloodthirsty, sadistic little squinty-eyed monkeys. We matched their racial hatred of us with our racial hatred of them. No caricature, no obscenity, no epithet could be too vile to describe a Jap. If you were a patriotic American, be you man, woman or child, you automatically hated the Japs. It quickly became a necessary adjunct to our national persona, second nature, like loving your mother and apple pie. It was not only that it was O.K. to hate the Japs, it was considered your sacred duty. And the more fervently you expressed this hate, the more patriotic you became, and the more patriotic you became, the stronger America became.

It was as clear as crystal.

And our hate was essential to the cause, we could not have won the war without it. This natural unquestioned hatred of the enemy -- especially of the Japs -- became our strength and our power, a weapon as necessary to possess in abundance in our arsenals as guns and bombs. It gave purpose to our lives, and was re sanctioned daily by our unified patriotic media and our beloved patriotic movies. This sacred and unmitigated hate fueled our patriotic fervor, and enabled us to put up with those ever-increasing burdens of rationing and deprivations, and to endure those awful but inevitable losses of our loved ones.

In short, hate was good.

In itself, hate was neither moral nor immoral. It was, rather, a natural rational reaction. Hate became the very substance that sustained us, the societal glue that bound us all together. Our imaginations thrived on lurid visions of Jap bestialities -- most of which were unfortunately all too true.

It seemed, somehow we knew, that in a time of war hate was a quality as essential as bravery and courage and sacrifice. This was a truth so obvious to us all that no one ever thought to even question it. No one had ever won a war by learning to dislike their enemy. If they won the war, they won the war by learning how to hate their enemy at least as fervently as their enemy hated them. The whole purpose of all nationalistic propaganda, no matter whose side it was on, was to inspire that all-powerful passion of hate, that genuine, pervasive and relentless hatred of the enemy which is absolutely essential to success in warfare.

Then, finally, the war was over and we had won.

But we had changed.

In 1946, William Wyler released his critically-acclaimed motion picture The Best Years of Our Lives, and immediately it touched the hearts of a war-weary American public. It also showed an unwelcome light on the first cracks in our otherwise confident new peacetime facade.

Basically, the film relates the stories of three GIs returning from the war, and the various problems they encounter as they attempt to readjust themselves to civilian life in a world they hardly recognize. The story opens with the return of a tough, battle-hardened, newly-discharged Army Sergeant, just back from fighting in the Pacific (masterfully played by Frederick March). After one of the most heart-warming homecoming scenes in all of moviedom, he begins that awkward but inevitable process of reacquainting himself with his barely-recognizable grownup children.

Following his college student son's rather underwhelmed reaction to his gifts of hard won Jap war trophies, he listens patiently as the young man proudly announces that he is currently attending lectures at school on World Peace, and learning that in this new Atomic Age we must all learn to get along together and that 'war is never the answer' (thereby inferentially condemning his warrior father who by fighting for his country may have inadvertently transgressed some higher moral code).

Thus it began.

All of those hard lessons we had learned during the war years must now be unlearned and forgotten. As peace settled in those traditional masculine virtues -- strength, courage, duty, loyalty, bravery, honor -- which served society so well in time of war, and had probably saved the very life of that society, were to be gradually shunted aside and devalued, eventually to be replaced by those gentler, more civil feminine virtues of patience, understanding, nurturing, tolerance and love. We were encouraged to become an increasingly passive, self-absorbed, self-indulgent feminine society, a nation obsessed with its health, wealth, weight and security. Soon, our most important national issues would become our civil rights and personal liberties, free speech and gay marriage.

For two successive generations since the end of that great war, we had been undergoing this continuing process of deprogramming and moral readjustment. A whole new vocabulary had emerged to define this new world. Certain words had taken on a subjective moral weight all their own. We still had enemies, but now our most important enemies had become our own words -- words like Prejudice and Racism and Intolerance were now the new enemy. This was the new war we were fighting, a war of words against words. And of all of the words that we were fighting against, none more perfectly embodied the evil nature of our mortal enemy than that most deadly and unconscionable of words -- Hate.

Hate is the very heart and soul of our new enemy; the word Hate itself must be eradicated and expunged forever from our new vocabulary and from our new lives. We must banish Hate from our cities and our towns as the Nazis banished the Jews. We must put up posters at all the entrances to our communities which proclaim: NO PLACE HERE FOR HATE. We must diligently search out Hate wherever it attempts to hide itself and expose it to the bright light of reason.

Our new weapons in this new war would be Openness, Tolerance, and above all, Acceptance of The Other. We had learned our lessons well. Never again would we mistrust The Other merely because they were different from us. Rather, we would enthusiastically embrace these differences. We would especially honor those unique cultural and religious differences, and the more they differed from ours, the more we would respect and honor them.

And if by chance these particular cultures happened to embrace slavery, child abuse, honor killings and the violent suppression and persecution of all other religions and of all of their hapless women, then we shall smile at them and say, This is your culture and your religion and we honor it and respect it and we welcome you into the fold. We open our borders and we open our hearts to you. Because, at all costs, we can no longer tolerate those deadly enemies of Peace -- Prejudice, Intolerance and Racism. Because, as our eager young college student so presciently observed back in 1946, 'in this new Atomic Age we must all learn to get along together, and War Is Never The Answer'.

War is, in fact, the physical manifestation of Hate; therefore, War itself must be our primary enemy. Anyone who proposes War must be the enemy. War will be successfully defeated by the utter eradication of the word Hate. Thus we will maintain our moral equilibrium, the status quo of Peace.

Now, however, we have been attacked once again. This time, a sneak attack even more deadly than the one on Pearl Harbor, with even more loss of life, 2,987 compared to 2,403. This time, it would not even be a military attack against a military target but, rather, a treacherous unprovoked attack against innocent civilians, people going to work in the morning.

We had been attacked by people who hate us so badly that they would gladly die to kill us. They hate us and our Western culture with such passion that they spill out onto their streets in droves daily to stomp on our flag and to burn our president in effigy. We are, they scream and shout at us, the Great Satan, and they have promised to wipe us off the face of the earth. Driven by an unyielding religious fervor, they will not be dissuaded nor deterred in their righteous jihad until they have fulfilled their sacred promise to destroy us.

What, then, is our national response to this violent onslaught?

We are unsure, we remain confused and conflicted, we can barely conjure up a reasonable facsimile of anger without it generating some immediate liberal moral backlash. We have gutted our military and outlawed our masculinity and rendered ourselves all but defenseless. Half of our nation believes we are at war and half of our nation doesn't. We live nervously in our Cowardly New World of clever obfuscations and elaborate denials, we cower behind a wall of euphemisms and confront our enemy's virulent hatred with the only weapons we have left, those pitiful weapons of Tolerance and Understanding. We attempt to defend ourselves against the Murderous Beast by pretending that he's really not there. We would rather be dead than be impolite. We refuse to identify our enemies for fear of offending them.

We have forgotten how to fight back, we only know how to talk. We have forgotten that omnipotent power of hate; foolishly, we have systematically eliminated the most powerful weapon in our arsenal. We have thoroughly expunged that dreaded word from our vocabulary, and we have declared that the word War is now our real enemy.

In summation, we're in serious trouble.

If we are to survive as a nation, as a free and honorable people, if we are to survive as a viable Democracy, we must once and for all abandon all the lies and obfuscations. We must make all euphemisms illegal. We must go all the way back to 1945 and relearn that cold hard masculine vocabulary of War.

To live, we must learn how to hate again. For without the strength of that unmitigated and unquestioned passion, weakened by our own civility, we will most assuredly perish, subsumed in the onrushing tsunami of our enemy's unanswered rage.

Why the drag lines were removed from the Flight 93 crash site

2008-06-11T18:22:00.000-07:00

When the passengers and crew of flight 93 smashed their murderers to nothing on an open expanse of western Pennsylvania coal country, two towering sentinels stood silent witness to the heroic tragedy.

“Up on Skyline Rd.,” the news shot around Shanksville and Somerset, “up by the drag lines”:

The drag lines, as seen from what will be the center of the giant Mecca-oriented crescent that is to be planted on the flight 93 crash site. (Photo by Alec Rawls, 2006.)

It is hard to imagine a more fitting marker than these twin colossi. Before the hijackers could send Flight 93 into the White House or the Capitol building, a random draw of forty of our fellow countrymen massed a towering determination to fight back. Their effort to save their own lives ended beneath those artifacts of Pennsylvania's own native grit and ingenuity, but their success in defending their country will live forever.

Those silent sentinels could and should have endured as well, and they would have, if not for one man who was determined to see them go: architect Paul Murdoch, the designer of the terrorist memorializing Crescent of Embrace design. As the press reported at the unveiling of the crescent design:

The Flight 93 temporary memorial, the draglines and Skyline Drive will be removed to leave the landscape as natural as possible, Murdoch wrote in a narrative that accompanied the design.

The drag lines were supposed to stay

The presumption from the beginning was that the drag lines would stay. They were actually the first items of property purchased for the new national park.

Support for keeping the drag lines, whatever memorial design was chosen for the crash site itself, was virtually universal. The local historical society was for keeping the drag lines:

Several draglines still stand there, idled since the crash interrupted the mine work. Randy Cooley, director of the Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, said that equipment should stay, as part of the story the memorial will tell.

The excavating machines often are the first things visitors to the memorial site see, he said. The booms rise high over the field. They cast shadows, and show what the land once was.

"They're touchstones," Cooley said. "For many of the people on that plane, that may well have been the last thing they saw." [2003]

They were also meaningful to the local population:

The cranes, which served as drag lines for a long-idled strip mining operation, are synonymous with the area, residents said.

"When I think of (Skyline Drive), I think of those drag lines," said Erica Zeigler, president of Shanksville Borough Council. "They're something everybody around here associated with that road." [2005]

Memorial Project manager Jeff Reinbold acknowledged the hard feelings about the removal of the drag lines:

"You wish you didn't have to do it. But this was a celebration of the process," he said. [ibid.]

Why was Murdoch determined to have the drag lines gone?

Because a crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed-arch shape, but the prototypical mihrab is crescent shaped.)

Very simply, Murdoch could not allow his terrorist memorial mosque to be tainted by extraneous infidel artifacts. Those drag lines would have risen up right behind the giant mihrab, disturbing what is supposed to be an undisturbed space within which the Muslim believer can turn face his god for prayer.

Perhaps worst of all from Murdoch’s perspective was the huge American flag that coal miners attached to one of the booms the week after 9/11:

This flag was history. If Murdoch did not get rid of the drag lines, he could not get rid of the American flag, rising up 180 feet behind his giant mihrab. (Photo by Alec Rawls, 2006.)

Unacceptable: the jihadists turn to face their god, and see… an American flag?

This mosque interpretation is no stretch. Murdoch provides endless redundant proof of intent, as when he repeats the Mecca orientation of his giant crescent in the crescents of trees that surround the Tower of Voices part of the memorial.

Still hoisting a flag

When the hijacker is finally tackled and we have a chance to turn to less critical matters, like how to design a proper memorial to OUR heroes instead of to Paul Murdoch’s heroes, one of the costs to be accounted will be the loss of the iconic drag lines. At least Murdoch was not able to destroy them entirely, as 22 tons of steel from the scrapped machinery is being used in the construction of the USS Somerset:

The USS Somerset will be a sister ship of the USS San Antonio (seen here), so the drag lines will still be hoisting a flag.

Interestingly, the single physical requirement set down for design competition entries was that they should respect the rural landscape and leave it as it was. Paul Murdoch’s crescent design is the only one of a thousand entries that violates this lone rule, first by building a raised causeway across the wetlands (necessary to extend his crescent to the full typical Islamic crescent shape, covering 2/3rds of a circle of arc), and then by excising the drag lines, which everyone agreed were central to the historic nature of the site.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

Stop the Flight 93 Memorial Blogburst

2008-06-05T06:08:00.000-07:00

A call for America’s churches to step up as witnesses for the truth about the Flight 93 memorial

Three segments of American society get paid to investigate and report facts: academia, the press, and government. For two and a half years, all three have been spinning desperately to avoid and suppress the facts about Islamic and terrorist memorializing symbolism in the Flight 93 memorial.

Luckily there is a fourth segment of society that is also charged to witness truth, not for pay, but on religious principle. Asked by Pilate to account for himself, Jesus answered:

To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. [Jn. 18:37.]

Those who follow Jesus are supposed to do the same, which means first of all checking and reporting the facts when the importance of an issue warrants it.

The importance of the Flight 93 memorial to our churches could not be clearer. The Islam of the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 is a religion of murder and deceit. Their self-professed strategy is to hide amongst us, pretending to be trustworthy friends, while plotting mass-murder against Christians, Jews, and all non-Muslims.

Whether this religion of deceit is the “true” Islam, as the bin Ladenists assert, or a bastardization of it, a deceptive memorial to the 9/11 terrorists is a direct challenge to the truth witnessing capacity of our society, and to the truth witnessing character of our Christian churches.

In a contest between deceit and honesty, there is no doubt which is stronger. Witness exposes and destroys deceit. If our churches enter this contest, they win. But will they enter? THAT is the test. If our churches stand by, and fail to witness truth, then the al Qaeda religion of murder and deceit may well succeed in stabbing its terrorist memorial mosque into the heartland of America.

The father of one of our Flight 93 heroes is asking America’s churches for help

In consultation with Tom Burnett Sr., Alec Rawls has put together a flyer that all of us can take to our local churches to try to organize sanctioned fact-checking efforts that our churches can stand behind publicly two months from now.

August 2nd is the next public meeting of the Memorial Project. Tom and Alec will both be traveling to Somerset PA to rally opposition. Mancow Muller is urging his national radio audience to attend, and groups like Rolling Thunder are also being contacted.

With Mr. Burnett in attendance, even a modest turnout will bring substantial news coverage, but coverage alone is not enough. We are facing a fact-checking blockade by the mainstream media, and can only break it by enlisting churches or other independent groups to sponsor their own fact checking efforts.

Are you a member of any kind of group where interested members could set up an ad hoc committee to check a few basic facts about the planned memorial? The full group or chapter could then make an official decision whether to stand behind this fact checking publicly in a press release that Tom and Alec can announce at the August meeting.

Christian churches may be our best bet, being charged by Jesus to be witnesses for truth, and having "chapters" all over America. Thus this initial effort is addressed in particular to our churches, but any group that wants to expose important truths can perform the same service.

The flyer prints out front and back on a single sheet of paper. It has a couple of color graphics, but prints fine in black and white for inexpensive copying. If you want to participate, just add your contact info at the bottom (the file is MS Word and can be altered), then go see if you can raise some interest!

The rest of this post is an HTML version of the flyer that can be copied and pasted into email.

The Flight 93 memorial is a terrorist memorial mosque!

Witnesses for truth NEEDED to check and report the facts

The father of one of our Flight 93 heroes is asking America’s churches for help.

Remember the Crescent of Embrace design for the Flight 93 memorial, laid out in the configuration of an Islamic crescent and star flag?

Outrage over this clear Islamic symbolism forced the Memorial Project to agree to make changes, but all they did was slightly disguise the giant crescent. It is still described as a “broken circle,” and the unbroken part of the circle (the crescent) remains exactly as it was.

It turns out that this half-mile wide crescent points almost exactly to Mecca. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. The Flight 93 memorial will be the world’s largest mosque by a factor of a hundred.

The design also includes numerous terrorist memorializing features, like the 44 inscribed translucent memorial blocks that are to be placed along the flight path (matching the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists). Tom Burnett Sr. does not want Tom Jr.’s name inscribed on that terrorist memorializing sequence, and is leading the effort to have the crescent design scrapped completely.

The obstacle is the three parts of our society that we pay to check and report the facts: academia, the press, and government. All three are spinning desperately to keep the truth suppressed here. On the rare occasion when the Mecca-orientation claim or the 44 blocks claim gets in the newspaper, some left-wing academic or a spokesman for the Memorial Project is quoted denying it, but the press never checks and reports the facts.

It takes less than two minutes to verify that the giant crescent DOES point to Mecca. Just open up the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com and print out the direction to Mecca from Somerset PA (ten miles from the crash site). Place it over the crescent site-plan on your computer screen, and you’ll see that the Mecca direction line bisects the crescent:

Stand midway between the crescent tips and face into the center of the crescent (red arrow) and you will be facing almost exactly at Mecca (“qibla”). (Click pic for animated demonstration.)

It is even easier to verify the 44 glass blocks on the flight path: just open up the design drawings and count. It is easy to check the numerous repeated Mecca orientations; the placement of the 9/11 date in the exact position of the star on an Islamic flag; etcetera.

The First Estate

Our second, third and fourth estates are trying to keep these facts suppressed, but there is another segment of our society that is also charged to witness the truth, not for pay, but on religious principle. Asked by Pilate to account for himself, Jesus answered:

To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. [Jn. 18:37.]

Those who follow Jesus are supposed to do the same, which means first of all checking and reporting the facts when the importance of an issue warrants it.

A deceptive memorial to the 9/11 terrorists is a direct challenge to the truth witnessing capacity of our society, and to the truth witnessing character of our Christian churches. There is no doubt which is stronger. Witness exposes deceit. If our churches enter this contest, they win, but if they stand by, and fail to witness truth, then deceit wins.

Mr. Burnett and his compatriots will be rallying in Somerset PA on August 2nd at the next public meeting of the Memorial Project. The resulting news coverage can be used to break the media blockade on fact checking, so long as at least a few churches are willing to sanction fact-checking efforts and release their findings to the public.

Please volunteer for this fact-checking effort, and help to promote it amongst pastors and parishioners. America needs its First Estate (its churches) to take a leading role, and witness the truths about this terrorist memorial that our media elites are trying to hide.

Details and fact-checking resources at CrescentOfBetrayal.com

Updates at ErrorTheory.blogspot.com Contact: alec@rawls.org

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

Plan your trip to the Flight 93 crash site for the weekend of August 2nd!

2008-05-29T13:43:00.000-07:00

Are you thinking of visiting the Flight 93 crash site? If you plan your visit for the weekend of August 2nd, you can help stop the gigantic terrorist memorial mosque that will soon start rising from the ground there.

August 2nd is the next scheduled public meeting of the Memorial Project, where anyone can sign up to speak during the public comment period. Tom Burnett Sr. (whose son Tom Jr. broke into the cockpit of the hijacked airplane) announced last Friday that he and Alec Rawls will be traveling to Somerset for the August meeting. They will be rallying outdoors, speaking at the public meeting, and visiting the crash site.

Mr. Burnett is asking other concerned parties who can make it to please come. The crash site is a beautiful and meaningful place to visit in any case, and here is a chance to make your visit even more meaningful. It is an opportunity to in some small way follow the lead of the heroes of Flight 93 by helping to stop the re-hijacking of Flight 93.

