The ACLU'd Version of Twas the Night Before Christmas

Twas the night before RamaHanaKwanzmas, when all through the living area

Not a living organism was stirring, not even a mouse, cat, dog, parrot, oh, none of them.

The foot coverings were hung somewhere in the living area with care,

In hopes that the appropriate holiday figure soon would be there.

The people of a certain age were nestled all snug in their sleeping areas,

While visions of whatever appeals to them moved about in their favorite way in their heads (or other parts of their body if that makes them feel better).

Read More "The ACLU'd Version of Twas the Night Before Christmas"

Show Comments »

Get A Clue, ACLU

Law enforcement works hard to keep our cities and towns as crime free as possible. When they get tips about criminal activity, they often do long investigations to get all the proof they need in order to prosecute the crime. This costs a lot of money, takes a lot of manpower, and should be respected. Along comes the ACLU. Defending the criminals.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) came to the defence of the two US-based Indian shop owners, charged with selling a highly addictive drug, calling the police operation in the case as ''ill conceived''. ''There are too many unanswered questions about the validity of evidence against these store clerks for the prosecutions to go forward in good conscience. We have launched a full investigation to determine the extent of police misconduct in this ill-conceived operation,'' Christina Alvarez, a staff attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project said in a statement yesterday.

Once again, the ACLU is busy defending non-Americans. Wasting more money to start a "full investigation" that has already been done.

Two convenience store owners, Falgun Patel and Sudhirkumar Patel and workers of Indian origin were recently arrested for selling items that could be used to make methamphetamine, a highly addictive drug that is sweeping the rural United States. The civil liberties group promised a thorough investigation into claims that law enforcement selectively targeted the Indian community based on national origin and race in ''Operation Meth Merchant''. It said besides the Patels, more than three dozen other Indian merchants were targeted in the sting operation, which was carried out in coordination with the US Drug enforcement Administration. Of the 49 retail clerks and convenience store owners charged, 44 were Indian. Many shared the same last name -- Patel.

Law enforcement will not look into possible crimes/criminal activity if they don't have good reason to do so. In spite of what some want us all to think, LE knows a strong case vs. a weak one. Unfortunately, groups like the ACLU jump in and make such a big fuss about these things- it undermines the time and effort put into the case. For this particular case, it sounds like the ACLU came along to defend a NAME and NATIONAL origin...I say they are using this case to further their agenda.

Federal law prohibits merchants from selling products knowing -- or with reason to believe -- the products, which could be used to manufacture methamphetamine. But in the aftermath of the 18-month investigation, several of the 44 Indian suspects claimed a language barrier confused the process. At least three suspects claim that they were misidentified by the police informants who secretly taped the alleged transactions using hidden microphones or hidden cameras. Besides taking up the case against two of the accused, Falgun Patel and Sudhirkumar Patel, the ACLU has launched an investigation into claims of selective arrest and prosecution based on national origin and race. If successful, such claims could result in the dismissal of all defendants' cases based on the fact that the US Constitution prohibits prosecution based solely on national origin and race.

Did you read the part that said-- 18 months? Why would any LE agency spend THAT much time on a case based soley on RACE and ORIGIN? Get a clue, ACLU.

Cross Posted @ ARS

Show Comments »

11/10/05 Edition Stop The ACLU

The ACLU has breaking news for everyone: ACLU and Diverse Coalition of National Non-Profits Win Major Victory in Challenge to Misguided CFC Government Watch List and Contribution Policies I got this information directly from the ACLU's website. This is a press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: media@aclu.org NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations today said they have successfully challenged Office of Personnel Management’s Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) requirements that all participating charities check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for "terrorist activities" and that organizations certify that they do not contribute funds to organizations on those lists.

Now we have proof positive that the ACLU is anti-American. Right down to the core. To make such declarations as the one above, with gleeful tone, should concern people who care about this country. It's well known that Muslim freaks use their Mosques and the charities that are set up as a front to cover terrorist activity. Money is gathered and used to train future terrorists; the money is given to peace loving groups such as Hamas. Yes, the ACLU is looking out for the people of America.

"This is a major victory for non-profit organizations that refused to be subjected to vague government requirements forcing us to become law enforcement officers for the federal government," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “We feel vindicated. List checking is not and has not been required by law.� Romero was referring to the Office of Personnel Management’s final regulation posted in the Federal Register earlier this week, saying that it is dropping list-checking requirements. The regulation states: “Under the final rule, effective for 2006 and subsequent campaigns, OPM does not mandate that applicants check the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List or the Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL).�

This is major victory for those who want to harm Americans. And the ACLU has assisted these people with open hands and all the legal pull they could muster. This pisses me off, it's exactly what we DON'T need now.

In 2003, the CFC generated more than $248 million from approximately 1,345,000 federal employees, according to the ACLU. The funds went to more than 10,000 participating non-profits that support our country’s health and education systems, the arts and the environment, childrens’ services and religious life. CFC contributions earmarked for the ACLU typically totaled about $500,000 per year; as a result of the policy, the organization lost more than $1 million in contributions.

Yes and I wonder how many of these health and education systems were (and still are) serving as front doors for terrorist groups, using these funds for their dirty work. (Did you read that little bit up there about the funds going for religious life???-the ACLU hates religion!)

“Watch list requirements and other misguided policies of today remind us of the now- discredited anti-Communist list checking of the early 1950’s,� said Romero. “It is no more justified now than it was then.�

I don't believe the anti-Communist list checking has ever been discredited. It's a matter of how one perceives their education about the issue. Oh and let's have a look at those other groups who went along with the ACLU with this:

In addition to the ACLU, the following organizations are plaintiffs in the litigation: Advocacy Institute; Amnesty International USA; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law; Electronic Frontier Foundation; NAACP Special Contribution Fund; NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.; Natural Resources Defense Council; Focus Project d/b/a/ OMB Watch; Our Bodies Ourselves; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; and Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.

I need not say more. All these groups are a bunch of socialist, sappy ass, snotty nosed sub citizens who are using issues of American security as a means to gain attention (kind of like little kids do).

The text of the letter from the CFC:

"I certify that as of (date), the organization in this application does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on the following terrorist related lists promulgated by the U.S. Government, the United Nations, or the European Union. Presently these lists include the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Nationals List, the Department of Justice’s Terrorist Exclusion List, and the list annexed to Executive Order 13224. Should any change of circumstances occur during the year OPM will be notified within 15 days of such change."

What's so BAD about that???? This post is part of the STOP THE ACLU Blog Burst...
Cross Posted @ ARS If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal, or email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Show Comments »

ACLU: Panhandling = Freedom of Speech

In an effort to curtail panhandling, the Pittsburgh City Council passed some ordinances relating to when and where panhandling would be limited.  The mayor was expected to approve these recommendations on Wednesday.

In a last-minute amendment, council added a provision to keep panhandlers at least 25 feet away from church entrances. The ordinance also would prohibit begging between sunset and sunrise, within 10 feet of a bus stop or street food vendor and within 25 feet of a sidewalk cafe or a line of people waiting to enter a theater or buy tickets.

As is always the case, the ACLU has to leave its footprint on anything they interpret as "a no-no" (emphasis mine):

Barbara Feige, president of the Greater Pittsburgh American Civil Liberties Union, said she doesn't plan to challenge the ordinance's constitutionality in court now, but she wouldn't rule it out if people complain. Feige said it's unconstitutional to restrict freedom of speech from sunset to sunrise, which is too vague to be enforced properly by police.

I felt the need to go to my trusty dictionary to get some definition behind these basic concepts.

Sunset:  The event or time of the daily disappearance of the sun below the western horizon.

Sunrise:  The event or time of the daily first appearance of the sun above the eastern horizon.

Panhandling:  To approach strangers and beg for money or food.

Call me a simpleton, but last I checked, it was pretty simple to determine what sunset and sunrise are.  Even my local weather celebrity tells me the exact hour and minute of sunrise and sunset every day.  So the whole sunset/sunrise issue is resolved.

Now, my trusty dictionary says that panhandling is approaching strangers and begging for money or food.  I cannot be convinced that panhandling falls within freedom of speech.  I would actually go a step further and say that after sunset, a person who is a stranger to me approaching me would actually be quite frightening (whether they are panhandling or not).  I think the limitations make perfect sense and are not out of line in any way. 

Who is the ACLU fooling?  Someone will complain, more than likely the panhandler who isn't getting his or her "fair share" of income due to the limitations, and the ACLU will put on their cape and swoop down in an attempt to "save the underdog."  At the risk of sounding completing heartless (okay, a risk I have to take), I have to wonder if a panhandler's income is being reported to the IRS?  What would the ACLU accomplish by fighting for a panhandler's right to panhandle after dark?  Why wouldn't they just offer the panhandler a job in order to truly help?  [crickets chirping]

Okay, I think you get the point.  I just think the ACLU could do so much more by actually HELPING someone.  Instead, they focus on these types of cases in an effort to help "the little guy" defeat the big, mean system.  This doesn't help anyone, and is truly a waste of our time.

===================

Please stop over at Stop the ACLU! to read more about the ACLU's involvement in issues you may be surprised about!

Show Comments »

Halloween Could Bring Out Real Ghouls - Watch Your Kids!

I remember when I was a kid, we had to start looking at the candy we got after Trick-or-Treating, just to ensure there were no razor blades in apples or pins in candy bars after some idiots decided it would be entertaining to do such stupid things to kids. 

Now that I have my own children, worrying about pedophiles and child molesters is on the list of "safety tips" for Halloween.  I truly believe that as a parent, I am the number one protector of my children - no one can do it better.  Either my husband or I will go out with the kids as they trick-or-treat, ensuring they are safe from traffic, other kids out to cause trouble, or adults who would enjoy inviting kids in for an inappropriate visit.

