May 12, 2005

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst

There have been a number of issues in recent days that have come up that the ACLU has had their grubby little hands in.

Poor Little Sex Offenders

Hawaii's sex offender listing has been very busy as of late, due to the enactment of a new law, Act 45, that "...gives the public immediate Internet access to information on registered sex offenders who are repeat offenders, whose crimes are punishable by at least five years in prison or who have committed certain other aggravated offenses.  The new guidelines resulted in the immediate posting of 1,416 convicted sex offenders, up from 74."

Unfortunately, Hawaii now has one of the most restrictive laws in the country, and there's no evidence to suggest that it will increase public safety," said ACLU attorney Lois Perrin.

Hmmmmm...and just how does the ACLU proclaim to know this?  I would bet that if Lois Perrin knew about the sex offender next door, the kids would be under lock and key versus visiting said sex offender's house, away from those prying parent eyes.

Defense attorney Bill Harrison said:

...one of his clients was convicted of date rape in 1986, went to prison and successfully completed sex offender treatment.  The man is now married and a law-abiding citizen who is a heavy equipment operator.  "Today, he saw his picture on the Internet, and it was shocking for him," the attorney said.

Awwww...poor Mr. Sex Offender.  And does anyone wonder how "shocking" it was for the girl when he raped her?  And how *does* Bill Harrison know that this man is rehabilitated...did he merely ask him?  I'm sooo certain his client would tell an attorney that he was out on a raping and pillaging rampage last week.  C'mon now.

ACLU Finds Rise in Wyoming Prison Violence

Innocent title by itself, isn't it (emphasis is mine)? 

CASPER - Violence is rising at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is closely monitoring the investigation into a disturbance last month that may have been motivated by racism.

"There's been an escalation of violence recently that is very concerning," said Steven Pevar, an ACLU attorney from Hartford, Conn., who represented an inmate attacked at the Rawlins prison six years ago.

In a letter to the Casper Star-Tribune, Christopher Pullie and Darrell Booker identified themselves as two of the five black victims of the April 20 attack, which they contend was racially motivated.

Pullie and Booker said 15 to 20 officers and administrative officials did nothing to stop the "mob beating" by 30 to 40 prisoners.

The two main groups of attackers, they wrote, were Hispanic and American Indian inmates who were joined by white prisoners.

My concerns are simple.  Why are we jumping to conclusions that this "attack" was racially motivated?  Who were the attackers? This article mentions that the two main groups of attackers were Hispanic and American Indian with some white prisoners.  So were there any black attackers in the group? 

Incarceration rates in Wyoming clearly show that per 100,000 population, the highest rate of incarcerations (and thereby the highest percentage of the prison population) occur with black, non-Hispanic people.  It is entirely possible that this was not an attack based on race, but merely due to the fact that the majority of prisoners are, indeed, black.  This is one of many issues I have with the ACLU.  There tends to be an immediate jump to judgment that situations occur due to racial motivations.  This can be dangerous. As a society, we regularly seek to ensure that there is not discrimination, but isn't jumping to these conclusions discrimination in and of itself?  I think knee-jerk reactions such as this tend to set us back versus moving us forward.  I support efforts to discourage discrimination, but we should be prudent and cautious in our approach.  Prudent and cautious are words absent from the ACLU's glossary of terms.

The ACLU Seeks to Protect ILLEGAL Activities

The U.S. Senate voted 100-0 to pass the "Real ID Act" and President Bush is expected to sign this new act this month (again, emphasis mine). 

The law's backers, including the Bush administration, have said it will make the country's borders safer by stopping illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses. The hijackers who attacked U.S. targets on Sep. 11, 2001, carried valid driver's licenses, they added.

I haven't forgotten the 9/11 attacks, have you? 

''Giving state driver's licenses to anyone, regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally, is an open invitation for terrorists and criminals to exploit,'' Sensenbrenner said.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), and other groups countered that the bill represents a crackdown on immigration and rolls back asylum laws.

''The Real ID Act won't make America any safer,'' said Wade Henderson, the LCCR executive director. It ''will open the door to widespread discrimination, create bureaucratic nightmares, and undermine public safety by increasing the number of unlicensed drivers on our roads.''

I find it irresponsible to continue to attempt to extend protection to people who, increasingly, are in our country ILLEGALLY.  They are breaking laws and should not be given access to the same services that those immigrants who follow all of the rules and enter this country legally as well as those who are currently US citizens.

The act would give states until May 2008 to make changes requiring applicants for a driver's license to prove they are in the country legally. Those able to do so would be issued with licenses accepted as a form of federal identification for purposes including traveling by rail or air and opening a bank account.

Why is this a bad thing?  If they aren't in this country legally, why should they be able to take advantage of what our great country has to offer?  I don't think this is rocket science, those of you who are card-carrying ACLU members - again, THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY, BREAKING THE LAW!

Groups that sought to mobilize members and the public against the measure ran the gamut from LCCR and the ACLU to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Amnesty International and the Hispanic National Council of La Raza, to online activists concerned about privacy and technology.

What infuriates me is that eleven states allow immigrants to obtain licenses regardless of their legal residency status (aiding and abetting a known criminal?).  The argument is "for public safety."  This supposedly ensures a higher level of safety in that drivers have passed tests and are insured.  Would we have had more population in NY and in DC if the terrorists had been snagged when applying for a driver's license? 

This, of course, just screams "ACLU"

Some state officials and civil libertarians are weighing challenging the new law in court.

No, really? 

Please be sure to visit http://stoptheaclu.blogspot.com to learn more about the ACLU's attempts at putting more and more Americans into harm's way.