Mr. Burnett's announcement came on the Mancow Muller radio show, where Congressman Tancredo was also a guest. When controversy over the Crescent of Embrace design first arose back in 2005, Tom Tancredo was instrumental in forcing the Park Service to alter the design. Last fall he noted that the giant crescent remains unchanged in the so-called redesign and asked the Park Service to scrap the design entirely. On Friday he said that he would help Mancow Muller and Tom Burnett to stop the crescent design (audio, 19 seconds):

Certainly I will do everything I can to help you. I will bring it to the attention of my colleagues. I'll use the time I have on the floor of the House to rail against it.

THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN TANCREDO!

Mr. Burnett said that he would join Mancow in going to jail for taking sledgehammers to the crescent memorial if this tribute to the terrorists actually gets built. (Audio, 25 seconds.)

Cao has the whole segment of Mancow and the two Toms up as a YouTube video, with her own background graphics.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

ACLU Supports Legalized Unregulated Prostitution

2008-03-11T15:15:00.001-07:00

Crossposted from STACLU

Since New York Governor Eliot Spitzer brought the topic into the national discussion, I thought it would be interesting to dust off this oldy but goody. I know that some more libertarian leaning people actually agree with the ACLU on this, but I don't. It will be interesting to watch the debate in the comments.

Keep in mind that all laws are based on some moral code. That code isn't necessarily that of any one specific religion, but a reflection of the collective morals of the community and general public. It is my belief that issues like this one should be decided at the state level by the representatives of the people.

Also keep in mind that even in States where prostitution is legal it is regulated. The ACLU believe it should be unregulated. I think this is the most retarded and absolutist position that the ACLU has on this one. I don't know about you, but I don't want someone being pimped on the same corner my kid catches the school bus.

Not only have the ACLU argued before a federal appeals court that having a ban on federal funds to organizations that promote commercial sex work inhibits free speech, but they even advocate the legalization of unregulated prostitution themselves.

The ACLU's Policy 211 is straightforward. "The ACLU supports the decriminalization of prostitution and opposes state regulation of prostitution". They base their argument on several points, including that existing laws are discrimination against women, and the right of individual privacy. They argue that what two consenting adults in private do is their own business. However, when you also oppose zoning laws, and regulation you can hardly argue that prostitution is a private business.

As for it being a privacy issue, it seems a contradiction to me when they also state that the "public" solicitation of prostitution is "entitled to the protection of the First Amendment". "It's not just the bedroom that the ACLU wishes to make off-limits to public censure, but also the local street corner, presumably even if that corner is regularly used by school children crossing the street." Source

And what good would it do for women's rights to decriminalize this? One could argue that women should not be punished for their own exploitation. But how does decriminalizing pimps, buyers, procurers, brothels or other sex establishments offer any solution to this? Decriminalization would do nothing but expand the sex industry and send a message to society that it is acceptable. And a system unregulated would do nothing for women's health, and would only promote the spread disease.

They don't belive in zoning laws, and do believe in fully legalalized, and unregulated prostitution. So there wouldn't be any law that could keep a prostitution house from being a certain distance from your neighborhood, your Church, or your child's preschool. This is especially disturbing when they think child pornography distribution and possession should be legal, and fight for convicted child molesters to live across the street from elementary schools and parks.

This is just one of many in a very long list of extremist positions of the ACLU.

Blogburst for Fred Thompson

2007-12-26T11:58:00.000-08:00

Want to see the above ad played in Iowa? Fred would too, but needs your help. Rick Moran is leading the way for bloggers to help Fred Thompson in Iowa.

Dear Friends,

I am writing to ask for your help.

All of us know the long odds faced by Fred Thompson in his efforts to win the GOP nomination for president. I’m sure you are all aware that Fred has undertaken pretty much of a do or die bus tour of Iowa in order to finish strongly in the Caucuses on January 3.

Many of you have already taken steps to support the Thompson campaign in a tangible way by placing fundraising widgets on your sidebar and writing about the campaign. In this way, each of us alone has done whatever we can to support Fred in his efforts.

But at this, the 11th hour of the campaign in Iowa, I think it would be a very effective fundraising tool if as many of us as possible were to participate in an old-fashioned Blogburst, writing a post asking readers to donate to the campaign while embedding a fundraising widget in the post for convenience.

I propose Thursday, December 27 for the Blogburst. If you have an email list, I would urge you to ask your subscribers to donate. If you know of other bloggers who support Fred, please forward this email and ask them to participate as well.

Not expecting a “money bomb” but even a few tens of thousands of dollars would help, I’m sure. Given the number of readers represented in the blogs listed here (where I got all of your email addresses) and your cooperation, I feel confident we can give a real shot in the arm to the campaign.

I don’t think any of us believe that our endorsement of Thompson alone means that much in the long run. But working together, uniting for one day and speaking with one voice, I think we could make a significant impact on Fred’s chances in Iowa. After all, when the candidate you support rolls the dice as Fred has, the least we can do is back his play to the best of our ability.

No need to respond to this email. Just do it.

Merry Christmas,

Rick Moran
Right Wing Nuthouse

If you are a blogger who supports Fred, please participate in this Blogburst. If you know of a blogger who supports Fred, I urge you to contact them and ask them to participate.

For me, it comes down to this. If Fred isn’t nominated, I doubt very much that I will show up at the polls next November. Not to punish the party but simply because there is no one in the race who would be representing my views or who I could in good conscience, support for president.

This is why despite his long shot status, every effort must be made to help Fred Thompson continue the campaign by contributing to his efforts in Iowa. I’m going to give on Thursday and I hope you do too.

I feel much the same way, and I know that many other bloggers do as well. So lets get this thing rolling! If you haven't already, go contribute. If you can't afford it, at least join us in spreading the word.

Christmas Facts (Repost)

2007-12-24T13:48:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas

"White Christmas" (1954), starring Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye, was the first movie to be made in Vista Vision, a deep-focus process.

According to the National Christmas Tree Association, Americans buy 37.1 million real Christmas trees each year; 25 percent of them are from the nation's 5,000 choose-and-cut farms.

After "A Christmas Carol," Charles Dickens wrote several other Christmas stories, one each year, but none was as successful as the original.

Alabama was the first state to recognize Christmas as an official holiday. This tradition began in 1836.

Although many believe the Friday after Thanksgiving is the busiest shopping day of the year, it is not. It is the fifth to tenth busiest day. The Friday and Saturday before Christmas are the two busiest shopping days of the year.

American billionaire Ross Perot tried to airlift 28 tons of medicine and Christmas gifts to American POW's in North Vietnam in 1969.

America's official national Christmas tree is located in King's Canyon National Park in California. The tree, a giant sequoia called the "General Grant Tree," is over 300 feet (90 meters) high. It was made the official Christmas tree in 1925.

An average household in America will mail out 28 Christmas cards each year and see 28 eight cards return in their place.

Animal Crackers are not really crackers, but cookies that were imported to the United States from England in the late 1800s. Barnum's circus-like boxes were designed with a string handle so that they could be hung on a Christmas tree.

California, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the top Christmas tree producing states. Oregon is the leading producer of Christmas trees - 8.6 million in 1998.

Candy canes began as straight white sticks of sugar candy used to decorated the Christmas trees. A choirmaster at Cologne Cathedral decided have the ends bent to depict a shepherd's crook and he would pass them out to the children to keep them quiet during the services. It wasn't until about the 20th century that candy canes acquired their red stripes.

Charles Dickens' initial choice for Scrooge's statement "Bah Humbug" was "Bah Christmas."

Christmas trees are edible. Many parts of pines, spruces, and firs can be eaten. The needles are a good source of vitamin C. Pine nuts, or pine cones, are also a good source of nutrition.

During the Christmas buying season, Visa cards alone are used an average of 5,340 times every minute in the United States.

During the Christmas/Hanukkah season, more than 1.76 billion candy canes will be made.

During World War II it was necessary for Americans to mail Christmas gifts early for the troops in Europe to receive them in time. Merchants joined in the effort to remind the public to shop and mail early and the protracted shopping season was born.

Electric Christmas tree lights were first used in 1895. The idea for using electric Christmas lights came from an American, Ralph E. Morris. The new lights proved safer than the traditional candles.

For every real Christmas tree harvested, 2 to 3 seedlings are planted in its place.

Franklin Pierce was the first United States' president to decorate an official White House Christmas tree .

George Washington spent Christmas night 1776 crossing the Delaware River in dreadful conditions. Christmas 1777 fared little better - at Valley Forge, Washington and his men had a miserable Christmas dinner of Fowl cooked in a broth of Turnips, cabbage and potatoes.

Hallmark introduced its first Christmas cards in 1915, five years after the founding of the company.

In 1907, Oklahoma became the last US state to declare Christmas a legal holiday.

In 1947, Toys for Tots started making the holidays a little happier for children by organizing its first Christmas toy drive for needy youngsters.

In 1996, Christmas caroling was banned at two major malls in Pensacola, Florida. Apparently, shoppers and merchants complained the carolers were too loud and took up too much space.

In an effort to solicit cash to pay for a charity Christmas dinner in 1891, a large crabpot was set down on a San Francisco street, becoming the first Salvation Army collection kettle.

In America, the weeks leading up to Christmas are the biggest shopping weeks of the year. Many retailers make up to 70% of their annual revenue in the month preceding Christmas.

In North America, children put stockings out at Christmas time. Their Dutch counterparts, however, use shoes. Dutch children set out shoes to receive gifts any time between mid-November and December 5, St. Nicholas' birthday.
It is estimated that 400,000 people become sick each year from eating tainted Christmas leftovers.

Jesus Christ, son of Mary, was born in a cave, not in a wooden stable. Caves were used to keep animals in because of the intense heat. A large church is now built over the cave, and people can go down inside the cave. The carpenters of Jesus' day were really stone cutters. Wood was not used as widely as it is today. So whenever you see a Christmas nativity scene with a wooden stable -- that's the "American" version, not the Biblical one.

Long before it was used as a "kiss encourager" during the Christmas season, mistletoe had long been considered to have magic powers by Celtic and Teutonic peoples. It was said to have the ability to heal wounds and increase fertility. Celts hung mistletoe in their homes in order to bring themselves good luck and ward off evil spirits.

Mistletoe, a traditional Christmas symbol, was once revered by the early Britons. It was so sacred that it had to be cut with a golden sickle.

More diamonds are purchased at Christmas-time (31 percent) than during any other holiday or occasion during the year.

More than three billion Christmas cards are sent annually in the United States.

New York City's Empire State Building's world famous tower lights are turned off every night at midnight with the exception of New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and St. Patrick's Day, when they are illuminated until 3 a.m.

On Christmas Day, 1989, Eastern Europe was permitted to celebrate Christmas freely and openly for the first time in decades. Church masses were broadcast live for the first time in history.

Per a November 2000 Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans thought they would spend at least $500 that year on Christmas gifts. This was a slight drop from 1999 gift-spending.

Right behind Christmas and Thanksgiving, Super Bowl Sunday ranks as the third-largest occasion for Americans to consume food, according to the National Football League.

The "Twelve Days of Christmas" was originally written to help Catholic children, in England, remember different articles of faith during the persecution by Protestant Monarchs. The "true love" represented God, and the gifts all different ideas:
The "Partridge in a pear tree" was Christ.
2 Turtle Doves = The Old and New Testaments
3 French Hens = Faith, Hope and Charity-- the Theological Virtues
4 Calling Birds = the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists
5 Golden Rings = The first Five Books of the Old Testament, the "Pentateuch", which relays the history of man's fall from grace.
6 Geese A-laying = the six days of Creation
7 Swans A-swimming = the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven sacraments
8 Maids A-milking = the eight beatitudes
9 Ladies Dancing = the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit
10 Lords A-leaping = the ten commandments
11 Pipers Piping = the eleven faithful apostles
12 Drummers Drumming = the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed

The abbreviation of Xmas for Christmas is not irreligious. The first letter of the word Christ in Greek is chi, which is identical to our X. Xmas was originally an ecclesiastical abbreviation that was used in tables and charts.

The best selling Christmas trees are Scotch pine, Douglas fir, Noble fir, Fraser fir, Virginia pine, Balsam fir and white pine.

The Christmas season begins at sundown on 24th December and lasts through sundown on 5th January. For that reason, this season is also known as the Twelve Days of Christmas.

The custom of singing Christmas carols is very old - the earliest English collection was published in 1521.

The poinsettia, traditionally an American Christmas flower, originally grew in Mexico; where it was known as the "Flower of the Holy Night". It was first brought to America by Joel Poinsett in 1829.

The tradition of Christmas lights dates back to when Christians were persecuted for saying Mass. A simple candle in the window meant that Mass would be celebrated there that night.

Theodore Roosevelt, a staunch conservationist, banned Christmas trees in his home, even when he lived in the White House. His children, however, smuggled them into their bedrooms.

Yuletide-named towns in the United States include Santa Claus, located in Arizona and Indiana, Noel in Missouri, and Christmas in both Arizona and Florida.

Send the ACLU a Christmas Card

2007-12-16T22:25:00.000-08:00

Crossposted from: Stop The ACLU:

Its become a popular yearly tradition now to send the Anti-Christian Liars Union grinches a Christmas card. I personally think its ineffective, and that the money you waste on a stamp for the organization to toss in the shredder would be better served towards a good cause. So, I encourage you to save that money, dig a little deeper, and contribute to an organization that fights the ACLU and defends Christmas. The Alliance Defense Fund, and the ACLJ are both great organizations that defend Christmas each year. The Alliance Defense Fund does it for free. Why not help groups like that out this year?

However, from experience last year...I know that many will insist on sending the ACLU a Christmas card. Afterall, it is tradition. If that is how you want to make your message...we have some great greeting cards and postcards available at our online store. Plenty of other great Christmas gifts too.

Send your Christmas card to the ACLU at:

ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York , NY 10004

How the ACLU and International Law Threatens Our Sovereignty

2007-10-11T00:14:00.000-07:00

The video above is from ADF, and is practically a commercial for them, but I don't see anything wrong with that at all. I urge you to go join and donate!

By the way, Kender inspired this post. He wanted to write the blogburst, but his rant inspired me and I wanted to add more. So, I'm gonna use Kender's quotes throughout.

It seems a German citizen claimed that the CIA abducted him, drugged him and sent him to a prison in a third world country where he was tortured and finally released on a hilltop in another country in a case of mistaken identity.

The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed the case without comment after the Bush Administration said that if the case were not dismissed it would threaten state secrets.

What I want to know is WHY a group that calls itself the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union is so concerned with the civil liberties of a German citizen. The last time I checked our civil liberties did not apply to the citizens of other countries, and the ACLU is not the arbiter of international law.

Last March, the ACLU went crying to the U.N. about how 'evil' the U.S. is.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Human Rights Network today urged the U.N. Human Rights Committee to hold the U.S. government accountable for flagrant and repeated violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

"Locally, nationally and globally, the United States has repeatedly failed in its responsibility to uphold basic human rights," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. "We are appealing to the international arbiters to hold the U.S. accountable to basic human rights standards."

As sickening as this is; it is only one step in the ACLU’s agenda to undermine America’s sovereignty and freedom that so many soldiers have sacrificed and died to preserve. The ACLU are obviously frustrated by their inability to advance their radical agenda more quickly under the U.S. Constitution, and are now determined not only to convince the American judiciary to look to international law, but also to use it as a means to their ends. They hold it as a higher authority than our own Constitution and are more than willing to sacrifice our sovereignty in their pursuit to radically force change on America to fit their own radical views.

The sad thing is that they don’t have to try very hard to convince our judiciary. While they lost ground in the case above, they win enough to make it scary. Last year, former ACLU lawyer, and current Supreme Court Justice, Ruth “Snoozer” Ginsburg gave a speech that argued explicitly for the relevance of foreign law and court decisions to interpretation of the American Constitution. She isn’t the only Justice that buys into this philosophy. FIVE Justices believe that international law should bear weight in interpreting our constitution.

The ACLU don’t hide this agenda, they are proud of it.

The ACLU sponsored a conference at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, October 9-11, 2003, to promote the use of international law in U.S. courts. The conference was titled “Human Rights at Home: International Law in U.S. Courts.” Publicist for the event stated, “The emphasis throughout the conference will be on using international law and human rights norms to advance justice in U.S. courts or on behalf of U.S. clients.” Some of the alleged human rights “injustices” cited were in the areas of “environmental justice,” “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights,” and “children’s rights.”

ACLU publicity included comments from ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero and conference organizer Ann Beeson. Romero said, “Our goal is no less than to forge a new era of social justice where the principles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are recognized and enforced in the United States.”

Beeson added, “From the grassroots level all the way to the Supreme Court, international human rights law is beginning to emerge as a tool for the victims of discrimination here at home.”

The ACLU’s rhetoric and efforts to use international law to rewrite, undermine, and bypass the Constitution has already gone beyond academic debate into the realm of actual use. As stated earlier, there are plenty of judges that have already adopted the philosophy and the ACLU are already participating in court cases where the judge uses international law in their decisions. It isn’t only at the federal level, but has penetrated even into the state level.

All through the confirmation process of Justice Alito, the ACLU and leftards were screaming that Alito was a racist bigot that would undermine judicial precedent. However, this judicial philosophy has more potential to undermine judicial precedent than any current philosophy being espoused, and it has already proven to do so. The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret the law and determine if laws are constitutional. There are several major flaws in the use of international law in our courts. Not only does it undermine the very authority of the Constitution deeming it impotent of any power, but it also gives the judicial branch a power that was never intended to be granted to it; the power to write law. Followers of this philosophy view the Constitution merely as a persuasive authority, equated with foreign law, to be relied upon if they are in line with her predetermined beliefs. It doesn’t really matter if their beliefs are inconsistent with the Constitution itself, they can simply find a foreign law that is.

New rights, such as gay rights, or abortion should not be stretched from our Constitution that never granted them. If new rights like these are to be given, then the people should have some say in that. There is a process set in place by the founders to do just this. They should be granted through law or a constitutional amendment. They should not be granted via judicial fiat.

Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation’s sovereignty and national security.

For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “With today’s action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations.” Source

Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.

Right now, Britain is practically banning freedom of speech and the Bible in the name of gay rights and tolerance.

“Inciting homophobic hatred will become illegal, the justice secretary, Jack Straw, announced last night, following a campaign by gay rights groups. The introduction of an offence of rallying hatred against gays and lesbians follows similar measures to tackle religious hate crime, which were passed earlier this year after lengthy rows over freedom of speech.

“It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the last 10 years that we are now appalled by hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality. It is time for the law to recognise this,” said Mr Straw, introducing the second reading of the criminal justice and immigration bill.

If you can't imagine the ACLU helping make the same thing happen here, you need to wake up. All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn’t directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU’s embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.

In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the UNHRC’s discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a “showdown with religion,” clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source

After the first amendment, the next thing you can kiss goodbye with international law is the second amendment.