There are many communities who are focused on how to protect kids from sexual predators who may be "tempted" by children parading up to their homes - and I applaud their efforts!  There are various approaches to this, ranging from increased in-home visitations to the homes of sex offenders on Halloween night to proposed laws banning sex offenders from participating in Halloween altogether.  Here's a glimpse:

About 45 registered Level 2 and 3 sex offenders who live in Westchester County, just north of New York City, will receive special invitations to attend an educational program between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Oct. 31, under an initiative spearheaded by Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano. Those who don't attend will receive a personal visit from probation officers and police. Level 1 sex offenders and those on probation who have committed crimes of a sexual nature will also receive a home visit, according to a statement released by Spano's office.

"We've done home visits on Halloween nights in the past, but this is the first year that we've asked sex offenders on probation to come in to our offices," said Victoria Hochman, assistant communications director for the county executive.

Hochman said kids present the same temptation to sex offenders that alcohol presents to alcoholics. Rather than have sex offenders at home and in the position to be tempted by parades of children coming to their doors, Hochman said, the county will offer probationers something constructive and hopefully put parents at ease.

The Halloween initiative does not come in response to a spike in molestations or abductions on the holiday, however. "We have never had an incident on Halloween night," Hochman said. But highly publicized cases of brutal child abductions in recent years have heightened citizen activism and put pressure on local authorities to monitor sex offenders more closely. Westchester County was also the first in the state to use active Global Positioning System bracelets on sex offenders under the supervision of its probation department.

"Given the high recidivism rates with this type of crime, people are very concerned. This could provide some relief for people," Hochman said.

I like this idea, and in my mind it seems as though this would be the best approach.  Removing any high risk offender from the situation all together seems to make the most sense with follow-up for those who don't attend the activity.

Here are what a few more communities are doing:

• New Jersey's state parole board is putting a curfew on some 2,200 sex offenders it supervises.  Sex offenders need to be indoors by 7pm on Halloween and can't answer their doors.  They can't attend parties where children are present as well and can't take children - including their own - out to trick-or-treat.

• In Parker County, TX (west of Forth Worth), 42 registered sex offenders on probation will have to spend the evening at county offices.  They state, again, that this is proactive, in order to prevent any issues as well as "protect" the sex offenders from any false accusations.  Eh, the latter isn't as important to me, but it may temper the heat the ACLU may attempt to throw their way. 

• Lastly, a Michigan state lawmaker wants to ban sex offenders from Halloween. State representative Fran Amos of Waterford introduced a bill that would prohibit convicted sex offenders from handing out candy and could be passed in time for Halloween.  This most recent action has ruffled the feathers of the ever criminal protective ACLU, who states this is unconstitutional.  I say let's invite said sex offenders over to the house of the ACLU's Shelli Weisberg on Halloween - she can entertain them.  Oh, and let's hope she doesn't have young children.

Again, the best thing we can do is be good parents - get out with your kids to ensure their safety.  And if you're like us, maybe you can "trick-or-beer" at the same time!

========

Punta del Cappello to Jay and Ace of Spades 

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! - Don't Pick on those Poor Illegal Immigrants!

The ACLU in Ohio is at it again:

LIMA — After the head of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio accused Sheriff Dan Beck of racial profiling Tuesday, he fired back saying she had no evidence of such actions.

"It’s interesting that a group of attorneys that are supposed to represent civil liberties make serious accusations without the first thread of truth. There’s no complaints. They’re on a witch hunt,� he said.

Yanno, even if there *were* complaints, it isn't proof of racial profiling.  Aren't complaints supposed to be investigated before they are turned into "truths?"  The ACLU wants everyone to be treated as innocent before proven guilty, right?  Ahem.  Read on...emphasis mine:

Chris Link, the executive director for the ACLU of Ohio, sent out a written statement Tues-day titled “ACLU calls for Beck to end race-based profiling.� When asked if she had proof of race-based profiling, Link said she did not but said she worries there is something to all the concerns about which she has heard and read.

So she has no proof of race-based profiling, but standing behind the 4-letter-agency she turns her worries into reality?  She's worried about "ALL" the concerns she heard and read, but has no proof?  Isn't the ACLU supposed to be for civil liberties, or am I sorely mistaken?

Beck said she has nothing and cannot find anything to show his deputies have profiled anyone based on race. Beck said the bigger issue is that Link and her agency are trying to put pressure on police agencies that address the illegal immigration issue.

“She is trying to justify her existence and the existence of the American Civil liberties Union,� he said.

Link, who has not spoken to Beck, also said the sheriff and his agency have no business getting involved in immigration law. She said there are plenty of federal agencies to do that work.

“The federal government has failed to put another man on the moon but I don’t consider it my responsibility to do that,� she said.

But Beck said federal agencies are not doing their job and are allowing the problem to grow. As sheriff he has a job to uphold the law, which also includes upholding laws pertaining to illegal immigrants, he said.

Sheriff Beck made about the only common sense statement in that entire snippet.  Upholding the law is his job, which includes upholding laws pertaining to illegal immigrants.  Oh, and that the ACLU is just trying to justify their existence through inappropriate means.

Link, the 4-letter-agency representative, says that Sheriff Beck's focus on illegal immigrants takes his focus off the "real criminals."  Um...I thought ILLEGAL immigration was, well ILLEGAL.  ILLEGAL = CRIME.  Duh.  And this last comment was, well, just ridiculous (and of course Link's).

Do we have to be reminded that we are all immigrants,� she said.

No, we don't.  I was born in Nebraska, and you forgot the word "illegal."

==============================

Stop over at Stop the ACLU!  There are 100+ blogs on board, letting the public know what the ACLU is all about.  Jay also has an interview up with Alan Sears, President of the Alliance Defense Fund.  Check it out!

Show Comments »

An ACLU Meme

So, Teach over at Pirate's Cove tagged me for a meme that's right up my alley: my, um, love for the ACLU.  Here's the sordid details:

“If you could hang a sign on the ACLU building to …draw attention to it, what would you put on your sign?�

So...to answer this question:

Okay - so not the best photoshop - but I'm no expert.  You get the point, though.  Heh.

I have to think of who I'd like to tag with this one.  But even if I don't tag you, feel free to have a little fun!

Oh - and Teach, thanks for talking up my site - flattery will get you everywhere!  Hehehehehehe!

Oh, and while we are talking about the ACLU - stop over at Jay's - he's having a trackback party!

Show Comments »

ACLU: Forced Tolerance Training for Kids?

I'm genuinely amazed each time I hear what the ACLU is "fighting" for.  Just when I think I've seen it all, or thought they've gone as far as they can go, they take that extra step into Stupidville.

In a nutshell, the ACLU is threatening a court date if Kentucky's Boyd County School doesn't force all of its students to participate in "tolerance training."  No, this isn't the "normal" tolerance training - it's homosexuality tolerance training.  I read a great article over at TheRealityCheck.org written by Richard Mullenax.  His thoughts on this issue summarize my thoughts rather succinctly.

After all, the ACLU wants kids to receive oral sex training and have all the condoms and morning-after pills at every school's disposal.  Plus, you can't talk about religion in school (unless it's about Islam) or else the ACLU believes it's a violation of "Separation of Church and State." When the ACLU wanted tolerance, it meant tolerance towards homosexuality.

It appears that many parents were unsupportive of the efforts to have this type of training presented to their children. 

District figures illustrates 105 of 730 middle school students opted out of the training video and 145 of 971 high school students did, too. On the day scheduled for training, 324 students didn't show up.

There is a reason that some of the Kentucky students did not show up for the training course. The ACLU doesn't have the power to have students tolerate homosexuality if the students don't approve of it.  Plus, the ACLU shouldn't force this subject on students unless the school has parental consent to do so.

But the ACLU does not see it that way. The intolerant organization along with the Gay-Straight Alliance believes it has a right to force-feed homosexuality down the throats of the American people.  Perhaps there should be a separation of "Homosexuality and State" if the ACLU and gay radical groups continue to impose their ideology.

James Esseks, litigation director for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project says: "The schools have great latitude in what they want to teach, including what's in training programs, and the training is now part of the school curriculum." Esseks goes on to say, "Parents don't get to say 'I don't want you to teach evolution or this, that, or whatever else.' 'If parents don't like it they can homeschool, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school.' "

I'm sorry, James you incompetent boob, but *I'M* the one in charge of my child.  I have EVERY right to shelter him or her from teachings that go against our morals and beliefs.  This is a topic that *I* as a parent should address - my kids don't need to learn about homosexual behavior from a video and a quiz.  And guess what?  I PAY TAXES AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT MY CHILD LEARNS AS I AM PAYING FOR THEIR EDUCATION IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL.  IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT I WOULD PULL MY KID OUT OF THIS KIND OF TRAINING IN LESS THAN A HEARTBEAT, WHY DON'T YOU HOMESCHOOL YOUR OWN KID?  Now, go in the corner and curl up into the fetal position and whine that I'm not tolerant of you.  Go ahead, I dare you.

Meanwhile, Mr. Mullenax is on a roll:

The ACLU shows its true colors everyday by its never-ending liberal bias. What right does it have to take Christmas out of schools when former president Ulysses S. Grant made Christmas into a National Holiday in 1865? What right does the ACLU have to attempt taking "Under God" out of our pledge when the Deceleration of Independence says that our Creator endows us? And most importantly, what right does the ACLU have to take away our moral conscious when over half of the country voted based on moral decisions? The answer is simple: The ACLU has no right, but its leaders think they have the right to tell us what we should tolerate and not tolerate.