It is a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, and religious exercise. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.

Another rant from Kender:

The ACLU, the NYT and other groups and organizations that fight against our government on the GWOT are basically attacking freedom and the safety and security of this nation, putting Americans in harms way in their misguided attacks on our governments attempt to track and deal with terrorists.

What I want to know is this;

When the islamists get control and impose sharia law, will the ACLU have the balls to stand up and say “no way achmed”, or do you think it more likely that they will realize that speaking against the caliphate is a death sentence?

I am betting they will shut up and become good little dhimmis.

If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs...why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America's freedoms, and our very sovereignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU's vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churches and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them.

Get involved. Donate and support organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund and the ACLJ that are out there fighting the ACLU's agenda. Contact your representatives and Senators and tell them to support Constitution Restoration Act that would put an end to the use of foreign law in our courts. Tell them to support the The Public Expression of Religion Act which would put a stop to taxpayer funding of the ACLU in establishment clause case. Sign Our Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding Of The ACLU. Pray that America wakes up before its too late.

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

Video: History of the ACLU Part V

2007-10-04T18:25:00.001-07:00

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

In case you missed them: Part I

Part II and III

Part IV

...and now...Part V

ACLU and National Abortion Federation Criticize Decision by U.S. Supreme Court Upholding Federal Abortion Ban
Justice Ginsburg: Watchdog Plan ‘Scary’
Ginsburg And Foreign Law In Interpreting Our Constitution
The Problem with the Culture of Drive-Thru Abortions
ACLU Loses Court Battle to DoD and Boy Scouts

ACLU Privacy Hypocrisy

2007-09-26T16:05:00.000-07:00

Recently, the ACLU set their doomsday clock at six minutes before midnight! Once it reaches the ‘dark hour’ of midnight…we will be slaves to the ominous and evil ’surviellance society’. This isn’t science fiction. This is typical scare tactics from the ACLU.

They prey upon the paranoid. This is how they get donations to fund their machine. They cry about "American citizens being spied upon" when in fact there is no evidence that anyone has been hurt by the government's terrorist surviellance program.

While the ACLU cry that they are the guardian's of liberty, and that privacy is one of those liberties....they have been exposed as being violators of that very liberty. They have a massive database of their own member's private financial information they use for soliciting donations.

The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”

Now the ACLU are proudly defending Rep. Larry Craig on grounds of privacy. In another recent case they are defending a "pre-operative transsexual" anatomically male's "right" to use the female public restroom. Terrence Jeffrey calls out the 'privacy hypocrisy' on this one.

"The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime," said the ACLU. "It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or a restroom."

But then the ACLU went a step further, arguing that there is not only a right to solicit sex, but also to engage in it, in a public restroom.

"The Minnesota Supreme Court," said the ACLU, "has already ruled that two men engaged in sexual activity in a department store restroom with the stall door closed had a reasonable expectation of privacy. They were, the Court held, therefore acting in a private, not a public place."

The conflated logic of the ACLU's bathroom briefs seems to be that someone entering a public restroom intending to use it for traditional purposes has no protection either from the gender sign posted at the door or from the otherwise vaunted right to privacy. Someone entering a public restroom intending to solicit and engage in sex, on the other hand, is protected by both the First Amendment and the right to privacy.

What else would you expect from a group that embraces an ideology that holds that partially born babies have no right to keep their skulls intact?

Indeed. As my good friend Glib Fortuna puts it:

This about sums up the ACLU’s worldview. To the ACLU, the only “freedom” the ACLU truly believes in is “sexual freedom” and the concomitant “right” of people who choose aberrant sexual behavior to be free of any criticism and free from anyone else exercising common sense (and more threateningly, religious liberty) if it “infringes” on these “rights” recently invented by the ACLU and its partisans.

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 onboard.

U.S. Christian Camp Loses Tax-Exempt Status over Same-Sex Civil-Union Ceremony

2007-09-23T01:43:00.000-07:00

By John Jalsevac

OCEAN GROVE, N.J., September 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced on Monday that it was stripping the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of its tax-exempt status for part of its property. The Methodist camp made the news earlier this year after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property.

We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Wow. That lasted all of 60 years before they decided to crap on it!

The pavilion, said Scott Hoffman, the camp's chief administrative officer to LifeSiteNews, "is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869."

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.

In June, however, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Pester, a lesbian, filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination, after Ocean Grove refused to allow them to hold their "civil-union" ceremony at the camp's pavilion. A second lesbian couple has also sued Ocean Grove. New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

"It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis," DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, wrote to the camp on Monday, in announcing the DEP's decision to revoke the camp's tax-exempt status.

"When people hear the words 'open space,' we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people," Jackson continued. "And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs."

In otherwords, "all your church are belong to us."

Currently, however, there is some confusion over just how much of the camp's property no longer has tax-exempt status. As such, one homosexual advocacy group is threatening to appeal the DEP's decision, saying that it doesn't go far enough, reports the AP. "We're looking for a bigger victory here," said Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality. "We have the symbolic victory of the state telling Ocean Grove they're wrong, but there is a bigger victory to be had by having the entire tax-exemption removed. We're happy, but there's a lot more happiness to be had."

Any doubts that Steve Goldstein is a firm believer in so-called separation of church and state?

According to the Neptune Township tax assessor, the revocation of the tax-exempt status on the pavilion will only cost Ocean Grove about $175/year, although Scott Hoffman has reportedly issued a statement claiming that the DEP's decision in fact appears to revoke tax-exempt status for "over 99 percent of the land." Hoffman said that Ocean Grove's lawyers are currently reviewing the decision.

In August, the Christian camp preempted the complaints currently pending against it by itself suing New Jersey state officials. According to the Alliance Defense fund, which is representing the camp, the attorney general's office is violating First Amendment protections by investigating Ocean Grove. "Religious groups have the right to make their own decisions without government interference," said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "The government can't force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs."

I seem to remember not all that long ago, the homosexual community claiming they have no intentions of attempting to force their agenda on the churches and that no religious organization would be coerced to recognize homosexual unions or perform such ceremonies if they conflicted with their religious beliefs.

I hope this is the case taken to SCOTUS. With the ADF involved, it just may be.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Methodist Camp Meeting Association Sues New Jersey for Civil Union Investigation
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07081501.html

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07071011.html

Crossposted at Stop the ACLU

Abortion Opponents Prepare Nationwide Campaign Following Victory in Aurora, IL

2007-09-22T23:11:00.000-07:00

40 Days for Life campaign begins Sept. 26

AURORA, Ill., September 20, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

"On September 26, more than 80 cities in 33 states will follow the courageous example set by Aurora, Illinois, and join together for the largest and longest simultaneous pro-life mobilization in American history," said David Bereit, national director of the 40 Days for Life campaign.

The 40-day pro-life campaign in Aurora that thwarted the scheduled opening of a new Planned Parenthood abortion facility was inspired by 40 Days for Life. Local pro-life leaders have collaborated with the national 40 Days for Life campaign since the news broke about Planned Parenthood's attempts to open the abortion center under false pretenses.

Bereit will deliver the keynote address at tonight's pro- life rally in Aurora. The event will be held at Wheatland Community Park beginning at 5:30 PM. Bereit's address starts at approximately 7:00 p.m.

40 Days for Life is an intensive pro-life campaign that focuses on 40 days of prayer and fasting, peaceful vigil at abortion facilities, and grassroots educational outreach. This fall's nationwide campaign builds on a track record of proven results in seven cities. More information can be found at: http://www.40daysforlife.com

Planned Parenthood's national president, Cecile Richards, sent a mass e-mail about the Aurora situation to abortion advocates around the country, stating that "more people are protesting this clinic than we've seen in a long time." She added, "To be honest, it's going to take all our efforts to open this clinic."

Said Bereit, "If it takes all of Planned Parenthood's national efforts to respond to 40 days of prayer, fasting, and peaceful activism in one city, we can only imagine the impact it will have on the entire abortion industry when more than 80 cities join together for 40 Days for Life beginning next week. The events in Aurora have inspired unprecedented levels of pro-life activity all across the nation, forming a 'perfect storm' which we believe could mark the beginning of the end of abortion in America."

ACLU's Countdown To Doomsday

2007-09-18T18:22:00.000-07:00

Playing on the fears of the paranoid, the ACLU have set an imaginary symbolic clock at six minutes before midnight! Once it reaches the 'dark hour' of midnight...we will be slaves to the ominous and evil 'surviellance society'. This isn't science fiction. This is typical scare tactics from the ACLU.

"We are rapidly moving toward a future where our every move, our every transaction, our every communication is tracked and may be used against us," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. "Too often that big picture is lost amid the stream of daily privacy stories. The Surveillance Clock is part of our efforts to keep people focused on that big picture and dramatize what’s happening to America."
In conjunction with the clock, the ACLU released "Even Bigger, Even Weaker: The Emerging Surveillance Society." A follow-up to the ACLU’s widely cited 2003 report "Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains," the new paper provides an update on how diverse developments in technology, law and government are working together to bring us toward a surveillance society.
The ACLU also released a video of "Monster Among Us," a spoken-word performance piece dramatizing the growing surveillance society, which Connell & Sekou wrote for the ACLU.
"The trend toward greater tracking and surveillance of individuals has intensified rapidly in recent years," said Steinhardt. "National identity systems, mass surveillance and data mining, the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program, DNA data-banking, search engines that store our every query, even satellites – it’s worse than ever."

So, how will we know when the "dark hour" strikes us? The ACLU will let us know of course. They will use the clock, which they have made into convientent website buttons for your blogs, to prey upon the paranoid. Whenever they need money they will click the clock forward a notch and probably send out a press release filled with paranoia. They will need your immediate action to save us all from the immenent apocalypse of privacy. The clock will probably never actually hit midnight, because then it would be too late for the ACLU to save us. They'll get it close, knock it back a few notches, etc. They'll keep it around as long as it pulls in the cash.

The ACLU said it would push the clock forward or back in response to developments that worsen or improve the movement toward mass surveillance. The Surveillance Society Clock was inspired by the "Doomsday Clock" created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to warn about the potential for nuclear war.

However, for the truly paranoid...the truth is out there. The ACLU is all a part of the plot! They are baiting you! BEHOLD THE ACLU'S HYPOCRISY EXPOSED!

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders’ commitment to privacy rights.
Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization’s frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.
....
The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.
He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”

No matter which way you turn, your privacy is doomed! Let the countdown begin ACLU!
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Obama, UCC Draw IRS Complaint

2007-09-14T04:02:00.000-07:00

By Jeffrey Lord
The American Spectator

A June 23 appearance by Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama at the General Synod of the United Church of Christ is now the subject of a formal complaint filed with the Internal Revenue Service on August 2.

Portions of the redacted documents obtained by the website UCC Truths, a growing online gathering for dissenters from the church leadership's rigid left-wing political orthodoxy, were published August 27. Those redacted documents have now been obtained by The American Spectator

The complaint, addressed to Lois Lerner, the Director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the Internal Revenue Service, formally asks the IRS to "investigate the United Church of Christ," identified in the complaint as "a 501 (3) (c) non-profit religious entity" for violating "federal tax law banning political campaign intervention." The redaction has blacked out the name of the filer.

[snip]

The irony is that IRS complaints of this nature have been lovingly crafted into a science by left-wing activist -- and UCC minister -- Barry Lynn, the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Lynn, quite famously, has made much of his tangles with conservative Christians, filing numerous IRS complaints designed to effectively shut down conservative religious activists such as the late Jerry Falwell. The goal, and a very serious goal it is, is to remove the tax-exempt status that the IRS gives to churches.

Read the entire article at The American Spectator

Crossposted at Stop the ACLU

Court Forces Michigan High School to Give Bible Club Same Benefits as Gay Club

2007-09-12T22:40:00.000-07:00

FARMINGTON, September 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm today announced that United States District Judge Victoria A. Roberts has entered a permanent injunction granting equal rights to a Bible club and its members at Farmington High School in Farmington, Michigan.

The Law Center represents ALIVE, a voluntary student Bible club, its president and co-founder, Aaron Grider, and his parents. In 2006, Grider had requested that ALIVE be recognized by the school as a noncurriculum-related student group and receive the same treatment and benefits that other noncurriculum-related student groups receive at Farmington High School. In the past, Farmington High School has recognized several noncurriculum-related student groups, including the Gay Straight Alliance, R.E.A.C.H. (a diversity club), and S.A.D.D. (Students Against Drunk Driving).

School officials denied Aaron's request. Unlike recognized noncurriculum-related student clubs, school officials allowed ALIVE to meet informally before school, but did not allow ALIVE to advertise over the school's public address system, on the school's bulletin boards, on the school's website, in the school's yearbook, or over the school's internal television network, and they did not allow the club to use the school's photocopying machines.

The Law Center filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit, Michigan, and raised claims that school officials had violated plaintiffs' rights under the Federal Equal Access Act, the Michigan Equal Access Act, and the federal constitution.

Before the start of the school year, which began on September 4, 2007, plaintiffs filed motions seeking a court injunction to ensure that ALIVE and its members would be treated the same as other noncurriculum-related groups are treated at Farmington High School. Last week, Judge Roberts issued a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs and required school officials to provide ALIVE the same benefits, treatment, and privileges enjoyed by other noncurriculum-related student clubs.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, "The judge's order should highlight to all school officials in Michigan and in other states that once a public high school allows one noncurriculum-related student club to meet on campus, they cannot discriminate against a Bible club. A Bible club must be permitted the same rights as other student clubs."

Judge Roberts determined that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Federal and Michigan Equal Access Acts, and, therefore, she did not need to consider the constitutional claims. Judge Roberts stated that "it appears clear that ALIVE has been treated differently than other student groups 'on the basis of' the religious content of their speech."

Judge Roberts also determined that because plaintiffs have been denied equal access to the school in violation of the Federal Equal Access Act, based on plaintiffs' religious viewpoint since at least October 2006, that the plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed this school year without an injunction to ensure that their rights as a club are protected.

Commented Edward L. White III, trial counsel for the Thomas More Law Center handling the case: "Judge Roberts's permanent injunction will protect the rights of ALIVE and its members this school year and thereafter. These students will be able to enjoy all the benefits that other noncurriculum-related student clubs enjoy at Farmington High School."

Focus Vindicated After Yearlong IRS Audit

2007-09-12T22:20:00.000-07:00

by Stuart Shepard, managing editor
Focus on the Family
'No dings. No criticisms. Not a single allegation was found to have substance.'

The IRS closed a nearly 12-month audit of Focus on the Family and Dr. James C. Dobson by affirming that the organization committed no wrongdoing.

The investigation, which ended last week, was sparked by allegations from two groups that routinely bash conservatives: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. In particular, CREW falsely accused Focus on the Family and Dr. Dobson, in his capacity as the head of Focus, of electioneering by endorsing candidates for public office. It called on the IRS to conduct a "full-scale investigation" and to revoke Focus' tax-exempt status, levy fines and pursue "civil and criminal penalties."

Dr. Dobson said on his national radio broadcast today that the real target was conservative Christians nationwide.

"The purpose for this was not only to see if they could damage us and take us out," he said, "but to scare every pastor and every nonprofit that's out there."

Under fire, Dr. Dobson said, are churches and Christian groups that speak out about social and moral issues, including marriage, homosexuality and the sanctity of life.

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action, pointed out on the broadcast that CREW is funded in part by George Soros, the "radical Leftist who wants to undermine so much of what this country stands for."

Dr. Dobson read from the letter he received last week from the IRS: "Our examination revealed that Dr. Dobson's reported remarks did not occur in publications of Focus on the Family, did not occur at functions of Focus on the Family and did not involve Dr. Dobson's suggestion that he was speaking as a representative of Focus on the Family. As such, we are closing our examination without any change to our recognition of Focus on the Family as (a tax-exempt organization.)"

Dr. Dobson summarized what the IRS letter said: "No dings. No criticisms. Not a single allegation was found to have substance."

He noted that newspapers nationwide ran a story when the false allegations were filed with the IRS, but, he added, "I doubt if the mainstream media — what Rush Limbaugh calls the 'drive-by media' who shoots at you symbolically and then goes on down the road and leaves chaos behind — I doubt if they'll come back and say, 'By the way, Focus on the Family is squeaky clean.' But we are! And the reason we are is because we believe in the rule of law. We believe in following, to the letter, IRS regulations and every other aspect of the law. We're called by Scripture to do that. And we live within it."

Crossposted at Stop the ACLU

Never Forget...

2007-09-11T00:28:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush told the nation before a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001...

We will direct every resource at our command--every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war--to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans.

He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any attacks that may come.

These measures are essential. The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it and destroy it where it grows.

Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents, to intelligence operatives, to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers.

And tonight a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I have called the armed forces to alert, and there is a reason.

The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.

This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom.

This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

Americans are asking, ``What is expected of us?'' I ask you to live your lives and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat. I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here. We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith.

And finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead.

Tonight we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights and take new measures to prevent hijacking. We will come together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying with direct assistance during this emergency. We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home. We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act and to find them before they strike. We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy and put our people back to work. Tonight, we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers, Governor George Pataki and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress and these two leaders to show the world that we will rebuild New York City.

After all that has just passed, all the lives taken and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them, it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them.

As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror. This will be an age of liberty here and across the world. Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines and that is good.

Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day and to whom it happened. We will remember the moment the news came, where we were and what we were doing.

Some will remember an image of a fire or story or rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever. And I will carry this. It is the police shield of a man named George Howard who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene (ph), as a proud memorial to her son. It is my reminder of lives that ended and a task that does not end.

I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom and may he watch over the United States of America. Thank you.

Retro Reprint: Top Ten Reasons To Stop The ACLU

2007-09-02T21:17:00.000-07:00

I wanted to put something up for Labor Day here to get some inspirations sparked. For a while my priorities have been shifted. I want to announce that we will be more active in our original cause and want to thank everyone that has supported us thus far. To get our blogburst reinvigorated, I thought I'd pull out a classic...one that explains why we started and what we are all about...

Stop The ACLU was started on February 9th, 2004. We started with high hopes, and we realized we were facing a goliath. There were many reasons why we thought the ACLU needed to be countered, and they are numerous. We wanted to provide a way to inform the public of the ACLU's agenda, as the MSM sugar coated it. We wanted to be a central database for people to gather, exchange ideas, and get actively involved in real ways of stopping them. It is a monumental task, exhausting, time consuming, and often frustrating. But it is a fight worth fighting.

We would be nothing without our supporters. To all of you, we appreciate the continued support. We have called you to action and you have answered.

There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. For this blogburst, I've decided to list my top ten list.

10. The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly...

"My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment�Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself�I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.

ACLU POLICY -The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.�ACLU Policy #47

#8. Their outright hatred of the Boy Scouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. They oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.

#7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it's the ACLU's top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If it's abortion or euthanasia, as long as it's pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU's pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

#6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minutemen, a group who are simply exercising their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.

#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of "separation of Church and State", the ACLU have made a name for themselves by being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether it's baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be to secularize America, and rewrite our history.

#4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. It's kind of ironic that they don't practice the principles they preach.

Take a walk into the NYCLU's Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you'll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

#3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980's. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.

In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of its most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.

The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.

The Rockefeller Foundation's provisions state that recipients of its funds may not directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.

#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.

As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.

There is no doubt the The ACLU are perverting the Constitution.

#1. The ACLU fulfills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one?

There are countless reasons the ACLU needs to be stopped. So don't just stand by and complain, do something. Get involved. Here are some ways you can get involved to help us stop the ACLU.

Support and donate to organizations fighting them in Court. Here are the ones at the forefront.

ACLJ
Alliance Defense Fund
Thomas More Law Center

Join the Stop The ACLU Coalition

Help us write Churches to get involved.

Tell your Congress to support the Public Expression of Relgion Act of 2005. This legislation seeks to limit attorney's fees in Establishment Clause cases to injunctive relief only.

SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU

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 on board.

Iowa Gay Marriage Applications Halted

2007-09-01T23:55:00.000-07:00

By DAVID PITT
^AP Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) —

Same-sex marriage was legal here for less than 24 hours before the county won a stay of a judge's order on Friday, a tiny window of opportunity that allowed two men to make history but left dozens of other couples disappointed after a frantic rush to the altar.

At 2 p.m. Thursday, Judge Robert Hanson ordered Polk County officials to accept marriage license requests from same-sex couples, but he granted the stay at about 12:30 p.m. Friday. By then 27 same-sex couples had filed applications, but only Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan of Ames had made it official by getting married and returning the signed license to the courthouse in time.

In the front yard of the Rev. Mark Stringer, pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Des Moines, they become the only same-sex couple wed in the U.S. outside of Massachusetts, where some 8,000 such couples have tied the knot.

Stringer concluded the ceremony by saying, "This is a legal document and you are married." The men then kissed and hugged.

"This is it. We're married. I love you," Fritz told McQuillan after the ceremony.

No more same-sex weddings will be recognized, and no more applications will be accepted, pending Polk County's appeal of Hanson's ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, County Attorney John Sarcone said.

Hanson's order had applied only to the county, but because any Iowa couple could apply for a license, people from across the state rushed to Des Moines, only to see fluorescent green signs explaining the stay and adding, "Sorry for the inconvenience."

Lytishya Borglum and partner, Danielle Borglum, drove 2 1/2 hours from Cedar Falls, along with their 13-month-old daughter, Berlyn. They planned to apply in Polk County and told their pastor in Cedar Falls to be ready to marry them when they returned.

"(We) plan to take the application home and pray that things change. Even though it is a setback, it is a step in the right direction," Lytishya Borglum said.

She said they would like to get legal status to gain more rights but added, "As far as we're concerned, our marriage is between us and God. We've been married for three years — if you ask us."

Accepting marriage licenses from same-sex couples has been illegal under a 1998 state law that permitted only a man and a woman to marry.

Hanson, ruling in a case filed by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in 2005, declared the law unconstitutional Thursday. He ruled that the marriage laws "must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage."

The marriage license approval process normally takes three business days, but Fritz and McQuillan took advantage of a loophole that allows couples to skip the waiting period if they pay $5 and get a judge to sign a waiver.

Other couples, even those who got an early start Friday, were out of luck. Katy Farlow and Larissa Boeck, students at Iowa State University, said they got to the county recorder's office at 5 a.m., then sat in lawn chairs and ate snacks until the office opened at 7:30 a.m. They got their application in but didn't get their license.

"This might be our only chance," Farlow said. "We already knew we were spending the rest of our lives together."

Hanson granted the stay after Sarcone filed a motion saying his ruling should be put on hold because lifting the ban was far reaching and would likely be overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Hanson wrote that Sarcone's arguments "do indeed constitute good cause for the issuance of the requested stay."

Plaintiff's attorney Dennis Johnson had argued that the county's appeal probably would not succeed and disputed its contention that a reversal would throw any licenses issued into legal doubt.

He said a marriage license is valid until one or both of the spouses seek to have it dissolved or one dies, "regardless of changes in the law that may occur after the couple marries."

It's obvious that the ACLU won this case if this lawyer can make such a stupid statement.

The Iowa Supreme Court can refer the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the matter itself or decide not to hear the case. The flurry of activity in the courts prompted a quick response from some lawmakers. House Republican leader Christopher Rants called on Democrats, who hold a majority of seats in the Legislature, to respond.

"The Democrats should call a special session immediately to take up such issues and to introduce a marriage amendment for Iowa's constitution," he said in a statement. "House Democrats need to start leading or get out of the way."

Language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman has been written into the constitutions of 27 states, according the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most other states have laws to the same effect; Iowa's was approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature in 1998.

Gov. Chet Culver on Thursday issued a statement stating his opposition to gay marriage and said he would wait for the court process to play out before considering any push for legislative action.

"While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Culver said.

Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples.

Associated Press writers Henry C. Jackson, Amy Lorentzen and Nafeesa Syeed contributed to this report.

Another Hillary Donor Criminal: Wanted By FBI

2007-08-30T16:02:00.000-07:00

Crossposted from STOP the ACLU

Gateway Pundit has the FBI Wanted Poster and asks:

Are you ready for another 4 years of unimaginable corruption?
Are you ready for another Clinton Presidency of record-breaking scandal?
Check this one out...
Here's the latest Hillary Clinton Donor.

Bryan Preston informs us:

His name is Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, originally from Pakistan. He allegedly funneled loads of money to the Clinton campaign, stood accused of same, and fled to Pakistan. In May, he surrendered to the FBI, flew back to the US to answer the charges against him, and collapsed in court.

...Bryan asks:

I have a few questions: Who else has been illegally donating to the Clinton campaign machine?

Michelle Malkin has more info

My friend Lobo tried a while back to get some of the fishy info we do know of the Clinton's out there for bloggers to dig through. I'll reprint some of this info below. For the full thing just follow this link.

Here is the TIMELINE that even the mainstream media can understand:
TIMELINE:

Feb. 2000 - Peter Paul is induced to support Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign with the promise of access to Bill Clinton to be able to make a proposal to come aboard Stan Lee Media as a rainmaker when he left the WH

June 9, 2000 - Paul pays for two Hillary Clinton fundraisers at Spago and the home of Cynthia Gershman ... the costs are never declared by the campaign (note: a previous fundraiser through Rendell for Al Gore, paid for by Paul, was also never declared; Rendell also never declared a 150K stock pledge) ... at the Spago lunch, Paul spent considerable time with Hillary and discussed his plan for her husband's employment... see the 20/20 report from 2001...Amazingly, in her declaration of 4-7-06, Hillary acts as if she barely knew Peter Paul and claimed she couldn't remember anything they might have said. Besides the email comments, Paul has video of her going on and on about how Stan Lee was a genius for hiring Paul. She is really excited about Paul's idea of a cartoon character of Al Gore, and she wants to talk to Tony Coehlo and Terry McAuliffe about it. Her failure to remember is simply a lie.

June 23, 2000 - Kelly Craighead (a White House employee, not part of any joint fundraising committee), Jim Levin, David Rosen (all agents of Hillary and Bill) meet with Aaron Tonken (agent of Paul and fundraiser for Ed Rendell) to originate the idea for a major fundraising event for Hillary as part of the Aug. 14-20 DNC Convention in L.A.

July 11, 2000 - conference call between Peter Paul, Tonken, Craighead, Wolfson, Levin, and Rosen in which Paul is solicited to pay for the Hollywood Gala....he is asked to pay $525K, and it is expected that Cynthia Gershman will pay a like amount....it was acknowledged by all that the fundraiser would cost over a million dollars

July 17, 2000 - Paul films the SMOKING GUN VIDEO. This video was withheld by an assistant US ATTY while investigations were proceeding. Hillary is shown soliciting and coordination the $1.6 mil in-kind, hard money donation. Kelly Craighead kept her completely briefed and she offered any help she could. David Kendall's claim that this was a joint fundraiser, and thus hard money, won't fly. Craighead was a White House employee who solicited the money on July 11. Hillary was part of closing the deal on July 17.

Aug. 12, 2000 - Hollywood Gala... it raises a million dollars for Hillary, but it cost over a million dollars...Paul spent several hours with Bill Clinton... here they are putting the final touches on the deal at the after concert dinner... Look at all the photos of the gala... Hillary actually said in her declaration of 4-7-06, "I remember Mr. Paul attending the event..." How insulting was that? Actually, she spent hours near him and publicly thanked him from the stage for all he did.

Aug 13 - Paul and his wife Andrea are at the home of Barbra Streisand for Clinton Library donors...when Hillary sees Andrea, she runs over to her, brings her over to Streisand, and introduces her as "the wife of the man who funded last night's event...my new best friend"... Streisand's testimony should be interesting... Chelsea came up to the table with Paul, Andrea, Tendo Oto, Oto's interpreter Jonathon Rogers, Jim Levin, and Haim Saban. Chelsea discussed for at least a half an hour how excited she and her parents were about her dad coming to work for the creator of Spider Man... Hillary sets up her daughter for perjury

Aug. 13 - Tendo Oto and SLM make their deal for Asian partnership - Oto gives $5 mil and promises another $5-7 mil in November for the American joint venture...On Aug. 12 he had paid $27K to attend the federal fundraiser gala. Giving money was illegal. Attending was illegal. Since Oto had no social security number to check out when he showed up at the event with his camera crew, the Secret Service said no way. Clinton had the Secret Service stand down, and Oto sat directly behind the president and first lady.

Aug 14 - Ed Rendell calls Peter Paul in a panic. Lloyd Grove is preparing a story for the WASHPOST about Paul's felony record for "The Cuban Coffee Caper" two decades previous when he was an international attorney in Miami. Rendell tells Paul to deny he gave any money and just play along. Shortly after the warning call, Grove called. Here is the callsheet from SLM, certified by the government as evidence.

Aug 15 - Lloyd Grove writes the story in the WASHPOST about Paul's felony past from two decades previous involving the Cuban Coffee Caper and defrauding Fidel Castro of $8.7 million ... Howard Wolfson vows that they would never take any money from Peter Paul

Aug 17 - Grove writes a second story about $2,000 given by Paul at Spago ... Wolfson says they will return the money, and a check is immediately cut and sent to Paul ... Wolfson actually admits that the gala cost a million dollars but says it was in-kind and not a check. (Ummm, in-kind is hard money, Howard)

Aug 18 - behind the scenes, while disavowing him in public, the Clintons write personal notes to Paul, dated Aug 18, expressing their gratitude ... Hillary: "We will remember it always"... Bill's note... Even Chelsea got into the act.

Aug 24 - Campaign Finance Chairman David Rosen is directed to send a fax to Paul asking for another $100,000 (actually, one of several faxes) ... Hillary had promised the money for the Working Families Party in New York ... Paul will send no more money until he hears it face to face from Bill Clinton that they still have a deal (second document shows Gordon's acknowledgment that it was "done")

Sept. 22, 2000 - Clinton steps off AF-1 in Los Angeles (we have photo) and assures Paul that the deal is still a go ... Paul has Steven Gordon send a stock transfer of $55K to the Working Families Party for Hillary... we can find no evidence that they ever declared that donation. If the Clintons were disavowing Paul in public, claimed he gave no money, and had no business arrangement with the President as claimed by Hillary, why would the President of the United States be meeting Paul in public as he stepped off AF-1? For what possible purpose? That's not hard to figure out, is it?

Nov 7 - Hillary is elected

Nov 13 - just six days after Hillary's election, an agreement for Venture Soft USA Inc is recorded in Illinois between Jim Levin, Clinton's business adviser, and Tendo Oto ... Levin was Clinton's "eyes and ears" in dealing with Paul, got proprietary business information, and stole the Japanese partner for their own deal

Dec 2000 - Stan Lee Media collapses ... the additional $5-7 million promised in November from partner Tendo Oto was not received due to the Clinton/Levin interference In Paul v Clinton, it will be proven that Oto's money would have kept the company solvent until Clinton came aboard as he had promised Peter Paul.

Early 2001 - Paul discovers that the campaign has filed two fraudulent FEC reports, only reporting 366K for the cost of Event 39 ... he spent over a million dollars on it

June 18, 2001 - Paul files initial lawsuit against the Clintons and several others for business fraud

July 3 - Treasurer Andrew Grossman is served with the lawsuit that includes documentation for $1.6 million spent by Paul

July 11 - David Kendall accepts service for Hillary along with the $1.6 million documented expenses

July 18 - press conference at National Press Club . Paul has messenger hand deliver a demand letter to Hillary's senate office

July 30 - despite Paul's demand and all of the documentation, a third false FEC report is filed ... this time they declare $401K for Event 39 ... still no mention of Paul as the real donor

Jan 2005 - criminal indictment of David Rosen is unsealed

May 2005 - Rosen acquitted in criminal trial in Los Angeles...the perjury in this trial was astounding...the judge and prosecutor went out of their way to condemn Paul and claim that Hillary had nothing to do with it is also astounding... FBI affidavit during the trial documenting $1.2 mil from Paul that was not declared. The prosecution does not call Paul, Aaron Tonken, or key witness Kelly Craighead (Craighead was also never called by the FEC - she will be a key witness in Paul v Clinton).... The prosecution does not use damaging evidence against Rosen obtained while Ray Reggie (brother in law of Ted Kennedy) was wearing a wire. In Tonken's book, KING OF CONS, he tells how he sat in a van with Hillary detailing all of the money that was being spent on her.

Dec 2005 - FEC determines that the campaign deliberately underreported $721,000, fines the campaign a mere $35,000, and orders a new filing...treasurer Andrew Grossman signs conciliation agreement with the FEC, the equivalent of a nolo contendre plea

Jan 2006 - thefourth fraudulent FEC report is filed ... among the problems are Stan Lee (whom we have on tape in a deposition swearing that he gave no money) is credited with a 225K donation and Paul is still never named personally as the donor as he has demanded

April 7, 2006 - Hillary removed as defendant but judge made clear to Kendall that she would be testifying ... the declaration turned into the court by Kendall for Hillary can only be described as a work of fiction ... no reporters attended the hearing and not one mainstream media source wrote that a trial date had been set for defendant Bill Clinton (trial date postponed until appeal is heard to bring Hillary back in as a defendant) ... Chelsea will be one of the witnesses called ... although her mom claims no knowledge of the business deal, if Chelsea testifies honestly, she will tell how the family stayed up late after the gala playing scrabble and discussing the excitement of daddy going to work for the creator of Spiderman ... from a private fundraiser at Zev Braun's house in early 2000, Paul has home video of Hillary laughing and discussing with him how he had arranged in 1993 for Fabio to chase her around the room and pick her up in a romance pose...the president referenced that event the next year at the Italian-American Foundation Dinner.... her declaration claiming that she met Paul in early 2000 is simply a lie

June 2006 - Senate Ethics Committee announces it will not investigate Hillary and simply relies on the flawed FEC procedure ... subsequently, they refuse Paul's offer to appear and testity

Oct. 18, 2006 - new demand letter for return of over a million dollars is delivered to Hillary's DC office with copy delivered to Sen. Voinovich, chair of the Senate Ethics Committee

Jan. 10, 2007 - Paul counsel files Appellate Brief to bring Hillary back into the case as a defendant (that delays the trial date for Bill, set for March 27, 2007...it also delays depositions)....no mainstream media source had reported that defendant Bill Clinton had a trial date in a case involving the collapse of Spiderman Stan Lee's company)

April 2007 - after a two-year battle for the return of evidence, including home videos, an assistant US atty provides Paul with a list of items they will return to him.....included was the "smoking gun video": July 17, 5-minute conference call, Hillary Clinton..... when the numerous pieces of evidence were finally sent, the shipment did not include that video.....Paul's counsel argues vehemently for that to be sent....Paul believes that a low-level functionary screwed up by putting that piece of evidence on the manifest -- Hillary never thought it would see the light of day...that video was finally sent because they could not deny its possession

June 20, 2007 - look at this page under "Latest Filings" for June 20 briefs and declarations

July 27, 2007 - court notification that oral arguments are set for Sept. 7 before the California Court of Appeals.... a decision on whether Hillary is brought back in as a defendant is expected within 10 days thereafter.... then, it is time for depositions.... if David Kendall loses, he may appeal to the California Supreme Court.....that court had earlier refused to hear the argument about removal of Bill Clinton from the case.... Kendall may be able to delay it for a short time, but depositions are expected to begin this year.

Polk judge rules against (Iowa) gay marriage ban

2007-08-30T15:48:00.000-07:00

Crossposted from STOP the ACLU

I don't even want to get into the gay marriage debate here, except to note that most of the time when this kind of thing is "ordered" and forced on the people by the judicial branch it only results in backlash, new legislation, and making it even more difficult down the road for their advocates. Anyway...here is the news thats sure to make the primary explosive!

A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa’s law banning gay marriage.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Tim Brien to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.

“It’s a moral victory for equal rights,” said Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson, who represented six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses.

Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, said the ruling requires “full equality for all Iowans including gay and lesbian Iowans and their families.”

“The Iowa Constitution has lived up to its promises of equality for everyone,” she said.

The county is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Brian at Liberty Pundit:

Obviously, this will eventually wind up in the Iowa Supreme Court…it might even go beyond that. Eventually there will be an amendment offered to the Iowa Constitution, but I highly doubt it will pass. Stranger things have happened, though.

Men giving away Bibles cleared of charges

2007-07-29T07:19:00.000-07:00

A Florida judge has dismissed all counts against two members of The Gideons International who were arrested while handing out Bibles on a public sidewalk outside a school, officials with the Alliance Defense Fund said.

"Christians cannot be treated as second-class citizens," said ADF senior legal counsel David Cortman. "These two men have the same constitutional rights as everyone else to pass out literature on a public sidewalk.

"We are pleased that the court agrees that these men should not have been arrested and dismissed the charges against them," he said.

The case has been handled by the legal alliance, which defends the right to hear and speak the truth through strategy, training, funding and litigation, since shortly after Ernest Simpson and Anthony Mirto were arrested.

They had been charged with trespassing after the principal complained that they were handing out Bibles.

The initial counts were dismissed at the request of the ADF shortly after the law firm got involved, but then authorities filed a second round of counts, under a different law that prohibits anyone from being within 500 feet of any school property, including on public sidewalks and streets, without having either "legitimate business" or permission.

"Why is Florida so interested in prosecuting people who hand out Bibles?" the ADF had wondered at the time. "Does the state now believe that its citizens will be safer if 'protected' from Bibles? In a country founded on religious freedom, the actions of the State are a disgrace."

As WND originally reported, Mirto and Simpson of Monroe County were arrested, charged with trespassing, and booked into jail after the school principal, Annette Martinson, called police.