UPDATE:  Thanks to the Gray-Tie for blogging on yet more fun ACLU stuff.

Show Comments »

Criminal Background Checks Racist?

What happened with Hurricane Katrina is tragic - lives were lost, homes destroyed, many people were displaced.  Many states have opened their doors to evacuees needing shelter, and a fresh start.  I've been awed by the outpouring of support Americans have provided to their fellow citizens. 

A number of states decided it was best to do criminal background checks on evacuees coming to their state - just as a means of protecting citizens as well as other evacuees who would be housed together for what was an unknown period of time.  The ACLU, however, thinks the background checks are racially motivated.  But if you do a background check on all evacuees, how can it be perceived in this way?

I personally think states have an obligation to do criminal background checks to ensure their citizens are protected from thugs like this.  It's natural that a criminal wanted for homicide, such as 53-year-old James Camper, would attempt to escape via the evacuee route - I'm sure as screwed up as the media made the rescue and evacuation efforts appear, the criminal mind would think it is the perfect escape.  Any smart law enforcement agency would know this as well, hence the background checks. 

ACLU - get your heads out of your asses.  You are livin' in a dreamworld.

Show Comments »

The ACLU: Are They Trying to be Mom or Dad?

The ACLU is currently on a campaign to discourage the continuance of abstinence programs in junior and senior high schools.  There are 18 states specifically targeted for this campaign, called "Not in My State" (my state, Nebraska, is one of those targeted states).  Here is their position on the matter:

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today launched Not In My State, a nationwide action aimed at combating dangerous abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula. In a coordinated effort, ACLU affiliates across the country are sending letters to local officials calling for careful scrutiny of health and life-skills curricula.

“Today’s action should be a wake-up call for many states,� said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “State officials need to ensure the health and safety of students by taking responsibility for the curricula taught in their classrooms.�

The ACLU relies on a single report prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).  Said report states that "many abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula used by federally funded programs contain false and misleading information and perpetuate harmful stereotypes."  It goes on to state that "the curricula misrepresent the effectiveness of contraceptives by vastly understating the effectiveness of condoms at protecting against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and preventing unintended pregnancy."

Here in Omaha, a well-known news anchor, Julie Cornell, took a look at the abstinence program taught in the middle schools back in May.  The program is called "WAIT" and it stands for "Why Am I Tempted?"  Here are the basic principles of the WAIT program:

The program teaches that there are various steps of intimacy, with many of those steps reserved for marriage.

Teens learn why to wait, how to wait, and they get support in the process.

"Love" has different meanings, and trainers help kids classify different relationships.

Respect is a basis for the program. Teens are told that the boy or girl they're dating right now will be someone else's bride or groom in the future, and to treat that date with respect, the same way you would want your future spouse to be treated.

STD facts. Kids learn that condoms are not 100 percent effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, and they learn in great detail about more than 20 sexually transmitted diseases and the life altering consequences of living with an STD.

Marriage training: Teens learn that they're chances of bonding with a marriage partner greatly increase when they have fewer sex partners.

Julie Cornell's article is good as it points out the reason Nebraska schools employed WAIT's program versus a straight "here's how to put a condom on" approach (emphasis mine). 

The program was formed in 2001, in response to growing numbers of sexually transmitted diseases, high teen pregnancy rates, and increasing divorce rates. Recent federal grants supporting abstinence education have made it more possible than ever before for young people to gain the courage and knowledge necessary to hold off on making adult decisions too soon.

"This is not a 'just say no' approach," Donahue explained to about 30 parents on a recent night at OPS headquarters.

WAIT training is a three-pronged approach, teaching teenagers "why" to wait to have sex, "how" to hold off, and giving them support in the process.

We are not about witholding information but about giving information to teens.  It is how the information is given that is important.  For instance ... there are thousands of teen pregnancy prevention programs all over the country.  The problem is not teen pregnancy it is teen sex.  Teen pregnancy is a symptom of a much larger challenge.

Show Comments »

ACLU: The Left Hand Doesn't Know What the Right Hand is Doing!

Most everyone has read the most recent case the ACLU has inserted themselves into.  The case involves a second-grader who wants to sing “Awesome Godâ€� at a voluntary, although school endorsed, talent show.  Here's a brief snapshot of the ACLU's position (emphasis mine):

"There is a distinction between speech by a school and speech by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York City. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including the right to express herself religiously."

According to the complaint filed by the second-grade student and her parents, an elementary school in Frenchtown prohibited the student, Olivia Turton, from singing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The talent show was open for anyone from first through eighth grades who wished to play solo instruments, dance, perform a skit or sing to karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits so long as they were “G-rated.�

Because the school left the choice of songs up to each individual student, the ACLU said, no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the content of each student's selection.

On the outside, one could think this was a favorable move by the ACLU.  One may actually believe that the ACLU is doing what we expect and encourage the ACLU to do - stand up for the civil liberties of an American.  Perhaps this is the case, but do you recall the position that the ACLU has on Boy Scouts chartered via public schools? (emphasis, again is mine)

The Boy Scouts of America is pulling the charters of thousands of scouting units from public schools in an effort to spare them from lawsuits threatened by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a letter sent to the BSA last month, the ACLU vowed to take legal action against public schools and other taxpayer-funded governmental agencies that charter Scout groups, claiming their sponsorship amounts to religious discrimination and violates the separation of church and state.

The ACLU specifically takes issue with the Scouts' pledge of allegiance to God and country and the organization's prohibition of homosexuals as scout masters.

What, my friends, is truly the difference between the two and why does the ACLU have completely different positions in these cases?

1. Both take place in the public school building
2. Both are "endorsed" by a public school
3. Both are voluntary
4. Both take place outside of school hours
5. Both have religious components

No one is obligated to participate in the talent show and no one is obligated to show up to watch the talent show.  Boy Scouts - if you don't want to belong, you certainly don't need to show up after hours at a school to participate.  In both the case of the second-grader's song and in the tradition of the Boy Scouts, clearly there are religious components.  Why is it that the ACLU would come to the defense of the second grader under the disguise of "freedom of religious expression" and comes out fighting against the boy Scouts under the umbrella of "religious discrimination" and violating "separation of church and state?"  Aren't we dealing with cross-purposes here?  Whoops....I probably shouldn't use the word "cross" huh?  ...and, again, this quote:

Because the school left the choice of songs up to each individual student, the ACLU said, no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the content of each student's selection.

Whether or not the school picked the songs for the students, it is a SCHOOL SANCTIONED EVENT and a natural conclusion can be drawn that the school was aware of what the students were doing - heck, they even established guidelines for them, right?  So, according to the ACLU, the school should allow her to sing religious songs at a SCHOOL SANCTIONED EVENT but does not feel that schools should endorse a group that has religious beliefs?

...and then they wonder why their organization has lost credibility on both sides of the proverbial fence.

Show Comments »

The ACLU Grows a Brain

Okay....so I know the title is a little too promising, but they did at least sprout one brain cell:

OMAHA, Neb. -- The Nebraska chapter of the Americans for Civil Liberties Union told KETV NewsWatch 7 that it will not appeal a ruling to keep the Ten Commandments monument in a Plattsmouth city park.

Okay, so maybe I'm giving them too much credit.  Perhaps it's not because they are wiser, or have employed a level of common sense.  More than likely they've realized the fame and fortune they sought to achieve here dried up.  But I'll take it.  Any time the ACLU recognizes that they have LOST and CANNOT WIN is a good moment in time.

Update:  Welcome Jawa Report readers!  Thanks for stopping by!

Show Comments »

The ACLU Doesn't Always Get Its Way

Level 3 sex offenders are deemed as sex offenders whose risk of reoffense is high and the degree of danger posed to the public is of concern enough that a substantial public safety interest is served by active dissemination.  These criminals are usually put on public databases and they are required to report their address and other such information should they move.  They are generally limited to where they can live (i.e. they cannot live within a certain distance of schools, parks, etc.).  As a parent, I appreciate that, if the judicial system can't keep this scum in a prison (my first residence of choice for these criminals), there are at least limitations to where they can live.  Well, the ACLU doesn't necessarily agree - heck, they want the criminals to live wherever they want:

The ACLU filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of Kyle Lewis, a Level 3 sex offender, and his mother, who owns the property where her son lives. The Issaquah ordinance passed last month also makes it illegal to rent homes to sex offenders in prohibited areas.

But not everyone agrees with the ACLU's high level of criminal support:

Last week, a court commissioner denied an ACLU request for a temporary restraining order to block the ordinance until the preliminary-injunction hearing date of Sept. 23. The city then began issuing fines of $250 a day to Lewis and his mother.

Lewis didn't want his mother to be penalized and has agreed to move out of Issaquah, said ACLU spokesman Doug Honig.

"The lawsuit is proceeding, just on a slower schedule," Honig said. A trial date is set for Feb. 27, 2007, but a summary judgment could be issued earlier, he said.

The ACLU withdrew their motion seeking to bar the city of Issaquah from enforcing an ordinance restricting where sex offenders can live.  In other words, when things weren't going their way, they pulled back.

I find this interesting.  If you dig for a bit on the Internet, you will find these little stories hidden in the corners - hidden in quite a number of corners.  When the ACLU wins a case, or depending on what the subject matter is, the MSM generally picks up on the story and makes it a national news event.  When the ACLU withdraws, or loses, it's buried on page seven - not nearly as newsworthy.  I also find that stories relating to sexual predators, or other such criminals tend to get less media attention (and the ACLU tends to brag less about these cases).  What they are doing is so political in nature and is more about the money they want to win, the notoriety they hope to achieve and the leaders' own personal agendas.  I find it disgusting, and absolutely criminal.  As is the situation in the aforementioned case, the criminal is represented, the victim(s) and potential victims are not.  It's good that the judicial system put the hammer down on this one - that's one for the victim(s), zero for the ACLU. 