They were verbally assaulted and badgered by the arresting officer, according to court filings in the case, and sustained injury to their wrists when he handcuffed them with their hands behind their backs and detained them in a closed, un-air conditioned car for nearly an hour in 90-degree heat.

"The distribution of Bibles on a public sidewalk is not a criminal offense," Cortman said then. "The attempts by Florida officials to continue pressing for the prosecution of Mr. Mirto and Mr. Simpson is not only blatantly unconstitutional, it borders on religious persecution."

The incident Jan. 19 developed as the two men were distributing Bibles outside Key Largo School.

While the original trespassing counts were unreasonable, the second round put the state of Florida in the "untenable position of trying to justify the punishment of fundamental First Amendment activities in a quintessential traditional public forum," the ADF described.

On the face of the statute cited by the prosecutor, people driving by the school on the highway technically are in violation of the law, unless they have an exemption, and if the same exemption doesn't apply to the two members of Gideons International, then that creates a content-based speech restriction, which also isn't proper, Cortman said.

In fact, if anyone may have stepped beyond the law, the filing suggests, it was the arresting officer from the Monroe County sheriff's office.

"There was no call for Officer [John] Perez's angry demeanor, his inappropriate handling of the situation, his abusive treatment of the Gideons, his stopping and arresting them while they were in the process of leaving, his unnecessary towing of the car (parked where many other cars were parked), his handcuffing the men behind their backs, his leaving them cramped in a hot car for nearly an hour (which should never be done to animals, never mind to human beings), nor his mocking the Gideons' religious beliefs stating 'now you can pray to Jesus all the way to jail,'" the ADF said.

In a statement at the outset of the case to WND, Becky Herrin, of the public information office in the Monroe County sheriff's office, stated as a fact that the defendants in the case did trespass. She later declined additional comment.

"A copy of our police report (see attached) clearly states that the people in question were arrested for trespassing on school property – not on a public sidewalk In fact, they were given the opportunity to step off school property and onto public property, and they could have continued with their activities if they had done so. They chose instead to remain, against repeated warnings, on school property so deputies were forced to arrest them," Herrin said in a statement to WND.

But the report forwarded to WND revealed the two were arrested while in their vehicle parked near, but not on, school property.

I posted on this back in February

Glib Fortuna posted about the charges being dropped and re-filed in April

Burn the U.S. flag and it's protected "free speech"

submersing a Crucifix in a jar of 'piss' is considered "freedom of expression"

Flush a Koran and be charged with a "hate crime".

Teaching the 'gay agenda' to Christian students is ordered by the court

But passing out free Bibles will get you arrested.

I keep hearing that Christianity is being targeted in our society... where do they get ideas like that?

Some say schools giving Muslims special treatment

2007-07-26T06:40:00.000-07:00

By Oren Dorell, USA TODAY

Some public schools and universities are granting Muslim requests for prayer times, prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, prompting a debate on whether Islam is being given preferential treatment over other religions.

The University of Michigan at Dearborn is planning to build foot baths for Muslim students who wash their feet before prayer. An elementary school in San Diego created an extra recess period for Muslim pupils to pray.

At George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., Muslim students using a "meditation space" laid out Muslim prayer rugs and separated men and women in accordance with their Islamic beliefs.

Critics see a double standard and an organized attempt to push public conformance with Islamic law.

"What (school officials) are doing … is to give Muslim students religious benefits that they do not give any other religion right now," says Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel at the Thomas More Law Center, an advocacy group for Christians.

Advocates say the accommodations are legal.

"The whole issue is to provide for a religious foundation for those who are observant while respecting separation of church and state," says Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, based in Los Angeles. Many schools accommodate the Christian and Jewish sabbaths and allow Jewish students to not take tests on religious holidays, he says.

Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says however that the law is murky on these expressions of faith. And the American Civil Liberties Union says overt religious symbols like crucifixes are not legal, but whether Muslim foot baths and prayer rugs fall into that category is not clear.

"That's a difficult one, and it's right on the edge," says Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU program on freedom of religion and belief in Washington, D.C.

At the forefront of the movement is the Muslim Students' Association, which has formed a Muslim Accommodations Task Force to push for foot baths and prayer rooms. At least 17 universities have foot baths built or under construction, including Boston University, George Washington University and Temple University, and at least nine universities have prayer rooms for "Muslim students only," including Stanford, Emory and the University of Virginia, according to the MSA's website. The association did not return calls seeking comment.

Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which promotes separation of mosque and state, says he is concerned about the accommodations. "Unusual accommodations for one faith at the cost of everybody else doesn't fall on the side of pluralism," he said.

At George Mason University, non-Muslim students were asked to observe Muslim rules in the prayer area, such as keeping men on one side and women on the other and removing their shoes, according to Broadside, the school newspaper. Alissa Karton, assistant to the vice president for student life, said the article prompted the school to order students to roll up prayer rugs when not in use and move the dividers.

The University of Michigan agreed to install foot baths after talks with the MSA, said Terry Gallagher, director of public relations at the campus. Some Muslims ritually wash their feet before praying five times a day.

Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank, sees the requests as part of a movement to force the public to acquiesce to Islamic law.

"The goal of Islamists is the application of Islamic law," Pipes says.

In the San Diego case, a substitute teacher at Carver Elementary School alleged that teachers were indoctrinating students into Islam. The San Diego Unified School District determined that a teacher's aide was wrong to lead Muslim students in prayer. Carver still has a special recess to allow 100 Muslim students to pray.

The ACLU, which has often sued schools for permitting prayer, says it is waiting to see what kind of policy the school settles on before deciding whether to sue. It says promoting prayers is unconstitutional.

"If you start carving out time in the school day that you would not do but for the need to let students pray, then it begins to look like what you're trying to do is to assist religion," says David Blair-Loy, legal director for the ACLU in San Diego.

Thompson says such conflicts are bound to proliferate. He and other Christians, he says, are preparing to ask for equal consideration such as a Christian prayer recess.

"What you're going to see out there is more of these kinds of cases as the Muslim community tests how far it can go in the public school system," he says. "If this can happen for Muslims, it can happen for Christians and other religions."

ACLU, journalists file lawsuit to make entire executions open

2007-07-26T05:04:00.000-07:00

By JILL ZEMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
sfgate.com

(07-25) 12:30 PDT LITTLE ROCK, (AP) --

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas and several journalists filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday, asking state prison officials to let witnesses see the entire execution process, not just when poison flows into condemned inmates.

Now, media and public witnesses cannot watch as intravenous tubes are inserted and removed from the inmates. The curtains to the execution chamber open to witnesses after the condemned prisoner is already strapped to the gurney, and close once the inmate is dead.

"Witnesses should be allowed to see the entire process, including strapping the condemned down and the insertion of needles," said the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Pine Bluff. "The public has a First Amendment right to view executions from the moment the condemned is escorted into the execution chamber, including those initial procedures that are inextricably intertwined with the process of putting the condemned inmate to death."

Plaintiffs are the ACLU of Arkansas, the Northwest Arkansas Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Arkansas Times Inc., and journalist Max Brantley, editor of the Arkansas Times.

Arkansas Department of Correction Spokeswoman Dina Tyler didn't immediately return a call for comment.

The last inmate executed in Arkansas was Eric Nance, put to death in 2005 for the murder and attempted rape of Malvern teenager Julie Heath.

"Allowing such observation would not only ensure access to a public governmental proceeding, but would foster understanding, discussion, and debate concerning an issue of public controversy, to wit, the propriety of capital punishment in Arkansas," the lawsuit said.

The ACLU has filed similar suits in other states, saying that corrections departments violated First Amendment rights by not allowing public and the media access to the entire process.

In July 1999, the Oregon Supreme Court declared state rules invalid that prohibited execution witnesses from seeing the insertion of needles.

In August 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the public has a First Amendment right to view executions from the beginning, including procedures involved with putting an inmate to death. Its decision is not binding on states outside the 9th Circuit.

In early 2003, the California Department of Corrections stopped its legal battle and decided to allow the media to witness the executions in full.

I have to admit that I agree with them. In fact, we shouldn't stop there.

In keeping with the ACLU's thinking; "The public has a First Amendment right to view abortions from the moment the condemned (and mother) is escorted into the execution chamber, including those initial procedures that are inextricably intertwined with the process of putting the condemned baby to death."

or

"The public has a First Amendment right to view the court ordered death of the disabled from the moment the feeding tube is withdrawn, including those initial procedures that are inextricably intertwined with the process of putting the condemned patient to death."

Of course, the journalists and newspapers are only interested in producing the print version of "reality TV" and propping up their flagging profits.

Alleged Child Rapist Goes Free Because Court Can't Find Interpreter

2007-07-22T14:47:00.001-07:00

Sunday, July 22, 2007
FOX NEWS

ROCKVILLE, Md. —

Charges against a man accused of repeatedly raping and molesting a 7-year-old girl were dismissed last week because the court could not find an interpreter fluent in the suspect's native West African language.

Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian native who received asylum in this country and attended high school and community college here, according to The Washington Post, was denied a speedy trial after three years awaiting a court-appointed interpreter who could speak the tribal language of Vai.

Click here to read The Washington Post article.

A court-ordered psychiatrist determined that Kanneh, despite his functional facility with English — he originally spoke with detectives in English, The Post reports, needed to have Vai spoken in order to understand the proceedings against him.

Loretta Knight, a clerk with the court system in Montgomery County, Md., said she had been unable to find an interpreter to stay on the case, even after an exhaustive search that included the Liberian Embassy and courts in 47 states.

Judge Katherine Savage called her decision to dismiss the charges one of the most difficult she's had to make in a long time, especially since she was aware of "the gravity of this case and the community's concern about offenses of this type."

Prosecutors can't refile the charges but are considering whether to appeal the judge's ruling for the dismissal.

FOX News spoke with a man who claimed to be Kanneh in a five-minute phone conversation on Sunday in English. He said the allegations against him were false and the dismissal of the charges was "a good thing." Asked if the accusations were true, he responded, "I said what I had to say" and hung up.

The Washington Post wrote in its article that in just one night reporters were independently able to identify three Vai translators available to assist in the case. It noted that the need for interpreters has risen starkly in Montgomery County, Md., with the court system spending $1 million in interpreters in 2006, or 10 times the amount it spent in 2000.

According to witnesses who originally reported the case to authorities, Kanneh allegedly repeatedly raped and sexually molested the girl, a relative. In a statement made by the girl to police, she said she had been told she'd be forced to stay in the apartment unless she had sex with Kanneh.

FOX News' James Rosen and Serafin Gomez contributed to this report.

This is a strong indictment of, both, our judicial and educational systems. as well as showing where we are headed with out of control political correctness.

This person has a perpetual, ‘get out of jail’ card.

Alleged Child Rapist Goes Free Because Court Can't Find Interpreter

2007-07-22T14:47:00.000-07:00

Sunday, July 22, 2007
FOX NEWS

ROCKVILLE, Md. —

Charges against a man accused of repeatedly raping and molesting a 7-year-old girl were dismissed last week because the court could not find an interpreter fluent in the suspect's native West African language.

Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian native who received asylum in this country and attended high school and community college here, according to The Washington Post, was denied a speedy trial after three years awaiting a court-appointed interpreter who could speak the tribal language of Vai.

Click here to read The Washington Post article.

A court-ordered psychiatrist determined that Kanneh, despite his functional facility with English — he originally spoke with detectives in English, The Post reports, needed to have Vai spoken in order to understand the proceedings against him.

Loretta Knight, a clerk with the court system in Montgomery County, Md., said she had been unable to find an interpreter to stay on the case, even after an exhaustive search that included the Liberian Embassy and courts in 47 states.

Judge Katherine Savage called her decision to dismiss the charges one of the most difficult she's had to make in a long time, especially since she was aware of "the gravity of this case and the community's concern about offenses of this type."

Prosecutors can't refile the charges but are considering whether to appeal the judge's ruling for the dismissal.

FOX News spoke with a man who claimed to be Kanneh in a five-minute phone conversation on Sunday in English. He said the allegations against him were false and the dismissal of the charges was "a good thing." Asked if the accusations were true, he responded, "I said what I had to say" and hung up.

The Washington Post wrote in its article that in just one night reporters were independently able to identify three Vai translators available to assist in the case. It noted that the need for interpreters has risen starkly in Montgomery County, Md., with the court system spending $1 million in interpreters in 2006, or 10 times the amount it spent in 2000.

According to witnesses who originally reported the case to authorities, Kanneh allegedly repeatedly raped and sexually molested the girl, a relative. In a statement made by the girl to police, she said she had been told she'd be forced to stay in the apartment unless she had sex with Kanneh.

Second Amendment Case Headed to Court

2007-07-16T17:05:00.000-07:00

Lyle Denniston
SCOTUSBLOG

Local government officials in Washington, D.C., announced Monday they will appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one's home -- an issue on which there is now a clear conflict among federal Circuit Courts. The city will be defending the constitutionality of a local handgun control law that is regarded as the strictest in the nation.

The petition would have been due Aug. 7, but city officials said Monday that they would ask Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., for a 30-day extension of time to file the case. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and city Attorney General Linda Singer disclosed the appeal plan at a press conference, along with local Police Chief Cathy Lanier. The Mayor said: "We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city's residents. Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves."

The D.C. Circuit Court ruled on March 9 that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to possess a gun -- at least within one's own home. The ruling was the first by a federal appeals court to strike down a gun control law based on that view of the Amendment's reach. The case is Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia (Circuit docket 04-7041). On May 8, the Circuit Court refused by a 6-4 vote to rehear the case en banc. The mandate is scheduled to be issued Aug. 7, but will be withheld after the city files its Supreme Court petition. Thus, the existing gun law would remain in effect temporarily.

In an earlier filling in the D.C. Circuit, city officials said their appeal to the Supreme Court would present some variation of these questions: "(1) whether the panel majority's decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), as Judge [Karen LeCraft] Henderson concluded in dissenting from the panel majority's decision; (2) whether the Second Amendment protects firearms possession or use that is not associated with service in a State militia; (3) whether the Amendment applies differently to the District because of its constitutional status, as Judge Henderson also concluded; and (4) whether the challenged laws represent reasonable regulation of whatever rights the Amendment protects." The city noted that the panel had acknowledged that its ruling conflicts with decisions "of most other federal courts of appeals, many State courts, and the highest local court in this jurisdiction, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals."

The Circuit Court majority found that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge to the local gun control law had a right to bring the lawsuit. That individual is Dick Anthony Heller, a special police officer who works at the Federal Judicial Center (home of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts) near Capitol Hill in Washington. He is licensed to carry a handgun on his job, but he applied for permission to have a pistol in his home; he was denied a license under the local law. Heller has said in court papers that he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in the city.

Heller, according to the Circuit Court, had standing to sue to challenge the gun registration provisions of the local law, as well as the clause that bars anyone from carrying a pistol without a license and a provision requiring all owners of licensed guns to keep them disassembled or with a trigger lock engaged when not in use.

The D.C. law has been in effect for nearly 31 years -- since September 1976. The lawsuit to strike it down was filed in February 2003.

If SCOTUS refuses to hear this case, the Appeals Court ruling will stand, for the DC District.

ACLU Monitoring School Bible Handouts

2007-04-19T04:38:00.000-07:00

by Susie Hassan
Monday, April 16, 2007
ABC7 News Online
COLLIER COUNTY:

A Collier County man who hands out bibles to Collier County high school students is under fire by the American Civil Liberties Union. Officials with the ACLU spent Monday night talking to Collier County democrats about the issue.

People on one side of the argument say it's not a separation of church and state issue while the other side says it is in fact a perfect example and neither side is backing down.

The debate begins with bibles handed out by Jerry Rutherford to Collier County high school students. He says there's no harm in what he's doing.

"This is not a church and state issue. It's a free speech issue," said Rutherford.

But the ACLU says the separation of church and state is exactly the issue.

"There is a time to speak you religious beliefs and that is in your church. *But the public education is not the forum for bible distribution," said ACLU Attorney Yale Freeman.

Typical ACLU position in their ongoing attempt to remove Christianity from the public sphere, and contain it to a more localized, segregated place in society.

Yeah, I've heard all the lefts' defense of the ACLU, saying that the ACLU has defended Christians in the past. Small cases that didn't amount to much of anything other than PR and to give the appearance of equal treatment. If Labor Unions represented their members in the same manner, members and liberals would be going ballistic.

Thomas More Law Center To Argue For Reversal of Decision Permitting Public Schools to Teach Students to “Become Muslims”... where was the ACLU?

Public Minnesota College to Install Foot-Washing Basins for Muslim Students...where is the ACLU?

Seattle Airport Removes Christmas Trees Instead of Putting Up Menorah...ACLU?

Muslims Seek Prayer Room at Airport...ACLU?

Rumsfeld supports Scouts meeting on military bases... "The ACLU contends the government sponsorship violates religious freedoms since the Boy Scouts require members to pledge allegiance to God."

JONES INTRODUCES BILL TO PROTECT PRAYER IN
OUR MILITARY ACADEMIES... "In May 2001, the Virginia Chapter of the American Civil Liberty
Union sued the Virginia Military Institute on behalf of two former cadets who opposed the non-
denominational pre-supper prayer."

Taxpayers fund Islamic center... "An announcement that the U.S. Marine base at Quantico, Va., has refurbished a building to be used as a prayer room for Muslim soldiers and civilians on base is a "bad signal," one critic has concluded."... where is the ACLU?
_______________________
*But the public education is not the forum for bible distribution," said ACLU Attorney Yale Freeman.

The Founders that gave us the First Amendment is also the same that sanctioned the "Aitken's Bible" and permitted its' printing under the authority of Congress.

Fisher Ames-Framer of the First Amendment

"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."

(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

James McHenry-Signer of the Constitution

"[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience."

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)

Benjamin Rush-Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

George Washington-Father of Our Country

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

In front of the Collier County democrats, Freeman said the county shouldn't overlook this incident.

"If we had one religion, one voice saying this is the religion we must practice, we would have a very different society today," said Freeman.

Freeman says handing out bibles is no different than colleges handing out literature and military branches handing out literature in high schools. He says that's all the same thing.

But for Roger Brown, President of the American Foundation for Separation of Church and State, that comparison is nowhere near the same.

"They're passing out non-religious material they not trying to recruit students to come to their church," said Brown.

Brown sited a court case that allows bibles to be handed out in schools as to why he should also be allowed. He added the students seemed to want the bibles.

"The reason is the students wanted them. Had they not wanted them, they wouldn't have picked them up and taken off with them," said Rutherford.

But in a letter written to Freeman by a school board attorney, the attorney states that Rutherford and his attorney have been advised that they are not permitted to continue handing out bibles. The letter also stated that district high school principals have been advised not to allow distribution at the building level.

But Rutherford isn't backing down until the court case is overturned.

"Until then, we will continue giving out bibles in schools," said Rutherford.