Show Comments »

It's a Druid Thing? Nope, it's an ACLU Thing...

About three weeks ago, I wrote a post regarding a couple who were pulled over for traffic violations and had a bumper sticker "It's a Druid Thing" on their vehicle.  The couple claimed they were only pulled over because of this bumper sticker, seeming to leave out the part about all of their violations.  The ACLU took up their cause and demanded an apology. 

Recently, a police officer involved in the traffic stop left the following comment on my blog:

"I am the Police officer that was involved in the traffic stop. For almost three months I have been silent. I have noticed that the internet has mostly slammed me.

Most of the sites and chat rooms are not interested in the total story, just the lies told so far.

I am ashamed that so many people will listen to the loudest voice regardless of what is being said.

Most recently the ACLU called me a stalker and asked the Greer Police department to issue a restraining order against me.

To view more of these details, visit my churces website and look at the MLB in the news link.

There have been a lot of Christian support and I am very thankful for websites like yours. You are however in the minority as most sites side with the ACLU.

Ex-Officer - Tony Stewart

Tony Stewart was a reserve officer for the Greer, S.C. police department for 14 years when this event unfolded.  When the couple's allegations came forward, officer Stewart was placed on administrative leave while an internal investigation took place, and was cleared, with the issues that this couple brought forward unsubstantiated - well, by the internal investigation team anyway.  Enter the ACLU, coming to the defense of these troubled and picked on people.

Now, Officer Stewart, as a reserve officer, did not issue tickets (he never drove a cruiser or wrote tickets during his time of service).  The actual traffic stop and citation(s) were not initiated by Officer Stewart.  However, he has faced a mountain of accusations - one of them being stalking - from any number of websites, news bureaus and, of course, the ACLU.  Around the time this issue was escalating, the four reserve officer positions, including Stewarts, were cut and he was without a job.  The timing seems very interesting to me, but here is what Tony says about it:

The motives for the Gaineys to make charges against me were two fold. One of those was to make enough noise so as to force the police department to drop their charges. The dismissal of all four of the reserve officers due to budgetary reasons came at an unfortunate time, which may have looked suspicious to some. I can only say that I hope a creative approach to solving their budget problems will one day allow them to reinitiate this program, as it was a resource that helped the other officers do their jobs more safely. I doubt that I would ever be asked to return, but I have no hard feelings. I enjoyed serving the people of Greer.

With all he's been through, he is most gracious, isn't he?

I encourage you to go see Tony's comments on his church's website.  There is a lot he can't disclose or discuss due to the pending legal matters surrounding the case, but on the flip side, he does give you some perspective of what happened and what he is going through.

One particular item in Tony's comments caught my attention:

As a Christian and a volunteer police officer, I constantly desired to help people. That night I heard a cry for mercy from a lady who told of hard times and living on food stamps. I heard that the trip to Walmart to get needed groceries was unfairly interrupted by the arrest of her husband. And the towing of a car that could not be legally driven without insurance or tags would add further burdens to a family she described as without hope. I heard that some of the groceries would spoil and that they had no money to replace them.

This was the chance that I prayed for.  I responded by asking her if I could mail her a letter about a bible study and Mt. Lebanon Baptist church where I told her the search for answers to the questions she asked could begin.  I wanted her to meet my Pastor Mark Smith who god used every day to show people the way to better days.  I wanted her to know what the support of a church family like mine would do for her.  Before we parted I resented her with $40 dollars to help with the spoiled groceries.

Why did that catch my eye?  Well, my initial throught was that an officer should not be witnessing to a person while on the job.  Not so much the church versus state idea, but more along the lines of keeping it "about the job."  I truly believe his intentions were good.  Do I think he should defer from witnessing about his faith while on the job?  Perhaps.  Do I think that his witnessing in the case of this couple had a direct impact on the officer's descretion in handling the situation from a law enforcement perspective?  Absolutely not.  The driver was driving with a suspended license, had no insurance and other such significant violations warranting the traffic stop.  The sole reason for the traffic stop was related to their violations, NOT whether they were druid, blue with stripes, orange with dots, Catholic, etc.  Hence, the danger of the ACLU. They don't use common sense and rational thought, while looking at the big picture. If there had been any evidence tying the traffic stop merely to the bumper sticker, I wouldn't be writing about this.

...and what of Ex-Officer Tony Stewart? He has many opportunities coming his way such as public speaking opportunities and because of his faith, Mr. Stewart sees the blessings in this course of his life.

Mr. Stewart, best of luck to you in your endeavors. Hold onto your positive outlook and you will get through this trying time and it will have made you stronger. The ACLU doesn't win them all - I don't think this will be in the "winner's" bracket for them, either.

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - Yet Another Double Standard

Back in July, I did a post regarding the ACLU and their position against putting additional security cameras in cities with a higher propensity for terrorism and other criminal activity.  The ACLU cited concerns with the intrusion on privacy for every day citizens (even though they were in public places!).  Well, when the ACLU wishes to follow Americans who want to protect our borders, they have no issue tailing them and capturing their actions on camera - a practice not too far removed, it seems, from every day paparazzi:

SANTA FE - Used to be, Gary Buie and his family could go down to a local buffet in Birmingham, Ala., and fill up on comfort food and familiar eats.

Slowly, the all-you-can-eat buffet began to change. Six months ago, he and his family made the trip and were the only ones speaking English, he said in a telephone interview from Birmingham.

Alabama's immigrant population is growing, and residents like Buie are noticing.

To help the U.S. Border Patrol, the 53-year-old civil engineer and others from that state plan to drive to New Mexico in October to watch for and report undocumented border crossers.

Members of the group, the Alabama Minutemen Support Team, aren't anti-immigrant, Buie said, but "rules apply to everyone."

"I can see that through uncontrolled border access, people are coming through, and we don't know who they are."

Organizers say they hope 125 people will make the trip. About 30 have signed up so far.

These travelers will not be alone.  In addition to being joined by the New Mexico Minutemen, members of the ACLU won't be too far away.

While the Minutemen get ready for their duty, ACLU members today will start training legal observers, who will follow, photograph and videotape the Minutemen.

Ray Ybarra, an Ira Glasser Racial Justice Fellow with the national ACLU, will conduct the training.

"I hope the people of New Mexico aren't going to sit and let these vigilantes come to their communities and wreak havoc," he said.

Oh, c'mon, Ray.  VIGILANTES?  These are American citizens with one idea in mind - to peacefully protect our nations borders from being crossed by individuals who are entering our country illegally.  The hope is that they can prevent potential terrorists, criminals, illegals and other known law breakers from entering our country.  Oh, yeah.  I forgot.  The ACLU is on the side of the terrorists.

This isn't the first time the ACLU has "observed" minutemen.

Ybarra said about 150 observers were on the scene in Arizona in April, when a similar Minutemen operation was conducted. He also plans to hold trainings in Las Cruces and El Paso.

The ACLU conveniently forgets that the governor in New Mexico called for a state of emergency due to the issues they have faced with the surge of illegal immigrants crossing their border.  While New Mexico is doing everything they can to increase police and border patrol in the area, 125 willing volunteers certainly can't cause any harm in the interim. 

I just have to ponder...who would come to these volunteers' rescue if they raise concern that their "right to privacy" is being infringed upon by the very group who screams for that right on behalf of so many others?

***

This post is part of the Stop The ACLU Blog burst. If you would like to participate please Register At Our Portal.

Show Comments »

Finally! Someone in Robes Slapped Down the ACLU!

Does this look ominous to you?  Frightening?  Does it cause you pain and discomfort? 

This monument, donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1966, is on property adjacent to a public park.  I can remember walking by this monument on my way to the park on many occasions as a kid.  I thought it was beautiful and it never crossed my mind that anyone would think it was offensive and needed to be removed.  Then "John Doe" comes along in 1991 to complain that he is an atheist and he has to see this monument on his drive each day and doesn't think it should be there.  The ACLU jumped up quickly to support "Mr. Doe" in his efforts.  The citizens of Plattsmouth were not amused, and even discussed selling the property the monument was on for $1 (to a private citizen) so they could preserve it.  Oh, and the Omaha World Herald outed "John Doe" (his real name is Ron Larsen), and of course he felt that his life was in danger after that - poor victim that he is. 

Following much legal wrangling, appeals and other legal stuff, it appears as though there might be a win for the citizens of Plattsmouth! 

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a ruling last year from one of the court's three-judge panels that said the monument must be removed from the park.

The appeals court cited a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that said it was constitutionally permissible to display the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. In that case, the high court said the monument was a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.

Lawyers for Plattsmouth had argued that the monument is simply a gift from a prominent civic group and not an endorsement of religion.

It's nice to see that common sense *can* prevail in society - and it just happened to be in my old stomping grounds.

Update:  Be sure to stop by my hubby's Cafe Press store to buy some fun stuff - he even has a design inspired by this story!

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! - People Praying is Comparable to Terrorists?

In yet another display of their radical views, the ACLU has opened mouth, inserted foot yet again.

A local ACLU director [Joe Cook, ACLU of Louisiana] equated al-Qaida terrorists with members of a Louisiana school board seeking to open their meetings with prayer.

Excuse me?

Referring to the school board, Cook said, "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."

Mike Johnson, senior counsel and southeastern regional coordinator for the Alliance Defense Fund, said it best:   

"It shows the ACLU has become more and more extreme and marginalized," said Johnson. "So, to that extent, I like it when he talks, because he simply reveals who they are."