The ACLU isn't backing down either. They will continue to monitor the incident and push so that it does not happen again.

Forsyth Commission to fight ACLU lawsuit

2007-04-13T02:21:00.000-07:00

4/12/2007 9:51 PM
By: Kira Mathis
News 14 Carolina

WINSTON-SALEM --

After nearly three hours of closed session discussion on Thursday afternoon, the majority of the Forsyth County Commission decided it would fight a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The lawsuit was filed on March 30 after the ACLU had asked the Commission and several local governments to remove sectarian prayer from public meetings and the Forsyth County Commission did not do so.

The Commission will be represented by Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Attorney Mike Johnson. The alliance specializes in this type of legal matter.

After nearly three hours of closed session discussion on Thursday afternoon, the majority of the Forsyth County Commission decided it would fight a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.

"We battle the ACLU all the time, all over the country, so this is not new territory for us, and I look forward to the vigorous defense of this lawsuit and hopefully to prevailing in the court, Johnson told News 14 Carolina on Thursday.

Commission Board Chair Gloria Whisenhunt says the decision wasn't unanimous, but the majority felt that opening meetings with an invocation is an important tradition.

"As we've said all along, we don't think we're doing anything wrong. We think that we have been inclusive in the faith community and we just felt very strongly that we had not done anything wrong," Whinsenhunt said.

And tax payers don't need to worry about how the Commission will handle the legal fees. The Alliance Defense Fund will defend the case free of charge.

Crossposted at Stop the ACLU

American Civil Rights Union blasts sanctuary city policy

2007-04-13T02:16:00.000-07:00

Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com
April 12, 2007

The American Civil Rights Union contends it is unfair for cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles to prohibit law enforcement officers from asking suspected illegal aliens the key question of whether they are in the United States legally. The ACRU, a group dedicated to protecting Americans' fundamental rights and liberties, says it sends the wrong message for U.S. cities to provide sanctuary to those who have come into the country illegally.

Hear This Report

William Otis, director of legal affairs at the American Civil Rights Union, says illegal aliens are not the only ones ignoring the rule of law. "It's one thing for illegal immigrants to do it, and that's bad enough," he observes, "but for people in this country entrusted with enforcing the rule of law to walk away from it just sends a terrible message."
Otis says it is quite a serious matter when cities like New Haven, Connecticut, deliberately ignore U.S. immigration laws by providing sanctuary for illegal aliens, and when police officers in many cities are ordered not to inquire about the legal status of people they encounter.
"As serious as the problems of illegal immigration may be," the ACRU legal affairs director contends, "even more serious is the problem of officials in this country turning their back on the law."
Not everyone who comes into the United States illegally does so because of a desire to work hard for a better life, Otis points out. Recently, he notes, several crimes committed against American citizens by illegal aliens have been in the news headlines.

Crossposted at Stop the ACLU

Parents Can Stop ACLU Lawsuit Against Wilson Co. Schools

2007-04-13T02:07:00.000-07:00

Tennessean: Parents allowed to enter legal battle over church-state separation

A federal judge has granted permission to four parents to try to stop a lawsuit filed by the Tennessee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union claiming that Wilson County schools violated constitutional separation of church and state.
The parents are being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group that takes up cases nationwide.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in September alleging that Lakeview Elementary school in Mt. Juliet and the Wilson County school system endorsed and promoted activities on campus that led to constitutional violations.
The suit claimed, for example, that a group of Praying Parents who met at the elementary school passed out fliers in classrooms to let students know they had been prayed for — a step that, according to the ACLU, broke the church and state separation clause.
The ADF officials said in a statement today that they’re committed to defending people’s constitutional right of religious freedom.
The trail date on the merits of the case has been set for Oct. 9, ACLU officials have said.

Very short article, lacking much information, but here is an Oct.2006 piece from Alain's Newsletter that gives a bit more detail.

Old Hickory, TN –

U.S. Senate candidate Bob Corker today said the Tennessee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is woefully wrong to have filed what he called a “frivolous liberal lawsuit” against the Wilson County School District alleging a morning prayer endorsed by Lakeview Elementary School officials is a constitutional violation of church-state separation.

“When the President declared September 14, 2001 — just two days after the attacks of 9-11 — a National Day of Prayer, no one sued him for crossing some arbitrary line between church and state,” said Corker. “We just bowed our heads and prayed. When a school in Wilson County or anywhere in our country allows children to do the same on the National Day of Prayer, or at a gathering at the flagpole, the courts ought to stay out of the way."

Corker said he supports the efforts of Mt. Juliet Commissioner Glen Linthicum, who said it was time for the community to take a stand against the ACLU lawsuit recently filed against the Wilson County School District. Linthicum co-sponsored a resolution unanimously approved last Monday night by the Mt. Juliet City Commission that encourages the elementary school and the Wilson School District to fight for their rights to religious expression.

"Like many parents across our state, I pray for my family everyday,” Corker stated. “We should never force anyone to believe a certain faith or pray a certain way," Corker continued, "but if a school decides to set aside some time to allow children who wish to pray to do so, we ought to support that school and community. That is precisely what it means to protect our freedom of religious expression — and I will fight to do just that in the U.S. Senate if elected."

It appears that the ACLU has set it's sights on this school district...The ACLU Targets Christians

ADF's motion to intervene can be found here.

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 240 blogs already on-board.

Crossposted at Stop the ACLU

2007-04-08T08:00:00.000-07:00

They came to the quiet garden
in the early morning gloom,
And there in the shadowed darkness
they found an empty tomb.

They brought their scented spices
to anoint the hallowed dead,
but found to their amazement
the Living Lord instead.

Their hearts were heavy laden
bowed down with deep despair,
but when they lifted tear-dimmed eyes Lo,
Jesus was standing there.

They thought all hope had ended
with Calvary's dying breath,
but they found a powerful Saviour
triumphant over death.

On that wonderful Easter morning
in a garden sweet with dew,
He came from the grave -
a world to save -
to live and reign anew.

So oft in the midst of sorrows
when hope seems cold and dead,
with lifted eyes we too may
see an empty tomb instead!

An Unknown Author

Why Fred Thompson’s Day Has Arrived

2007-04-05T23:15:00.000-07:00

<> by Christopher Adamo

It is altogether unfortunate that even now, in early 2007, so much focus and attention is being directed at the 2008 presidential election. America’s policy making apparatus would be better served, were the Democrats who constitute the Congressional “ruling class” more concerned with the well-being of the nation, and not so fixated on their noxious pursuit of political power.

Nevertheless, much of the nation’s direction in coming years will be determined by next year’s elections. But a convergence of forces from both sides of the political aisle bodes particularly ill for Republican prospects. While outwardly “bipartisan “ in nature, it is reflective of a pervasive liberal mindset.

Something needs to decidedly change, or else the currently disastrous political tack of the Democrats may be solidified as a harbinger of America’s future, for however long the nation can endure under such gross misdirection.

Throughout 2006, Republican compromise and capitulation to the big-spending, morally bankrupt agenda of the Democrats left the public largely disillusioned and demoralized. And that public sentiment was clearly reflected in the upheaval of the midterm elections, which shifted the country decidedly into the dominion of the Democrats.

Yet the GOP hardly recognized the lesson of last November, and instead has all too frequently appeared to concede to the guiding philosophies of the political left. While Americans grow increasingly outraged by the Democrats’ “cut and run” response to an ever encroaching Islamist malignancy, Republican reaction to the elections have, until recently, been excessively conciliatory and accommodating.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had initially been heralded in glowing terms, by everyone from the most junior House members to the President. As a result, her audacity and that of her cohorts has mushroomed. She now dares to collaborate with America’s enemies during an ill-advised Middle East junket.

Meanwhile, discussions of “bipartisanship” and “doing the peoples’ business” within the Congress (which translates as “spending money”) only serve to bolster the impression that things do go better with Democrats in charge. Moreover, Republican refusal to pursue rampant Democrat scandal and corruption lends credence to the notion that such malfeasance only occurs within the GOP. Clearly, the message of conservatism has been blurred.

Major Republican players such as former House Majority leader Dick Armey have sought to expunge conservative and Christian principle from the party, claiming that it is too polarizing. Bob Dole’s “big tent,” a perversion of Ronald Reagan’s winning concept of bolstering the ranks through inspirational leadership, is once again being floated as a means of “broadening the base,” by claiming devotion to every disparate interest group.

Oblivious to the fact that a watered-down party platform, which largely sidesteps true conservatism, is the primary reason for the GOP's poor showing last November, party “moderates” (read: unprincipled liberals) strain to the left. Though by doing so they will neither garner Democrat support, nor will they re-ignite any enthusiasm among the conservatives who abandoned them last year.

The current lineup of Republican “frontrunners,” led presently by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, epitomizes this mindset. But far from being a winning strategy, it is a recipe for disaster.

In an interview with Barbara Walters just this past week, Giuliani gave an ominous indication of just how his campaign will eventually implode at the hands of the Democrats and the liberal media. When asked about his wife’s involvement in his administration, he stated that, among other things, she would be in attendance at his cabinet meetings.

Once word of this got out, and was portrayed as a possible repeat of Bill and Hillary’s “co-presidency,” Giuliani backtracked, claiming that, as First Lady, his wife would pursue her own interests, dealing primarily with health and fitness. Clearly, neither his first assertion nor the subsequent disclaimer represented any heartfelt conviction, but instead resulted from blundered attempts at posturing and pandering.

In like manner, the lone effort by which he has attempted to woo conservatives amounts to a promise to appoint “originalist” judges to the Supreme Court. Yet he previously lauded ultra-liberal Clinton appointee Ruth Ginsburg in glowing terms. One need only consider this in light of his current incongruous behavior and its potentially dire ramifications, to understand why Rudy’s assurances on the judicial issue hold no weight with the conservative base.

Nevertheless, the “moderates” press forward, believing that a Giuliani victory would garner the power they desire, while ultimately neutralizing the annoying influence of the “religious right.” By the time that the consummate pragmatists who concocted this ill-begotten strategy realize that it cannot succeed, Hillary may well be holding up her right hand and swearing to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States, so help her whoever.

Enter the former Republican Senator from Tennessee. By the mere suggestion that he might consider running for President, Fred Thompson has completely upset the GOP pragmatists’ apple cart. Without even campaigning, he is presently polling far beyond conservative pretender Mitt Romney. And he is coming on strong against McCain and Giuliani. In an effort to stave off Thompson’s momentum, Giuliani has been compelled to start running ads on conservative talk-radio programs.

Yet Thompson holds several advantages over any of his early-bird competitors. *With the exception of his previous support for campaign finance “reform,” he has staunchly upheld the conservative/pro-constitution philosophy. Thus, he is not burdened by any pile of liberal baggage from which he must extricate himself. He need not attempt to downplay or recast his past, but instead he can extol it as proof of his long-standing conservatism.

*On issues, he addresses head-on the major complaints conservatives have about his record. He was largely stymied in his 1997 investigation of both Clinton-Gore and GOP campaign fund-raising abuses: Key witnesses declined to testify or fled the country, though evidence eventually surfaced of a Chinese plan to influence U.S. politics. He won’t argue with those who say he showed “naiveté” about how he would be stonewalled in his investigation. He says he’s wiser now.

Many on the right remain angry he supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend John McCain. “There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation,” Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person “hard money” federal contribution limit.

Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn’t worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. “I’m not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn’t just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately.”

WSJ.Opinion Journal

Although he has not yet formally announced, all signs point in that direction. Columnist Robert Novak, in an April 3, 2007 article, assures us that Thompson does indeed intend to run.

So, with mainstream America expectantly awaiting the entrance of a true Reaganite candidate into the presently wanting field of Republican presidential hopefuls, Thompson’s best bet is to simply be himself, and make no apologies for standing as firmly as he has. In fact, he should accept every attack on his conservative beliefs as an opportunity to reassert his devotion to them.

By so doing, he could take the White House with an enthusiastic mandate from the grassroots. Furthermore, once in office he would be in an ideal position to re-establish the boundaries of conservatism and liberalism with sufficient clarity to drive the left into full retreat.

Hope has arrived in the 2008 race for the White House.

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

ACLU Loses Court Battle to DoD and Boy Scouts

2007-04-05T23:09:00.000-07:00

IRVING, Texas, April 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire

Boy Scouts of America is pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
dismissed the ACLU's lawsuit against the Department of Defense for supporting the National Scout Jamboree.

For more than 25 years, Boy Scouts have held the National Scout
Jamboree every four years at Fort A.P. Hill near Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Scouts from all over the country camp together for ten days and participate
in activities emphasizing physical fitness, appreciation of the outdoors,
and patriotism. Seven Presidents have attended the Jamboree since President
Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937. The Jamboree grounds at Fort A.P. Hill are
open to the public, and an estimated 300,000 visitors attended in 2005
along with 43,000 Scouts and their leaders. The 2010 Jamboree will
celebrate the 100th Anniversary of Boy Scouts of America.

The United States Congress has found that the military's logistical
support for the National Scout Jamboree is an incomparable training
opportunity for our armed forces. The Jamboree requires the construction,
maintenance, and disassembly of a "tent city" capable of supporting tens of
thousands of people for a week or longer.

Nevertheless, the ACLU sued the Department of Defense in 1999 over its
support for the Jamboree. In 2005, a federal district court in Chicago
concluded the Jamboree statute (10 U.S.C. section 2554) was
unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause because Scouting has a
nonsectarian "duty to God" requirement. DoD appealed the district court's
injunction against military support under that statute for the 2010
Jamboree.

I'm having difficulty keeping up with the court, ACLU and Americans United.

The court rules, the Boy Scout's "nonsectarian" "duty to God" requirement is unconstitutional. The ACLU is saying that prayers offered at council meetings must be "nonsectarian" to be constitutional.
Then in more confusion, in the same article, the ACLU said; "It should not invoke the name of a particular religious figure, such as Jesus, Allah or Buddah...", implying that they can't pray to Jesus but Mohammed is okay and they can pray to God but to Allah would be prohibited.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has no problem with prayer at a County Commissioners meetings so long as it isn't offered to a true Deity, such as Jesus Christ. Pray to rocks, trees and all the false gods you like, just stay away from the One True God. (an inadvertent acknowledgment of Christ and true religion, but an acknowledgment just the same)

Indiana Constitution

North Carolina Constitution

In today's ruling, the federal Court of Appeals in Chicago reversed the
district court's decision, concluding that the taxpayers named as the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit did not have standing to sue DoD in the first
place.

"We are pleased that today's ruling preserves the training opportunity
for the military that Congress wanted it to have," said Robert H. Bork,
Jr., spokesperson for the Scouts.

"Today's decision allows everyone to get back to planning the
centennial Jamboree celebrating Boy Scouts' 100th birthday," said George A.
Davidson, the attorney for Boy Scouts of America who argued before the
Seventh Circuit last year.

The case is Winkler v. Gates, No. 05-3451 (7th Cir. Apr. 4, 2007).

It's a good win. I just wish it wasn't because of a technicality of standing.

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 240 blogs already on-board.

ACLU Pushes To Stop All Prayer By Local Louisiana School Board; Thomas More Law Center Submits Brief In Opposition

2007-03-23T02:10:00.000-07:00

March 21, 2007

ANN ARBOR, MI (christiansunite.com) -

A local Louisiana school board continued to battle the ACLU's efforts to ban its 30 year practice of opening its meetings with an invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2005, a federal district court judge sided with the ACLU and banned all school board prayers. The judge's decision was later affirmed by a 3-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, the entire panel of sixteen active judges of the Fifth Circuit will rehear the case.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief supporting the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana. The school board has been engaged in this 4 year legal battle with the ACLU over the right to open its meetings with prayers.

The ACLU sued the Board in 2003 on behalf of the parent of two high school students. The federal trial judge, Helen Ginger Berrigan, determined that the school board was violating the Establishment Clause and permanently enjoined the school board from opening its meetings with any prayer. (Judge Berrigan was President of the ACLU of Louisiana before President Clinton had appointed her a federal judge.)

This article will give you some indication of judge Berrigan's character and professionalism, which is then followed up by a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, resulting in censure and discipline.

V. Conclusions

"A reasonable person would question the impartiality of any judge who was an adjunct faculty member at a defendant university and had a continuing association with that university during even part of the time the case was before him or her. Under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Berrigan had a duty to disclose her association with Tulane before sitting in any case in which Tulane was a defendant. Judge Berrigan's failure to make any disclosure of her direct, substantive, and continuing association with the defendant over the course of four years as Presiding Judge must be seen as a breach of judicial conduct that goes beyond mere negligence or harmless error; it suggests that she had an interest in the outcome of the procedings that derived from her relationship with the defendant.

Judge Berrigan's censure and/or discipline appears warranted and appropriate."

She had no business sitting as a judge in the Tangipahoa Parish School Board case.

What is really upsetting the ACLU is that the school board asks for Divine guidance and uses such phrases as "God," "Heavenly Father," and "Jesus."

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel and President of the Thomas More Law Center, "If the ACLU believes that public prayer is un-American and must be stopped, I wonder how they would have stopped the prayers of our Founding Fathers as they deliberated on the establishment of our nation."

Continued Thompson, "The ACLU's claim that they are merely attempting to stop Christian indoctrination of students is nonsense. What they are attempting to do is promote their own brand of religion˜atheism or secular humanism."

The brief, authored by Law Center trial counsel Edward L. White III, argued that under Louisiana law, the Tangipahoa Parish School Board is a deliberative body designed to act in the public interest. As a deliberative body, the United States Supreme Court's Marsh decision permits the school board to open its meetings with a prayer just as any other deliberative body may do.

This invocation that was delivered at a February 2003 Tangipahoa Parish School Board meeting: "Heavenly Father, we thank you for the many blessings we received. We thank you for our health. We thank you for our strength. We thank you for our peace of mind. We thank you for allowing us to assemble here tonight, and we ask that you give this board and our superintendent all the wisdom and knowledge, and the understanding they need to make the correct decision for our students and for our parents."

While the prayer asked for protection for the president and the troops, it concluded by thanking God "for the greatest gift of all - your son, Jesus Christ."

According to White, "We have brought to the Fifth Circuit's attention numerous prayers said to open sessions of the United States House of Representatives, also a deliberative body, that are no different in substance to the prayers said to open Tangipahoa Parish School Board meetings. If the law permits the House of Representatives to open its sessions with prayer, then the law should also permit the school board to open its meetings with similar prayers."

"I ran a search of the Congressional Record and found almost identical language in the prayers given before the opening of the House of Representatives," stated White. White also argues that Judge Berrigan erred in rendering her opinion because Louisiana state law defines school boards as a deliberative body.
"A deliberative body is just like a legislature," stated White, "and the Supreme Court has ruled that deliberative bodies can open their sessions with a prayer."

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit their website at www.thomasmore.org.