Johnson said the ACLU tries to "come across as champions of liberty, but the truth of the matter is they are extremists."

Yes, Mr. Johnson.  I would agree that he is the poster boy for ACLU propaganda.  Hammer to the nail, I say.

I can't say I find this the equivalent to terroristic activities:

The board – which has opened each of its meetings with a prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, for more than 30 years – argues the invocations impose no restriction on any religious viewpoint, and any person who wants to lead the prayer may do so regardless of his religious beliefs.

Of course, someone had to complain and the ACLU had to come running.  I picture Joe Cook, tongue dangling out of the corner of his mouth, salivating at another chance to put the kibosh on prayer.

In an ACLU-mandated world, a person can't pray, but they can watch child porn.  If a person doesn't like their spouse, who just happens to be on life support, they can pull the plug without their confirmed consent.  Gosh, criminals are now the victims, and the victims are the one who have to do the community service.  For that matter, let's pay child abusive murderers, who are card carrying members of NAMbLA so they have an easier time in prison.  Remove the Ten Commandments because they are just so offensive, take "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance as it is inappropriate and remove crosses and other symbols from the public eye.  Do not *ever* utter the words "Merry Christmas" and be sure to put the "It's a Druid Thing" bumper sticker on your car so you can get out of those tickets you don't want.  Laughable?  Hardly.  Almost all of this is happening today.   

When will the pendulum swing the other way?  At some point, will the ACLU come to my defense because I want the right to pray before a school board meeting if I so desire?  Will they defend me if I say that I reserve the right to say "Under God" because I believe in God?  Will they defend me if I say that I got a speeding ticket only because they pulled me over when I didn't have my "It's a Druid Thing" bumper sticker proudly displayed?

The ACLU's extremist views continue to poison our society with ridiculous notions about what is "right" and what is "wrong" and the organization seems to get away with comments that were comparable to a famous talk show host, who ended up without a job because of the outcry following his comments about the "brave terrorists."  Where is the public outcry with this moron?  I, myself, will continue to speak out against the evils of the ACLU for as long as I can, or until they pry my rosary and my crucifix from my cold, dead hands.

****

This post is part of the Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to participate please Register At Our Portal.

****

Thanks to TJ and Zeke for their trackbacks and linky love!

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - It's a Druid Thing

I've been ranting for quite some time about the ACLU and their, well, wacky ways.  Just when I think I've seen everything, they manage to raise the stupidity bar a tad bit higher.

Now they are demanding that the city of Greer, S.C. drop charges and say "sorry" to a couple that are insisting they were picked on by police because they had a religious bumper sticker on their vehicle. 

Tony and D.J. Gainey said police pulled the couple over in May because of the bumper stickers on their car. 

One of the stickers read, "It's a druid thing."

The Gaineys said they believe in druidism -- a nature-focused religion.

Okay.  So the Gaineys say that the bumper sticker saying "It's a druid thing" is the reason the officers pulled them over.  Um, I think the Gaineys overlooked some other rather important reasons:  driving with a suspended license, not having proper license plates or proof of insurance. 

But the ACLU, in all of their "social cause" wisdom, support the Gaineys and have demanded that all charges be dropped and an apology be issued because they were being singled out due to their religious beliefs.  ...and ole Mr. Gainey has some pearls of wisdom, too:

"I shouldn't been driving. I am guilty of that, but the stop never would have taken place if they wouldn't have violated our rights," said Gainey.

HOW SMART YOU ARE!  You are so right!  You shouldn't have been driving with a suspended license, no insurance and improper plates.  You were <gasp> BREAKING THE LAW.  Because you were BREAKING THE LAW, you were pulled over by law enforcement.  This isn't being singled out....this is some guy trying to get out of a criminal offense. 

The ACLU continues down a path that excludes logic, rational thought, common sense and credibility.  Part of me wants to rant forever about how idiotic the ACLU's position and actions are as they relate to this case.  But the wiser, more reasoned part of me knows it isn't necessary.  Their actions and their positions speak louder than any words I could possibly utter.

****

Weekly, Stop the ACLU! has a blogburst with multiple participants shedding light on the wacky ways of the ACLU.  Please stop by! 

Show Comments »

Civil Rights Vs. The Uncivil

The NY chapter of the ACLU, NYCLU- is barking up that tree of selfishness again, putting at risk the lives of people who live in NYC.

The New York Civil Liberties Union will file suit against the city Thursday to keep police from searching the bags of passengers entering the subway, organization lawyers said. The suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, will claim that the two-week old policy violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures, while doing almost nothing to shield the city from terrorism. It argues that the measure also allows the possibility for racial profiling, even though officers are ordered to randomly screen passengers. "While concerns about terrorism of course justify -- indeed, require -- aggressive police tactics, those concerns cannot justify the Police Department's unprecedented policy of subjecting millions of innocent people to suspicionless searches," states the suit, a partial copy of which was provided to Newsday.

The policy does nothing to sheild the city from terrorism? How do they know that? Based on what happened in London (and Madrid, and over 2000 other places since 9-11) it doesn't take a PhD to see that had the terrorists been caught before the bombs went off, lives would have been saved. I haven't been around to keep up on too much of this story, but I would have read about any alledged racial profiling carried out by the NYPD. They have searched old ladies and kids; not the young, angry, nervous, sweaty and sultry Muslim men. I would have searched the very people who appear to be likely to carry out an attack. Racial profiling or not- it has to be.

Names of the plaintiffs -- subway riders who object to the searches -- were redacted in the copy, but are expected to be released Thursday morning. A city Law Department spokeswoman said that since officials had not yet received the suit, she could not yet comment. The city is named as a defendant, along with the police department and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Thursday, before the suit was released, Kelly said that the searches were "just one more layer, one more tool." "No one thinks that will be the solution, but it does give a potential terrorist something more to think about," he said.

And I bet these plaintiffs were hired by the ACLU/NYCLU to stand in and do this. I bet they purposely drew attention to themselves to warrant a search. That's how these civil liberty groups work. It's all a play, complete with actors who are willing to play these stupid roles. It's a symptom of a much bigger issue- toying with the safety of the American people in general. Coughing up big lawsuits with lots of media coverage; the MSM will attach itself to this and promote it on all the AM talk shows. The NY Times will place this on it's front page...There is a pattern.

The civil liberties union has criticized the searches as over-reaching since Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the measure on July 21, after terrorists targeted London's mass transit system for the second time in two weeks. It also calls the stops ineffective because terrorists can walk through entrances where police are not screening.

You mean to tell me that if the police did their searches outside the entrances of the subway stations, these groups wouldn't be putting up such a fuss? Yeah right.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of law enforcement to conduct random searches, said Barry Kamins, a professor of criminal procedure at Fordham and Brooklyn law schools. But it found that those checks can be considered unlawful if their primary purpose is for law enforcement, such as searching for evidence of a crime. Rather, police must use the stops chiefly to preserve public safety, he said. The suit comes as elected officials continue to tussled over racial profiling. Nine City Council members Thursday asked Bloomberg to direct officers to note the racial or ethnic identity of people searched. The call came after a city councilman and a state assemblyman suggested young Arabs should be targeted for searches to prevent terror attacks. Robert Lawson, a Bloomberg spokesman, said that the police already have adequate safeguards. "The mayor has repeatedly stated since the start of this policy that there would be zero tolerance for racial profiling," Lawson added.

Zero tolerance wouldn't be my policy, but I'm not interested in being in charge of this. Those in charge need to, they must have the safety of the public in sight when they decide upon this stuff. Civil liberties are important; but we must never forget the enemy is not interested in being civil with us.

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - Say Cheese!

Rich Lowry has a great post up at National Review regarding Cameras and Terrorism.

The four would-be suicide bombers of the botched July 21 attacks in London have a big problem. They were caught on videotape. Their images have been broadcast in Britain and around the world, making their apprehension astronomically more likely than if they had escaped undetected.

And, as Rich says, "we have security cameras to thank."

London has half a million of them. According to one estimate, a person wandering around London will be filmed 300 times in a day. The city is a pioneer of a trend toward video surveillance that is also sweeping the United States and provoking howls from civil libertarians whose internal clocks are set to make a reference to 1984 every 15 minutes or so. Given the choice, apparently, they would prefer not to have the video of the July 21 bombers, which is an indication of the suicidal otherworldliness of ACLU-style civil libertarianism.

The biggest complaint from those who do not want security cameras is the argument that it would be an invasion of privacy, that it would be intrusive.  Rich hits it smack dab on the head... How is it an invasion of privacy when you are in a public place, where a dozen or more witnesses can see your every activity, every move?  There are security cameras at ATMs, in banks, in many businesses (including the building I work in).  If we had them in more public areas, not only would it deter crime, but those criminals dumb enough - or on a suicide mission (i.e. TERRORISTS) - could at least be caught on tape, which would make it easier to spot them, arrest them and convict them.

If they can’t brandish the Fourth Amendment, civil libertarians get down to practical policing and claim that cameras don’t really do anything to prevent crime; they only occasionally help solve crime after the fact. Even if this were true, solving one terror attack alone — and therefore perhaps unraveling networks that would attack in the future — makes the cameras worth it.

Cameras won’t deter suicide bombers — what will? — but they can tamp down other criminal activity. Cameras in Britain are credited with discouraging the IRA bombing campaign in the 1990s. On a less serious front, San Francisco — one of many jurisdictions, including New York, Houston and New Jersey, that have cameras in their train systems — saw vandalism drastically decline on subway cars after the installation of surveillance cameras.

Reducing crime takes the parks and the cities away from the criminals and gives it back to the citizens.  I think of our own "Central Park Mall" here in Omaha.  It is overrun by vagrants, criminals, sex offenders and the like.  More security cameras in strategic places would deter these criminals from setting up virtual residence in the park and more residents could actually enjoy the amenities the park promises.  I certainly don't go down there after dark and I especially wouldn't be there alone after dark or take my children there.  Sad, isn't it? 

Then there is the last resort of civil libertarians. When no real harm can be demonstrated, they always discern a subtle “chilling effect.� “When citizens are being watched by the authorities,� says Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union, “they are more self-conscious and less freewheeling.� But urban areas, where the cameras are proliferating, are not notably bastions of inhibited behavior. City Journal’s Heather Mac Donald, who is nation’s foremost critic of the excesses of the ACLU, writes, “The only people whom public cameras inhibit are criminals; they liberate the law-abiding public.� When they move a camera out of a troubled neighborhood, Chicago police now get complaints from neighbors, who want pimps and drug dealers to be decidedly inhibited.

You are spot on Ms. MacDonald.

It's very easy to see (as emphasized in the quote above and in looking at the ACLU's website) what their opinion is on surveillance cameras.  In a hearing to discuss enhancing D.C.'s security camera network, mere months after 9/11, Johnny Barnes, the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, testified.  He cited the following reasons why a stronger surveillance camera network should not be deployed in D.C.:

1. Surveillance cameras are not effective at fighting crime.

Hmmmmm....there seem to be many instances that this is proven false (Rich names at least one instance in San Francisco as well as complaints when cameras were moved in Chicago, apparently causing the return of criminal activity once the camera was removed).

2. Surveillance cameras reduce resources for placing police officers into neighborhoods where they are needed. 

They state that putting more cameras in would cause a need to pull officers off the street; therefore, decreasing police presence which would increase potential for crime.  Huh?

3. Surveillance cameras undermine individual privacy and are inimical to the American way of life.

Typical ACLU.  So, they bring up cameras at stop lights.  They say that while that has its own problems, at least the cameras are used to focus on one type of offense.  A network of cameras would be too intrusive as it would "track daily routines" versus specific criminal activity.  They say it would also undermine individual privacy and could deter, as an example, a citizen's desire to demonstrate on the mall.  So if they aren't breaking any laws, why worry?  It's a public place that a person's activities can be observed by numbers of people!  Besides, isn't the point of demonstration for a cause to stand up and BE NOTICED?

4. Surveillance cameras should not be contemplated without obtaining the explicit permission of those they impact. Permission was not granted in the District of Columbia. 

I can't help but quote directly from their testimony:  "Americans value the right to be anonymous in a big city. We value the right to go about our business without the sense that the government is watching us as if we were going to break the law."  Um, excuse me please.  I value feeling safe in my own country.  I'll bet criminals value the "right" to be anonymous in a big city.  Why do you think we have so many "Wanted" posters, or Crimestopper segments on TV?

5. Surveillance cameras are subject to great abuse.

That's why you put policies and procedures in place - DUH.

So what came of the DC security camera situation 3 years ago?  Security cameras had been installed, but guidelines and procedures were established that limited the use of the cameras. 

Those guidelines, which the council approved, call for the cameras to be used only to monitor traffic, large demonstrations and city emergencies. The regulations also say that the cameras can be installed only in public spaces where people would have a reasonable expectation of being videotaped, and they bar police from using the devices to watch for street crime. that did not allow the police to operate them 24/7.

When the London bombings occurred, the question came up "What are we doing to prevent terrorist activity in DC?"  Again the recommendation has come up to increase the use of security cameras in order to deter varying levels of criminal activity, and again, the "issue" of privacy has resurfaced.  Let the games begin again.

*****

Please stop by "Stop the ACLU!" for their weekly Blogburst!

Show Comments »

Merri Must Rant

Okay, anyone reading my blog will know that I'm not a fan of the ACLU.  There just flat out is no need for an ACLU any more, particularly due to their extreme positions on the most basic things in life.  As a parent, and as a human being, I've just had it today.  My hubby pointed me to Little Green Footballs and three articles laden with ACLU bullshit.  You can read them here, here, and here.  I'm done, and the gloves are OFF.

I awoke today to yet another report of terrorist bombings in London.  I think everyone knows that it is very possible that similar acts of cowardice could take place here in the U.S. - it's only a matter of when.  So in an effort, undoubtedly, to deter such acts it is reasonable that security measures get stepped up.  The NYPD announced that they would do random searches of bags for those commuters on buses, railways and subways.  The ACLU is saying that this goes against the very basic principles of the constitution.  I have to wonder, what do the card-carrying members of the ACLU have to hide?  Are they worried that the NYPD might find their drug stash? (They've got to be high the way they act...that's the only thing that could explain it, right?)  I think that security measures will help lessen the threat of terrorist acts, even if it is only a little bit.  And just which side is the ACLU on anyway - the terrorists?

As the parent of a Cub Scout, I'm furious about the ACLU's fervored war against the Boy Scouts.  If the ACLU had their way, the Boy Scouts would 1) allow girls to join 2) would be ran, all the way down to the den leader level, by pedophiles 3) would not be able to teach the scouts morals, and would instead show child porn videos.  Yes, part of what a scout learns is related to "love of God," but look deeper into the lessons taught to these boys.  The difference between right and wrong, treating people with respect, doing your part in society - when did these lessons become dangerous?  Even a family who doesn't practice religion can find value here and these young boys grow into young men who can and do hold leadership roles in their communities.  Scouting has been well-established for years and years and no one has been harmed by allowing long standing relationships between the Scouts and military organizations (or other similar types of organizations).  The Jamboree has been held at Fort A.P. Hill for 25 years.  What the hell has happened in recent time that all of a sudden makes this relationship wrong, requiring the ACLU to sue to get it stopped?  Just because this event is sponsored there doesn't mean that the main reason they sponsor the event is because the Scouts have "God" in their oath.   

The ACLU's positions are extreme, they advocate the criminal far more than they advocate the victim.  They don't think an opinion or idea is "right" unless it is one they belive in.  They have managed to manipulate so many in order to realize their goals and objectives (if you even could call them that).  And when they start screwing with my son's organization, they've crossed the last proverbial line.  I realize we are in a country that affords us freedoms and these very freedoms allow this group to be in existance and have the agenda they do.  But when do *I* - normal, every day Amercian citizen Merri - get my voice heard?  I don't WANT child porn legalized, I don't WANT the ACLU to tell me what I can't do, or what my son can't do.  I don't want the ACLU telling others what is right for me and "representing" me.  They don't have a clue what is right for me - they haven't even bothered to ask me - and I'm not sure who they are representing, but it sure as hell *isn't* me.

I just had to get that off my chest.  And that is all.            

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - That Dastardly Roberts!

Seems as though I'm a bit tardy in posting about this, but I just can't help it.  In just one article, the ACLU confirmed my thoughts - that Judge John Roberts is an OUTSTANDING nomination for the Supreme Court.  Read on...

WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed deep concern about some of the civil liberties positions advocated by Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.  While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest.

"All these positions were rejected by the Supreme Court," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "But the Supreme Court remains closely divided on many of these questions."

So, if I'm reading this right, what the ACLU means is that the Supreme Court can have opinions and outcomes, only if those opinions and outcomes are sanctioned by the ACLU.

As a senior Justice Department official, Roberts was in a position to help shape the government's legal positions as well as represent them.

At a minimum, the Senate should determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts's personal views.

C'mon.  Roberts could support abortion, legalize child porn and create a National Hug Your Tree holiday and these liberals would STILL find something wrong with him.  This statement could be made about ANYONE on the Supreme Court past or present.  That's the beauty of justices being selected over the course of time and by different leadership in Washington - it brings a varied background, which helps to balance the court.

Judge John Roberts was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2003. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University and clerked for Justice Rehnquist. He served in a number of positions in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, including as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993.

"The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in advancing freedom," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."

"The stakes could not be higher," Romero added.

How right you are, Mr. Romero.

The ACLU will only oppose a Supreme Court nominee on a majority vote of its 83 person national board.

Why should we care what the ACLU's national board thinks?  First of all, it's 83 people - big whoop!  And NONE of those 83 people represent my thinking or my opinion (Ahem.  Can you say NAMbLA support or legalization of child porn?).  And there is nothing they can do about it should the nomination move ahead.  I thought the ACLU was supposed to support those people whose "rights" are being violated?  What rights has Roberts violated here?

***

Be sure to visit Stop the ACLU! and all of the participants in their weekly Blogburst!

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst

Please visit Stop the ACLU! for their weekly blogburst.  Learn about the many ways the ACLU is attempting to destroy America.

***

So the ACLU is "Dismayed at Lack of Reprimand For Top General" with regard to a government inquiry into interrogations conducted at Guantanamo Bay.

WASHINGTON - In anticipation of the release of a long-awaited government inquiry into the interrogation practices used by American personnel at Guantánamo Bay, the American Civil Liberties Union today said that the government broke the law and failed to hold the higher levels of the military accountable. The failure to reprimand the commanding general at Guantánamo was another demonstration of the military's inability to hold itself accountable.

The investigation was headed by Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt of the Air Force, and is expected to be delivered to the Senate Armed Services Committee at an open hearing today.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director:

"It is irrefutable that the government violated the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual.