Jay filed a post on this in Dec. of last year in which Joe Cook, the executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, dubbed the board’s allowance of prayer "un-American and immoral" and in this article Cook was quoted "They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London."

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.

District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination

2007-03-15T00:50:00.000-07:00

'Confidentiality' promise requires students 'not to tell their parents'

Posted: March 13, 2007

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

"This is unbelievable," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. "It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it."

It should be pointed out that minors can't enter into a binding contract. Therefore, "confidentiality agreements" are illegal, worthless and total BS.

It also shows that the school knew what it was doing was wrong, just by the fact that they wanted to keep it from the parents.

In what CWA called a "shocking and brazen act of government abuse of parental rights," the school's officials required the 14-year-olds to attend a "Gay Straight Alliance Network" panel discussion led by "gay" and "lesbian" upperclassmen during a "freshman advisory" class which "secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors."

"This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda," Barber said. "The professional propagandists in the 'gay-rights' lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated."

He said not only is forcing students to be exposed to the pro-homosexual propaganda bad enough, but then school officials further required that students sign the "confidentiality agreement" through which they promised not to tell anyone – including their own parents – about the seminar.

Barber said that also aligns with the goals of the disinformation campaign being run by those in the pro-homosexual camp. "That's what homosexual activists from GSA are attempting to do, and that's what DHS is clearly up to as well."

The situation, according to district Supt. George Fornero, was partly "a mistake."

He told CWA, the nation's largest public policy women's organization, that requiring children to sign the confidentiality agreement wasn't right and the district would be honest with parents in the future about such seminars. But CWA noted that even after the district was caught, parents still were being told they were not welcome to be at the "freshman advisory" and they were not allowed to have access to materials used in compiling the activist curriculum.

Barber noted the damage being done is significant.

"Until DHS and other government schools across the country are made to stop promoting the homosexual agenda, kids will continue to be exposed to – and encouraged to participate in – a lifestyle that places them at high risk for life-threatening disease, depression and spiritual despair," he said.

It's not the first situation where WND has reported on schools teaching homosexuality to children.

In Massachusetts after a school repeatedly advocated for the homosexual lifestyle to students in elementary grades, several parents sued, only to have the federal judge order the "gay" agenda taught to the Christians.

The conclusion from U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf found that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children would undermine teaching and learning"

David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.

"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.

An appeal of that decision is pending.

The judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where their religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.

"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.

"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."

And, he said, since history "includes instances of official discrimination against gays and lesbians it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students different sexual orientations."

If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school [or] may also educate their children at home," the judge said.

Parents fume over salacious sex lesson

'State interest' argued in teaching homosexuality

To the above, I can only add; Impeachment of Federal Judges

The ACLU fully supports the homosexual agenda in our schools.

As a Result of Lawsuit, School Agrees to Allow Publication of Articles on Sexual Orientation

ACLU Asks Judge to Reopen Kentucky Gay-Straight Alliance Case

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.

Crossposted at Stop the ACLU

Divided 3 Judge panel holds that D.C.'s gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights

2007-03-09T14:33:00.000-08:00

Good news from Howard Bashman at How Appealing

BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.

According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.

Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.

Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy has a legaleagle's opinion of the ruling.

The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times," Tony Mauro has a post titled "D.C. Circuit Strikes Down D.C. Gun Control Laws."

Free Republic has it posted from bashman's site: DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography

2007-02-24T14:24:00.001-08:00

Feb. 23, 2007 ABC News

Federal agents arrested Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, Friday in Arlington for allegedly possessing child pornography.

According to a criminal complaint obtained by ABC News, Rust-Tierney allegedly used his e-mail address and credit card to subscribe to and access a child pornography website.

The complaint states that federal investigations into child pornography websites revealed that "Charles Rust-Tierney has subscribed to multiple child pornography website over a period of years."

As recently as last October, the complaint alleges, "Rust-Tierney purchased access to a group of hardcore commercial child pornography websites."

Since the ACLU thinks that child pornography should be legal, it is not surprising to read that it is against making it a felony to advertise, sell, purchase, barter, exchange, give, or receive child pornography. It is particularly distressed about the prohibition on advertisement, arguing that “the law cannot expect every publisher to decode every advertisment for some hidden and sinister meaning,” as if it took a technician-armed with a special decoding device-to ferret out pictures of children ludely exhibiting their genitals. Quote from Twilight Of Liberty

Complaint Alleges Access to Graphic Material

Rust-Tierney admitted to investigators that he had downloaded videos and images from child pornography websites onto CD-ROMs, according to the complaint.

Dan Riehl at Riehl World View, says: "Hmm. Just doing research, no doubt."

The videos described in the complaint depict graphic forcible intercourse with prepubescent females. One if the girls is described in court documents as being "seen and heard crying", another is described as being "bound by rope."

The investigation is being conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and the Arlington County Police as part of the Northern Virginia and District of Columbia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

Rust-Tierney made an initial appearance in a federal court in Alexandria, VA, Friday. He is being detained pending a preliminary hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 28.

Youth Coach, Argued Against Restricting Public Internet

Rust Tierney coaches various youth sports teams in and around Arlington, Virginia, according to court documents.

In the past, Rust-Tierney had argued against restricting Internet access in public libraries in Virginia, writing, "Recognizing that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library, the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet."

Hot Air has the O'Reilly Fox News Clip

The Washington Times also has a story on it.

LGF hits this too.

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.

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

We Need Conservatives Who are Leaders

2007-02-16T02:00:00.000-08:00

February 16, 2007
By: Big Dog

A great deal has been made of the results of the last election and what the root causes for Republican losses really were. The Democrats constantly cite the results as a referendum on the war on terror in Iraq. They falsely believe that Americans are so disgusted with what is going on that they [the Democrats] were put in charge to bring our troops home and end the war. Ann Coulter wrote an interesting piece the day after the election where she pointed out that the change was more in line with following historical voting trends than anything else but that has not kept the Democrats from beating their anti-war drums and using the election as a bellwether for their desire to bring our troops home in defeat. Unfortunately, many Republicans in Congress have bought into the idea that the war caused their losses and they have abandoned conservatism and leadership and are now acting like the cut and run Democrats.

Despite the historical trends the Republicans were directly responsible for their losses. They could have easily bucked history and maintained control had they displayed and lived conservative values and had they demonstrated leadership. Their desire to be reelected led them to abandon conservative principles and, in effect, abandon leadership. As the election results showed, this was not the correct method of winning.

Conservative principles succeed every time they are tried. There is no doubt that conservatism demands higher standards and that people who live conservatively must make tougher choices. It is so much easier to abort a child than take responsibility. It is easier to redistribute wealth than foster an environment where all people can succeed and it is easier for people to sit back and accept handouts than to work for what they need. The aftermath of hurricane Katrina demonstrated the ugly truth about liberal programs and their effect on people. Katrina showed us that people who learn to live off the government are unable to take decisions on their own behalf. How many people stood knee deep in water looking around for someone to come get them rather than exerting the effort to move themselves to the safety of dry land? There is no doubt that people who learn self reliance are better able to handle the dangers of life.

Leadership is the cornerstone of the foundation of government. We the people elect those who we want to represent us. We put them in office to lead this country and to do things that are in the best interest of all its citizens not just the small groups of special interest victims. People have a desire to be led and in the absence of true leaders they will look to anyone who sounds like a leader regardless of that person's abilities. The Germans of the 1930s were so desperate for leadership they put a maniacal person in charge of them. He sounded good to them in the absence of true leaders and the world paid for their mistake.

In order to win and stay in power the Republican Party must find candidates who espouse, through word and deed, the principles of conservatism. They must not only be conservative, they must also be true leaders. There must be no doubt in the minds of the American people that they are leaders and that they will do what is right and that they will provide strong leadership through the best of times as well as the worst. This is no easy task because the American people have seen a Republican Party become energized through Ronald Reagan and the Republican revolution of the 80s and 90s only to watch their capital erode as more and more Republican leaders became like their Democratic counterparts. Republicans became what they evicted in 1994 and the public did not like it.

Leadership is the ability to influence people to willingly follow. True leaders inspire those led and foster excitement for the leader's views. In our military true leaders have followers who will walk with them through the gates of hell without question and without hesitation. Unfortunately, there are few if any leaders in the Republican Party who inspire that kind of devotion. It is time for those who fit these qualifications to rise to the top. It is time for those who realize that pandering is not leadership to step up to the plate. It is time for the Republican Party to field a team of leaders that will not succumb to the evil of money and influence and who will not sell their values for votes. It is time for us to rid ourselves of those who are not conservative and who can not lead.

The inability to do this has a one word result:

Hillary.

Big Dog is guest posting today and runs Big Dog's Weblog. Big Dog's Weblog is a conservative blog run by a veteran with 24 years of service. Big Dog addresses politics and our military (along with an occasional dash of humor).

Lifted from: Big Dog's Weblog

and crossposted at: Tom DeLay.com

Check them out to see what others have to say.

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

Gideons handing out Bibles on public sidewalk arrested after school officials complain

2007-02-08T03:48:00.000-08:00

Two men who are members of Gideons International, the Christian organization that is famous for, among other ministries, placing Bibles in motels and giving them to children, have been arrested after trying to hand out Bibles on a public sidewalk in Florida, according to a law firm.

Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund have confirmed they will be representing Anthony Mirto and Ernest Simpson, who were arrested, booked into jail and charged with trespassing.

Jeremy Tedesco, one of the ADF's lawyers on the case, confirmed to WND that the organization's clients were on a public sidewalk when they were handing out Bibles and school officials summoned police.

Yes, it reads public sidewalk and yes, it reads school officials. I hope you'll also notice that it doesn't say anything about sex offenders, child molesters or military funerals.

"The First Amendment protects the right to engage in religious speech on a public sidewalk," ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman said. "Members of the Gideons have been highly respected for decades as peaceful providers of free Bibles to those who want them."

The arrest happened Jan. 19, when Mirto and Simpson were on the sidewalk outside of Key Largo School in Key Largo, Fla., and were distributing copies of the Bible to those interested.

"Neither man entered school grounds," the law firm said. "After the school's principal called police, a Monroe County sheriff's officer asked the men to leave immediately or face trespassing charges. As the men prepared to leave, the officer decided to arrest both individuals."

A hearing is scheduled March 5 in Monroe County Court in the cases, and ADF attorneys are preparing motions to dismiss the charges.

"Officials cannot use fear of arrest as a means of bullying law-abiding Christians into silence," Cortman said. "These men broke no laws when they decided to communicate their message on a public sidewalk."

Tedesco noted that sometimes school officials have a misconception about whether they can control activities on school grounds and adjacent public sidewalks. But the First Amendment does provide a protection for speech on those parcels of ground that are public, he said.

Lets see... public schools, public grounds, public sidewalks, public officials and public law enforcement.

"There's no reason why they should be put in jail," he said.

The ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the truth, through strategy, training, funding and litigation.

The Gideons, a group founded in the late 1800s, has as its "sole purpose" the goal "to win men, women, boys and girls to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ through association for service, personal testimony, and distributing the Bible in the human traffic lanes and streams of everyday life."

Members of the Gideons, who pay their own expenses so 100 percent of the donations to the group go toward Bible purchases and distributions, have placed the Bible in 181 nations in 82 different languages over the years.

The organization focuses on hotels and motels, hospitals and nursing homes, schools, colleges and universities, the military and law enforcement and prisons and jails.

"The demand for Scriptures in these areas far exceeds our supplies that we are able to purchase through our donations. Much more could be done – if funds were available. However, we are placing and distributing more than 1 million copies of the Word of God, at no cost, every seven days in these areas" the group said.

The organization only gives away the Bibles with the Gideon logo on the covers, but plain Bibles are available for consumers to purchase at its distribution center at P.O. Box 140800, Nashville, Tenn., 37214-0800. Information about the products is available on the group's website.

The Gideons serve as an extended missionary arm of the Christian church and are the oldest Christian business and professional men's association in the United States.

Great! Get those laws keeping sex offenders away from our school kids and daycares overturned. Get those laws that permit our loved ones to grieve and honor our dead in peace, overturned.

But get them Christians, handing out Bibles, in jail. Got to protect the kids and...

Did they legalize drugs in Florida or are they putting something in the water? The Dixie County Ten Commandments issue, immigration raids in Miami, and now this.

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.

Crossposted at Stop the ACLU

So…terror front groups should have access to state secrets?

2007-01-26T23:57:00.000-08:00

by Glib Fortuna.

I decided to break out part of my post from minutes ago because I think it is important as a stand-alone. Adam Liptak from the New York Times mentions this case in Oregon without acknowledging a miiiiiinor detail that would lend a very different perspective.

NYT: Secrecy Is at Issue in Suits Opposing Spy Program

At least one case, the one in Oregon, is probably not moot.

It goes beyond the other cases in seeking damages from the government, because the plaintiffs say they have seen proof that they were wiretapped without a warrant.

In August 2004, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which was investigating an Oregon charity, al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, inadvertently provided a copy of a classified document to a foundation lawyer, Lynne Bernabei.

That document indicated, according to court filings, that the government monitored communications between officers of the charity and two of its lawyers without a warrant in spring 2004.

“If I gave you this document today and you put it on the front page of The New York Times, it would not threaten national security,” Mr. Eisenberg, a lawyer for the foundation, said. “There is only one thing about it that’s explosive, and that’s the fact that our clients were wiretapped.”

Here we go again talking about “wiretapping” when that is not what this really is. As far as I know, no one has randomly hooked up listening devices to any phones and no one’s conversations are being monitored for no reason. What the electronic surveillance does is flag international calls that come from sources associated with terror activities.

As it turns out, the “charity” in question, al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, has been, you guessed it, identified as a fund funnel for terror groups, including having a direct link to OBL! Would have been nice for Adam Lipsmack to mention that:

US Teasury Dept. Office of Public Affairs (September 9, 2004): U.S.-Based Branch of Al Haramain Foundation Linked to Terror, Treasury Designates U.S. Branch, Director

“We continue to use all relevant powers of the U.S. government to pursue and identify the channels of terrorist financing, such as corrupted charities, at home and abroad. Al Haramain has been used around the world to underwrite terror, therefore we have taken this action to excommunicate these two branches and Suliman Al-Buthe from the worldwide financial community,” said Stuart Levey, Treasury’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

The assets of the U.S. AHF branch, which is headquartered in Oregon, were blocked pending investigation on February 19, 2004. On the previous day, a federal search warrant was executed against all property purchased on behalf of the U.S. AHF branch. The investigation involved agents from the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations (IRS-CI), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The U.S.-based branch of AHF was formally established in 1997. Documents naming Al-Buthe as the organization’s attorney and providing him with broad legal authority were signed by Aqeel Abdul Aziz Al-Aqil, the former director of AFH. Aqil has been designated by the United States and the UN 1267 Sanctions Committee because of AHF’s support for al Qaida while under his oversight.

The investigation shows direct links between the U.S. branch and Usama bin Laden. In addition, the affidavit alleges the U.S. branch of AHF criminally violated tax laws and engaged in other money laundering offenses. Information shows that individuals associated with the branch tried to conceal the movement of funds intended for Chechnya by omitting them from tax returns and mischaracterizing their use, which they claimed was for the purchase of a prayer house in Springfield, Missouri.

Other information available to the U.S. shows that funds that were donated to AHF with the intention of supporting Chechen refugees were diverted to support mujahideen, as well as Chechen leaders affiliated with the al Qaida network.

AHF has operations throughout the Union of the Comoros, and information shows that two associates of AHF Comoros are linked to al Qaida. According to the transcript from U.S. v. Bin Laden, the Union of the Comoros was used as a staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The AHF branches in Kenya and Tanzania have been previously designated for providing financial and other operational support to these terrorist attacks.

The only thing “explosive” about the apparent fact that this group has an eye on it is what we are trying to avoid having happen — a real “explosive” event. Now is the government really obligated to provide an open door to all of our nation’s secrets to terrorist fronts? These goons actually expected not to be under the Eye in the Sky? The next obvious question is how this group is even permitted to continue its existence within our borders.

If one thing is certain in the world today it’s that the ACLU and its allies in the Fossil Media will continue its relentless War on the War on Terror, even if it means actively supporting terrorist front groups or at least ignoring their terror connections.

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.

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

A New Year Resolution at Stop the ACLU

2007-01-04T03:43:00.000-08:00

Judge Roy Moore makes a New Years Resolution that I'm definitely on board with.

Each year the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal organizations continue their efforts to destroy traditional values that we once assumed were self-evident and beyond question. And each year we sit quietly by doing nothing to stop their relentless assault on our culture and our religious heritage. As our resolution for the New Year, let us join together to defeat the ACLU's anti-Christian agenda and restore our civil and religious freedom.

Most definitely the ACLU's attack on religious freedom is one of many good reasons we should resolve to join together and fight back. We have a whole list of other good reasons. The damage the ACLU has done to our National Security, the War on Terror, and our National Soverignty are at the top of my personal list.

There are many reasons to stop the ACLU's agenda, but what people need to know is how. Everyone needs to get involved. There is a lot that can be done.

One thing to do is to get active. Email, write, or call your elected officials and let them know that National Security is of primary concern. This time last year the ACLU were running full page ad propaganda war against the NSA and the Patriot Act. Even though the Democrats made a show of not clapping for the Patriot Act, in the end they lost that battle. They are still beating the dead horse over the NSA program.

Another thing is to elect people who will appoint Constitutionalist judges. We've made progress in this area over the past year. Last year around this time the ACLU announced their official opposition to the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Many of the ACLU's biggest fans in the Senate fought hard to paint him as a woman hater and bigot, to the point of bringing his wife to tears, but in the end they all lost that battle.

When it comes to religious freedom, the ACLU is America's number one censor. They have compared Christians to terrorists, and even called for jailing people over prayer. The most outrageous thing about this is that when these cases their attorney's fees are paid for by the taxpayer. We have made progress against this in the past year. Currently there is legislation to put a stop to this and we got it passed in the House of Representatives. The bill is still pending before the Senate, and just because we lost the majority is no reason for us to let up.

Support groups that are fighting the ACLU. There are many out there including the Alliance Defense Fund, ACLJ, Liberty Council, and Thomas More Law Center. Join one of them, donate to them, and tell others about them.

Educate the public about the ACLU's agenda. This last one is the New Year's resolution we are making...to continue our fight against the ACLU by educating the public. Join us and over 200 other blogs in helping to expose the ACLU's agenda to the people.

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.

Crossposted at Stop the ACLU

2006-12-31T14:06:00.000-08:00

I hope your coming year is filled with Blessings and riches that money can not buy!

Christmas Facts

2006-12-22T01:16:00.000-08:00

"White Christmas" (1954), starring Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye, was the first movie to be made in Vista Vision, a deep-focus process.

According to the National Christmas Tree Association, Americans buy 37.1 million real Christmas trees each year; 25 percent of them are from the nation's 5,000 choose-and-cut farms.