I'm sorry, but it most certainly is *not* irrefutable.  According to the Geneva Conventions, "Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war."  When was the last time you saw a terrorist follow a chain of command, let alone one that was "well defined?" How many terrorists distinguish themselves from the civilian population?  They don't carry their arms openly and they sure as hell don't obey the laws of war.  Let's get back to ACLU henchman Anthony Romero (emphasis mine):

"...The report backs up claims by FBI agents that the government was breaking the rules at Guantánamo Bay. As before, low-ranking men and women will take the full blame while the higher ups get off scot-free. Despite General Schmidt's recommendation to reprimand the commander of Guantánamo Bay, General Geoffrey Miller, a higher-ranking general refused to punish General Miller. Once again, we have abuse without high-level accountability. That will only encourage impunity and allow the abuse to continue."

Not surprising, the ACLU fails to mention that the reason Gen. Bantz Craddock overruled the recommendation to reprimand Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller was because there was no finding that U.S. law or policy was violated.  Because of that, there is nothing for which to hold him accountable.

I think the ACLU has forgotten this (graphic images, but a good reminder of why we are in this war on terror).  Let's not forget that the terrorist is a terrorist, not a victim. 

Show Comments »

The ACLU Makes Me Crazy

One of their latest stunts?  Read on:

(07/06/05 -- KNIGHTDALE) — The ACLU says it's ready to go after Knightdale's crackdown on gang violence.

The civil rights group says the town's new teen curfew is violating teen's rights. They're hoping parents and teenagers who are tired of the new rules will go to a forum July 28 at 7 p.m. at the East Wake Regional Library.

"Something we'd like to look into is the timing restrictions, the lack of a First Amendment exception and the gathering of four or more minors together," said ACLU lawyer Shelagh Kenney.  

Knightdale police and community leaders say the month-old curfew is working. Officers say they've handed out only six warnings and no citations.

"We were having all kinds of calls," said Knightdale Town Councilman Mike Chalk. "We were having 15 or 20 calls a week, and we've only had six since the ordinance has been put in place."

Bwhahahahahahah - this is so ridiculous - right up the ACLU's alley.  I know the answer, but I have to ask the question:  When is the ACLU going to realize that it's frivilous crap such as this that just adds to their crackpot reputation?  I know, they never will - they don't get it.  I could talk forever and not run out of things to say about the ACLU's ineffectiveness and stupidity.  Which is okay - it keeps my little blog going. 

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! - Just Which Side Are They On, Anyway?

Five Muslim-Americans Detained In Iraq (emphasis mine)

WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) - The American military is holding five U.S. citizens, apparently including a Los Angeles filmmaker, among more than 10,000 detainees in Iraq on suspicion of possible terrorist or other criminal activity, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

All of the five are being held without charges or access to lawyers. Three have dual Iraqi citizenship, one dual Iranian citizenship and a fifth man, arrested late last year in Iraq, dual Jordanian citizenship. Of the four arrested this year, one was taken into custody in April, two in May and another in June.

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to identify the five. But the New York Times (of course!) on Wednesday identified one as Cyrus Kar, 44, an aspiring filmmaker from Los Angeles who was arrested in Iraq in May.

The newspaper said Kar, a naturalized American born in Iran who had enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1983, traveled to Iraq in mid-May to work on a documentary. He was arrested when he was stopped in a taxi in Baghdad by Iraqi security forces, who found what they suspected what might be bomb parts in the car. Whitman said they included “several dozen� washing machine timers.

Kar’s relatives told the New York Times that on June 14 an FBI agent, John D. Wilson, returned items seized on May 23 from Kar’s Los Angeles area apartment and assured them the FBI had found no reason to suspect Kar. “He’s cleared,� one of Kar’s aunts, Parvin Modarress, quoted Wilson as saying, the newspaper reported.

The Pentagon, however, remained tightlipped. “I’m not going to get into any detail,� Whitman said.“ What I will say is that one of these individuals was believed to have knowledge of planning associated with attacks on coalition forces. Another individual had in his possession possible IED (improvised explosive devices) components. One individual was possibly involved in kidnapping and another was engaged in what was described as ‘suspicious activities.’�

Ahem.  I would think that the reasons noted above would be more than adequate to detain these individuals.  Apparently the ACLU doesn't think so, at least for the, um, "aspiring filmmaker" Cyrus Kar:

Saying Kar is being held unjustly, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the government on Wednesday in an effort to secure his release.

It never fails to amaze me that this pedophile-worshipping, teen-abortion-exhaulting, "poor criminal" advocating group tends to align with the individual(s) who set out to cause harm.  Screw the victim's rights, screw the safety of our troops, screw the facts.  Sure, ACLU, let's release this guy.  While you're at it, why don't you ship him back to Iraq so he can continue on his "filmmaking trip?"  Oh, and why don't you just give him some timers to put in the trunk of his car?  Um, didn't anyone tell you that we are at war with terrorists?  If it looks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, if it is carrying bomb parts in the trunk...

Punta del capello to Little Green Footballs (and to my hubby for pointing this out to me!)

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - Grand Opening!

From Jay at Stop The ACLU!

I would like to welcome you all to the grand opening of our brand new site Stop The ACLU.com! Make sure to change your links. We are devoted to exposing the radical agenda of the most dangerous organization in America, the ACLU. We are the official blog of Stop The ACLU.Org and we will do our best to keep you informed of the anti-American activities of the ACLU and their socialist agenda for America.

In order to further expose the ACLU we want YOU to get involved with us. We do a weekly blogburst every Thursday. Go here to join us. We have over 80 sites that blog with us every Thursday on the evils of the ACLU. We will also be featuring a blogburst of the week from which a blogburst of the month will be chosen. The blogburst of the month will win free stuff from our Bulldoze The ACLU Store. Speaking of free stuff....

In celebration of the grand opening of our new site we are holding a contest today! Our friend Cao has been generous enough to sponsor today's Caption Contest. The winner will recieve one item of their choice from our Bulldoze The ACLU Store. Go to Stop The ACLU to join the contest.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. To join us go to our Protest The ACLU Portal and register. If you have any problems email me at Jay@Stoptheaclu.com. You will be added to our mailing list, and recieve further instruction from there. It is quite simple.

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - the American Flag

I'm a patriotic American.  I get choked up when I hear the national anthem.  The American flag is a symbol that represents our country and all we stand for - the red, white and blue.  The Stars and Stripes.  Whenever our country faces adversity or hardship, i.e. 9/11, what symbolizes our strength as a nation, our unwavering belief that we will prevail?  Our flag.  Old Glory.

The ACLU called the House's approval of the "Flag Desecration Amendment" a "loss for freedom and an unwarranted assault on the First Amendment."  I find it fascinating that the ACLU declares that there is growing, nationwide opposition to this Amendment.  I haven't talked to a soul that says "yeah, let's burn the flag...it's our right!  We don't like abortion, let's burn the flag.  We're mad that they ended Everybody Loves Raymond - let's burn the flag!" 

Terri Ann Schroeder, Senior Lobbyist with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office (aka Head Blahblah) said:

"Today's vote was a victory not for the flag, but for lawmakers seeking cheap political points. The flag is a symbol, and today's vote is an assault on the freedoms that it embodies. In a democracy, freedom means that we must tolerate all peaceful forms of expression, no matter how uncomfortable they make us feel, or how much we disagree. Lawmakers cannot silence individuals just because they don't agree with their message or how it is expressed."

Perhaps you may think I'm a bit too patriotic, but I find the burning of the flag far from "peaceful" and for me it borders close to violent.  To me, a "peaceful form of expression" would be signs, speeches, or human chains.  When I think of flag burning, I think of militant Islamofascist freaks who would not only like to burn said flag, but a few million Americans as well.

Do I believe in freedom of speech?  Absolutely.  But I don't believe in desecration of the flag - something that represents our country, our honor and the blood, sweat and tears shed by countless Americans defending the very right to fly such a beautiful flag.

Please stop by Stop the ACLU! for their weekly ACLU blog burst.  They'll keep you informed and - if you are like me - somewhat ticked off, too!

I am the Flag

by Ruth Appeasing Rois

I am the flag of the United States of America.

I was born on June 14, 1777, in Philadelphia.

There the Continental Congress adopted my stars and stripes as the national flag.

My thirteen stripes alternating red and white, with a union of thirteen white stars in a field of blue, represented a new constellation, a new nation dedicated to the personal and religious liberty of mankind.

Today fifty stars signal from my union, one for each of the fifty sovereign states in the greatest constitutional republic the world has ever known.

My colors symbolize the patriotic ideals and spiritual qualities of the citizens of my country.

My red stripes proclaim the fearless courage and integrity of American men and boys and the self-sacrifice and devotion of American mothers and daughters.

My white stripes stand for liberty and equality for all.

My blue is the blue of heaven, loyalty, and faith.

I represent these eternal principles: liberty, justice, and humanity.

I embody American freedom: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the press, and the sanctity of the home.

I typify that indomitable spirit of determination brought to my land by Christopher Columbus and by all my forefathers - the Pilgrims, Puritans, settlers at James town and Plymouth.

I am as old as my nation.

I am a living symbol of my nation's law: the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

I voice Abraham Lincoln's philosophy: "A government of the people, by the people,for the people."

I stand guard over my nation's schools, the seedbed of good citizenship and true patriotism.

I am displayed in every schoolroom throughout my nation; every schoolyard has a flag pole for my display.

Daily thousands upon thousands of boys and girls pledge their allegiance to me and my country.

I have my own law—Public Law 829, "The Flag Code" - which definitely states my correct use and display for all occasions and situations.

I have my special day, Flag Day. June 14 is set aside to honor my birth.

Americans, I am the sacred emblem of your country. I symbolize your birthright, your heritage of liberty purchased with blood and sorrow.

I am your title deed of freedom, which is yours to enjoy and hold in trust for posterity.

If you fail to keep this sacred trust inviolate, if I am nullified and destroyed, you and your children will become slaves to dictators and despots.