After "A Christmas Carol," Charles Dickens wrote several other Christmas stories, one each year, but none was as successful as the original.

Alabama was the first state to recognize Christmas as an official holiday. This tradition began in 1836.

Although many believe the Friday after Thanksgiving is the busiest shopping day of the year, it is not. It is the fifth to tenth busiest day. The Friday and Saturday before Christmas are the two busiest shopping days of the year.

American billionaire Ross Perot tried to airlift 28 tons of medicine and Christmas gifts to American POW's in North Vietnam in 1969.

America's official national Christmas tree is located in King's Canyon National Park in California. The tree, a giant sequoia called the "General Grant Tree," is over 300 feet (90 meters) high. It was made the official Christmas tree in 1925.

An average household in America will mail out 28 Christmas cards each year and see 28 eight cards return in their place.

Animal Crackers are not really crackers, but cookies that were imported to the United States from England in the late 1800s. Barnum's circus-like boxes were designed with a string handle so that they could be hung on a Christmas tree.

California, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the top Christmas tree producing states. Oregon is the leading producer of Christmas trees - 8.6 million in 1998.

Candy canes began as straight white sticks of sugar candy used to decorated the Christmas trees. A choirmaster at Cologne Cathedral decided have the ends bent to depict a shepherd's crook and he would pass them out to the children to keep them quiet during the services. It wasn't until about the 20th century that candy canes acquired their red stripes.

Charles Dickens' initial choice for Scrooge's statement "Bah Humbug" was "Bah Christmas."

Christmas trees are edible. Many parts of pines, spruces, and firs can be eaten. The needles are a good source of vitamin C. Pine nuts, or pine cones, are also a good source of nutrition.

During the Christmas buying season, Visa cards alone are used an average of 5,340 times every minute in the United States.

During the Christmas/Hanukkah season, more than 1.76 billion candy canes will be made.

During World War II it was necessary for Americans to mail Christmas gifts early for the troops in Europe to receive them in time. Merchants joined in the effort to remind the public to shop and mail early and the protracted shopping season was born.

Electric Christmas tree lights were first used in 1895. The idea for using electric Christmas lights came from an American, Ralph E. Morris. The new lights proved safer than the traditional candles.

For every real Christmas tree harvested, 2 to 3 seedlings are planted in its place.

Franklin Pierce was the first United States' president to decorate an official White House Christmas tree .

George Washington spent Christmas night 1776 crossing the Delaware River in dreadful conditions. Christmas 1777 fared little better - at Valley Forge, Washington and his men had a miserable Christmas dinner of Fowl cooked in a broth of Turnips, cabbage and potatoes.

Hallmark introduced its first Christmas cards in 1915, five years after the founding of the company.

In 1907, Oklahoma became the last US state to declare Christmas a legal holiday.

In 1947, Toys for Tots started making the holidays a little happier for children by organizing its first Christmas toy drive for needy youngsters.

In 1996, Christmas caroling was banned at two major malls in Pensacola, Florida. Apparently, shoppers and merchants complained the carolers were too loud and took up too much space.

In an effort to solicit cash to pay for a charity Christmas dinner in 1891, a large crabpot was set down on a San Francisco street, becoming the first Salvation Army collection kettle.

In America, the weeks leading up to Christmas are the biggest shopping weeks of the year. Many retailers make up to 70% of their annual revenue in the month preceding Christmas.

In North America, children put stockings out at Christmas time. Their Dutch counterparts, however, use shoes. Dutch children set out shoes to receive gifts any time between mid-November and December 5, St. Nicholas' birthday.
It is estimated that 400,000 people become sick each year from eating tainted Christmas leftovers.

Jesus Christ, son of Mary, was born in a cave, not in a wooden stable. Caves were used to keep animals in because of the intense heat. A large church is now built over the cave, and people can go down inside the cave. The carpenters of Jesus' day were really stone cutters. Wood was not used as widely as it is today. So whenever you see a Christmas nativity scene with a wooden stable -- that's the "American" version, not the Biblical one.

Long before it was used as a "kiss encourager" during the Christmas season, mistletoe had long been considered to have magic powers by Celtic and Teutonic peoples. It was said to have the ability to heal wounds and increase fertility. Celts hung mistletoe in their homes in order to bring themselves good luck and ward off evil spirits.

Mistletoe, a traditional Christmas symbol, was once revered by the early Britons. It was so sacred that it had to be cut with a golden sickle.

More diamonds are purchased at Christmas-time (31 percent) than during any other holiday or occasion during the year.

More than three billion Christmas cards are sent annually in the United States.

New York City's Empire State Building's world famous tower lights are turned off every night at midnight with the exception of New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and St. Patrick's Day, when they are illuminated until 3 a.m.

On Christmas Day, 1989, Eastern Europe was permitted to celebrate Christmas freely and openly for the first time in decades. Church masses were broadcast live for the first time in history.

Per a November 2000 Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans thought they would spend at least $500 that year on Christmas gifts. This was a slight drop from 1999 gift-spending.

Right behind Christmas and Thanksgiving, Super Bowl Sunday ranks as the third-largest occasion for Americans to consume food, according to the National Football League.

The "Twelve Days of Christmas" was originally written to help Catholic children, in England, remember different articles of faith during the persecution by Protestant Monarchs. The "true love" represented God, and the gifts all different ideas:
The "Partridge in a pear tree" was Christ.
2 Turtle Doves = The Old and New Testaments
3 French Hens = Faith, Hope and Charity-- the Theological Virtues
4 Calling Birds = the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists
5 Golden Rings = The first Five Books of the Old Testament, the "Pentateuch", which relays the history of man's fall from grace.
6 Geese A-laying = the six days of Creation
7 Swans A-swimming = the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven sacraments
8 Maids A-milking = the eight beatitudes
9 Ladies Dancing = the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit
10 Lords A-leaping = the ten commandments
11 Pipers Piping = the eleven faithful apostles
12 Drummers Drumming = the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed

The abbreviation of Xmas for Christmas is not irreligious. The first letter of the word Christ in Greek is chi, which is identical to our X. Xmas was originally an ecclesiastical abbreviation that was used in tables and charts.

The best selling Christmas trees are Scotch pine, Douglas fir, Noble fir, Fraser fir, Virginia pine, Balsam fir and white pine.

The Christmas season begins at sundown on 24th December and lasts through sundown on 5th January. For that reason, this season is also known as the Twelve Days of Christmas.

The custom of singing Christmas carols is very old - the earliest English collection was published in 1521.

The poinsettia, traditionally an American Christmas flower, originally grew in Mexico; where it was known as the "Flower of the Holy Night". It was first brought to America by Joel Poinsett in 1829.

The tradition of Christmas lights dates back to when Christians were persecuted for saying Mass. A simple candle in the window meant that Mass would be celebrated there that night.

Theodore Roosevelt, a staunch conservationist, banned Christmas trees in his home, even when he lived in the White House. His children, however, smuggled them into their bedrooms.

Yuletide-named towns in the United States include Santa Claus, located in Arizona and Indiana, Noel in Missouri, and Christmas in both Arizona and Florida.

ACLU Can't Keep Secrets

2006-12-21T17:36:00.000-08:00

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

There is no doubt that a certain amount of transparency is essential for a modern democracy to function honestly. However, taken to the extreme, complete transparency would effectively make our National Security impotent and threaten the ability of the democracy to secure its very existence. There is a line that must be carefully walked. We must maintain common sense, especially in times that enemies threaten our very existence. We can not be so transparent that our enemies can see through us, and know our techniques and plans to fight them and protect ourselves against them. We should never cede our security to exist over to a utopian ideological dream of a completely transparent government. It is also important to have government watchdogs keeping an eye on government from abusing and overclassifying information that the public has a right to know. The danger lies in allowing too much liberty, especially to absolutist organizations like the ACLU, in that decision making process. The Investor's Business Daily bring up some very good points in reference to the recent backing down of the government in trying to obtain a classified document from the ACLU.

"The government blinked," gloated ACLU executive director Anthony Romero. Judge Rakoff is notoriously liberal, having declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 2002 (a ruling quickly overturned), and earlier this year forcing the Pentagon to make public thousands of pages of information on suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. So it's understandable for prosecutors to not want to fight an unwinnable battle. Are we nearing the day, however, when the ACLU has our legal system so wrapped around its finger that government secrets can no longer be kept from terrorists? Consider these points: • The ACLU's Romero called the subpoena battle "a fight not over a document but over the principle that the government cannot and should not be allowed to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing." But if leftist activist groups or journalists, rather than the freely-elected U.S. government, decide what is legitimately secret and what is "intimidation," there's little that will remain secret.

Indeed, the government did blink. However, they caved in because they had a losing legal argument, not because they have no right to supress secret information from activist groups and the public at large. Before we hand the decision making process of what should or shouldn't be secret or in the public interest to extreme partisan organizations like the ACLU, we should really take a look at just how reckless they have been with such information in the past. Indeed, if we leave it to groups like the ACLU we might as well write the suicide note of our nation on the back of the Constitution. There is probably no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesn't seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed. So, let us take a look at some of the extreme examples where the ACLU's absolutist views actually endanger our national security. In particular let us look at their attitude towards the intelligence community and secret information in general. When it comes to drawing the line between classified information and national security the ACLU's record has never leaned toward the side of caution or national security. They consistently defend leakers as brave "whistleblowers." Even after the NY Times leaked details about the vital NSA program, the ACLU wanted more to come out in the open. They have even defended leaks on vital programs like SWIFT, in which we track terror finances, where there was absolutely nothing that even suggested government wrongdoing. They have even fought for accused enemy prisoners to be allowed to see classified evidence against them. The fact that our enemies learn and adjust from such traitorous leaks never seems to phase them. More Points from the Investor's Business Daily:

The ACLU boasts that its legal efforts have made public "more than 100,000 pages of government documents" regarding the interrogation of suspected terrorists. It has posted many of these documents on its Web site in an effort to shut down the program. But President Bush's policy of tough interrogation has secured information that has foiled numerous terrorist plots, saving thousands of lives. They include jetliner hijacking schemes targeting buildings on both the East and West coasts, another targeting Heathrow Airport in London, plus plots to destroy ships in both the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and Jose Padilla's plan to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the U.S. Intelligence information key to preventing terrorist acts has also come from the president's other homeland security policies, like the National Security Agency's wiretapping program. But ACLU lawyers are aggressively trying to shut those efforts down in several jurisdictions.

So, let us take a look at the ACLU's real attitude towards the intelligence community.

To the ACLU, CIA means "Controlling the Intelligence Agencies." That's the title they gave to Policy #117. But even that is an understatement of what this particular policy calls for. "Completely undermining the Intelligence Agencies" would be a more appropriate title. It starts out badly and then gets worse. "Control of our government's intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of "national security" as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas." Of course, its been obvious for nearly 70 years that protecting America's national security is certainly not something the ACLU favors. Here are some of the specific controls called for in Policy #117:

Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluatiing foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations. Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by elimimnating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense. Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries. Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records by requiring a warrant issued on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Prohibit all domestic intelligence and political information-gathering. Only investigations of crimes which have been, are being, or are about to be committed may be conducted.Twilight of Liberty

Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU spelled out by the Union's Center for National Security Studies. They wrote:

The ACLU opposes, and has fought in either Congress or the courts, virtually all "covert action," most "clandestine intelligence" gathering (i.e. spying), and in one case aid to an important U.S. ally with a poor human rights record. The net effect of these efforts has been to hinder U.S. opposition to Communist expansion. The ACLU may, at some point, have undertaken some major initiative that advanced U.S. interests and hindered Communist expansion, but our research never turned one up and no ACLU leader ever mentioned one to us.

In other words, strip the intelligence agencies useless.

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU's absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, "Wartime Sedition Act." Before, the ACLU held that it "would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be "cooperating" with or acting on behalf of the enemy." This policy was based on the recognition that "our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States." In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, "the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement."Twilight of Liberty

All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy! This is not the kind of organization one should trust when it comes to secrets that need to be kept from enemy eyes. The ACLU's extremist position towards classified information can be seen in the very case they have been citing recently, the Petagon Papers.

The Pentagon Papers case shows how extremist the ACLU can be. In that suit, the Supreme Court ruled against the efforts of the Nixon Administration to suppress documents that were a veritable history of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The ACLU, which filed an amicus, was happy with the immediate outcome-the newspapers could run copies of the Pentagon Papers-but was less than pleased with the high court's reasoning. The Union was disturbed that the Supreme Court gave life to the idea that the president and the Congress had a right to restrain the press in bona fide instances of national security. It wanted nothing less than an absolute ban on prior restraint. Alexander Bickel, the brilliant constitutional scholar who argued the case against the government, criticized the unreasonableness of the ACLU stand. He accused the Union of being too ideological, labeling the absolutist position "foolish to the point of being almost unprofessional." Like most students of the Constitution, Bickel was generally opposed to prior restraint but nonetheless conceded that there may be times when not to invoke prior restraint may be disastrous to the well-being of the republic. This is something the ACLU has not acknowledged and will not acknowledge.

In the recent case where the government folded in their attempt to get 'secret' documents back from the ACLU their first mistake was in their approach. Their big mistake that they continue to make is in not aggressively investigating, prosecuting, and punishing the traitors that leak and publish the secret matters of national security for all, including our enemies, to know. As the lawyers at Powerline have pointed out, in the case of the NSA leak, federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 798, a law that precisely prohibits leaks of the type of classified information disclosed in the story. Subsection (a) of the statute provides:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information-- (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes-- Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Powerline further points out that in cases like that of the NSA leak, the Pentagon Paper case the ACLU loves to cite so much, only applies to prior restraint and not to punishment after the crime of publishing has been committed.

Indeed, in their concurring opinions, Justices Douglas and White cited and discussed 18 U.S.C. § 798 as the prototype of a law that could be enforced against a newspaper following publication of information falling within the ambit of the statute. Justice White noted, for example: The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases. Section 797 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798, also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint.

Make sure to read the entire analysis. When it comes to national security and classified information the ACLU has a long record of recklessness. When it comes to keeping our government from wrongdoing there are many suggestions that could be pursued to alleviate the problem. Allowing the press and the ACLU unfettered liberty to make the call on what can and can not be classified is a death wish. The government needs to step up and aggressively investigate and prosecute those that act, participate, aid and protect in the unlawful disclosure of our national security secrets. The Investor's Business Daily sums it all up well:

The civilized world simply can't win against the forces of Islamo-fascism if we are deprived of the vital weapon of secrecy. Letting the ACLU force us to operate according to its radical ideology of "open government" would be like telegramming Hitler that we plan to invade Normandy.

ACLU: What Does The Word Secret Mean?

2006-12-13T18:59:00.000-08:00

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:

Via the ACLU we find out the U.S. government is finally being proactive against the ACLU in protecting classified information from being leaked for our enemies to know.

The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has asked a federal judge to quash a grand jury subpoena demanding that it turn over to the FBI "any and all copies" of a December 2005 government document in its possession.

The ACLU called the subpoena, served on November 20 by the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, a transparent attempt to intimidate government critics and suppress informed criticism and reporting.

"The government's attempt to suppress information using the grand jury process is truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in the ACLU's history," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "This subpoena serves no legitimate investigative purpose and tramples on fundamental First Amendment rights. We recognize this maneuver for what it is: a patent attempt to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing."

The three-and-a-half page document, issued in December 2005, is marked "Secret" and apparently is classified. The ACLU received the document, unsolicited, on October 23, 2006.

Apparently a document marked "Secret" is classified? You don't say! Quite a scary thing that such a dangerous organization like the ACLU has its hands on classified information. I think the ACLU has already demonstrated how reckless they can be with secret information. You can bet there would be no regard to National Security.

The ACLU think that exposing government wrongdoing is exposing to the enemy the governments efforts and techniques to secure our nation.

In legal papers, the ACLU said that while release of the document might be "mildly embarrassing" to the government, the ACLU's possession of it is legal and its release could in no way threaten national security. To the contrary, the ACLU said, the designation of the generally unremarkable document as "Secret" "appears to be a striking, yet typical, example of overclassification."

So who elected the ACLU to determine what should or shouldn't be classified? And if the document is so "unremarkable" why are they fighting so hard to keep it? The ACLU then goes on to justify having classified information by stating that some of the biggest news of the past year came from leaks of classified information, like the NSA surveillance program, SWIFT, etc. I think we all remember how the ACLU handled these leaks. When it comes to National Security, the ACLU has created a dangerous reputation. I don't think they should have any say so in what remains classified or not.

Rob at Say Anything sums it up:

So, basically, the ACLU is claiming that the Bush administration is trying to “suppress information” by getting some leaked classified documents back. But isn’t the government supposed to suppress classified information? Isn’t that the reason it is classified in the first place? I mean, if the government isn’t supposed to be suppressing classified information, then why are we classifying it in the first place?

And how does the government requesting leaked classified documents back violate the ACLU’s first amendment rights? Surely the ACLU isn’t suggesting that first amendment rights extend to illegal leaks of private information, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to stop someone who obtained my bank records from somebody at the bank who illegally divulged them from putting my private information on the internet.

I sometimes wonder if the ACLU even takes its own arguments seriously.

Although the ACLU has been told that it is not a target of the investigation, which I think it should be, it is interesting that the the subpoena refers to the Espionage Act. That is too bad. The FBI have their own concerns over the ACLU. Between the shady business of their funding issues, helping America’s enemies, spying on their own members, and FBI concerns; there are many reasons besides illegally obtaining classified information that the ACLU should be investigated.

I'm just glad to see the government being proactive to prevent classified information from falling into the hands of our enemies. If the ACLU has its way that is where it will end up.

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.

Not Even A Seasons Greeting

2006-11-29T22:26:00.000-08:00

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.

The Myth Behind "Separation of Church and State"

2006-11-29T21:28:00.000-08:00

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.

Endnotes

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

Dems To Fulfill ACLU Mission

2006-11-16T11:10:00.000-08:00

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.

ACLU Thinks Election Was All About Them

2006-11-08T22:04:00.000-08:00

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

Democrats Join With Communists, Socialists and Terrorists

2006-11-06T14:08:00.000-08:00

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.

GOTV!

Linked at Stop the ACLU

Value Voters Must Storm Polls in November

2006-11-03T22:27:00.000-08:00

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!

NYT: Saddam Was Close to Nuke;November Surprise?

2006-11-02T22:29:00.000-08:00

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.

Let’s go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.

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
Wizbang
QandO
Michelle Malkin
Sister Toldjah
Dan Riehl
MVRWC

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

Linked to Stop the ACLU

DUmmie Dems Delve into Delusion

2006-11-02T13:59:00.000-08:00

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)

2006-11-02T12:38:00.000-08:00

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.

ACLU Want Worker Rights For Illegal Aliens

2006-11-01T21:27:00.000-08:00

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.

ACLU

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.