Eternal vigilance is your price of freedom.

As you see me silhouetted against the peaceful skies of my country, remind yourself that I am the flag of your country, that I stand for what you are - no more, no less.

Guard me well, lest your freedom perish from the earth.

Dedicate your lives to those principles for which I stand: "One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I was created in freedom. I made my first appearance in a battle for human liberty.

God grant that I may spend eternity in my "land of the free and the home of the brave" and that I shall ever be known as "Old Glory," the flag of the United States of America.

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - Teens and Abortion

From the ACLU's website:

BOISE, ID -- The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood Federation of America argued in court today that Idaho’s third attempt at enforcing a dangerous measure restricting teenagers’ access to abortion should be enjoined.

"The safety of Idaho’s most vulnerable teens should be our first concern," said Rebecca Poedy, President of Planned Parenthood of Idaho. "Putting politics before health care, the state persists in its efforts to enforce a law that would harm teenagers, especially those in need of emergency abortions."

How about putting life before death?  How about allowing parents to be responsible for their children versus enabling children to go behind their backs for medical procedures?  More from the ACLU's website:

The law in question prevents teens under 18 from having an abortion unless they receive the written consent of a parent or a court waiver of that requirement. Although slightly modified from two earlier versions already struck down by the courts, the law at issue in today’s case suffers from two flaws previously declared unconstitutional: It compromises the confidentiality of teens who need emergency abortions, and of teens seeking waiver of the parental consent requirement.

I'm sorry, but as a parent, I am responsible for my child's welfare until they are an adult - age 18.  If my child had a problem with their appendix, a physician and the hospital would require my consent for surgery.  While significant moral issues exist around abortion, let's take them out of the equation for a moment.  Abortion is a medical procedure.  Why should a parent not be allowed to give consent and be informed?  If a parent isn't allowed to know that their daughter went and got an abortion, how will they know to make sure she is okay?  How will they be able to respond effectively if something goes wrong medically? 

Okay, now I have to put the moral issues back into the equation.  I should be able to help my child work through life-altering events such as pregnancy - it is my obligation and responsibility as a parent to teach my children right from wrong, to share my beliefs and other life lessons and to help them weigh all sides when making decisions that will impact them the rest of their lives.  If I am not given an opportunity to know about a pregnancy, and my daughter elected to have an abortion, how can I possibly support her emotional needs and speak to the guilt that typically accompanies the decision to kill an unborn child?  Why am I, the parent of this minor, the excluded party here?  Should my daughter make the mistake of getting into the situation of an unplanned pregnancy, my involvement is invaluable - I have raised her and should know how to reach her and help her come to a decision on what to do next. 

There's more to "solving" an unplanned pregnancy than medical equipment.  I truly do not believe A-C-L-U spells Mom or Dad...or God, for that matter.

Please visit Stop the ACLU! and also visit other sites participating in the Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - you'll see rather quickly that the ACLU truly doesn't care about the welfare of children and minors - they only care about their sick, twisted agenda.

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst -

Anyone who reads through my site will conclude fairly quickly my lack of love for the ACLU.  As a matter of fact, I truly believe that the ACLU shakes the very foundations of the freedom I am afforded as an American.

There is a great article over at GOP USA I encourage you to read.  I think the author summarizes a number of my concerns up nicely.

For years the American Civil Liberties Union has pushed its agenda as to what the Constitution "really says," and what freedom "really means" through judicial extortion.

The ACLU's attorneys are akin to the old "ambulance chaser" adage...targeting particular hot bed situations and finding "the offended" who are willing to have the ACLU champion their cause. 

Many who have dared to stand up against the ACLU might have won the battle in the court room, but lost the war as their organizations were driven into bankruptcy under crushing legal bills.

I think the author, Justin Darr, is right on when he says:

However, in the last few years the tide has started to turn. Alternate civil liberties groups, such as The American Center for Law and Justice, conservative radio commentators, and even some in the media, have drawn attention to the ACLU's pattern of abuses, fanatic beliefs and outright hypocrisy. For the first time the ACLU is faced with legitimate public outcry over their tactics and slowly those who once would quietly give up their freedoms have been instilled with the will (and pro bono legal support) to fight. In addition, despite the efforts of obstructionist liberals in Congress, the court system is being given a much needed infusion of new judges who recognize that their interpretation of the Constitution should in some fashion be similar to those who wrote it. The ACLU understands its days of forcing Christianity, traditional values, and freedoms out of American public life are numbered.

The ACLU has changed their strategy, broadening the circle with their court cases by including leaders and private citizens who are leading causes against the ACLU.  The best known case of this is the ACLU's focus on Sean Hannity and his "crossing" of the US/Mexico border while interviewing Minutemen in Arizona.

...the ACLU, which led the good fight by trying to obstruct the Minutemen and goad them into conflicts while enabling the rampant invasion of illegals into our nation, decided this was an offense that could not be tolerated. Apparently upset at Hannity's drawing interest to the good work of the Minutemen, Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, under the auspices of the ACLU, demanded Hannity's arrest. 

This was not motivated due to a need to uphold immigration law.  This was "personal."  But as Darr writes, this is a larger issue than the ACLU just embarrassing Hannity.

It is indicative of a terrifying new trend from the ACLU where they are attempting to hold individual citizens legally liable for doing nothing more than thinking they are wrong. With large organizations starting to resist them, the ACLU must now found a new defenseless target unable to afford to fight them: private citizens.

There are several other cases Darr mentions that have recently presented illustrating this point:

• In Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, the ACLU has called for the arrest of school teachers and administrators because the ACLU does not feel they adequately exorcised all Judeo-Christian influences from their classrooms and cafeterias.
• In San Diego the ACLU is suing five local personalities, including Rush Limbaugh sub Roger Hedgecock, because they do not like the wording they have chosen to represent the "Arguments For" section of a local ballot initiative to save the Mt. Soledad Cross.
• In the Keystone School District in Clarion County, Pennsylvania, even after the school board caved into the demands of the Pittsburgh ACLU, the ACLU is still suing the district because they felt that some in the community still "hoped" that there would be a prayer offered at the high school graduation.

Hmmmm...isn't hope constitutional?  Last time I checked it was.

Obviously, the ACLU's approach is alarming, but I can tell you that slowly their "minions" are starting to lose faith, tearing up their membership cards.  An ACLU who supports criminals more than victims, protects child molesters more than the child, initiates ridiculous cases to remove Ten Commandment monuments from public land and shreds their own documents is not the ACLU most want to support, even the most liberal souls out there.  There are just some things (can you say NAMbLA?) that even the most liberal liberal will refuse to support.

Today is Stop the ACLU! blogburst day!  Please head over to Stop the ACLU! and offer up your support.  There are many involved who continue to fight the good fight and you will find substantial information about the ACLU with just one stop!

Show Comments »

The ACLU - a Sexual Predator's Best Friend!

President of the Lower Chichester Board of Commissioners Rocco Gaspari Jr. believes sex offenders have the right to settle down and begin a new life, just not near the schools and playgrounds in the township where he lives.

So Gaspari and his fellow commissioners have asked township solicitor Frank Sbandi to draft an ordinance that prohibits sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of a school, playground or other places children congregate in Lower Chi.

As could be expected, the ACLU has strong words for such an idea.

"This is great legislation, if we’re trying to create a leper colony," said Larry Frankel, executive director of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the ACLU.

But a constitutional expert with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said it was "a close call" whether such an ordinance would hold up in court.

The courts will have a lot to decide on this issue. Hamilton, N.J., passed a law that, in effect, bars convicted sex offenders from its town. The same is true of two cities in Florida. Weston will consider a new law this summer, which virtually makes the entire town off-limits to convicted sex offenders. In Pembroke Pines, the law allows certain areas to remain open for sex offenders to live, but the residents of those communities are storming city hall -- they want to be off limits, too.

Towns in New York and Massachusetts are considering their own limits on where sex offenders may live within their communities.

A Megan’s Law Web site, initiated by the Pennsylvania State Police in January, contains details about 6,981 sex offenders in Pennsylvania, including 13 who live or work in the Linwood/Boothwyn area. At http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/, interested Internet searchers can discover an offender’s name and photo, the type of offense committed, the date of conviction, year of birth, current residence and current employer.

But Lower Chi has decided to try to take the information one step further. While no one wants to close the door on giving convicted criminals a chance at rehabilitating their lives, no one wants a pedophile next door to an elementary school, either. It just doesn’t make sense.

Whether the courts agree with Linwood or the other towns trying to keep sexual offenders away from the children in their area, only time will tell. But someone in this state needed to step up with communities in other states to test the limits of the law.

Linwood is taking a chance, a worthwhile chance. They may not succeed, but that hasn’t ever stopped this town from trying out ordinances or procedures some critics said would never fly.

Obivously there are some well educated leaders in Linwood.  More towns and cities should follow their lead.  It has been demonstrated time and time again how infrequent sex offenders are rehabilitated (I would go so far to say that the only "rehabilitated" ones are the ones still in jail, away from victims).  Allow a sex offender next to a school and it is like putting a drug addict in front of a meth lab.  It's irresponsible and dangerous - just like the ACLU.

Update:  It's Stop the ACLU! Blogburst Day.  Please stop by their site and offer your support.

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst

It's that time of week again - time to ponder what the ACLU has its hand in today and what it plans to have its hand in tomorrow. 

Normally, I spend quite a bit of time writing a nice article, or I borrow Jay's weekly blogburst information and post it here.  However, there are two articles on Stop the ACLU! that I encourage you to read, so I'm choosing to refer you there. 

One discussion involves the ACLU's involvement in abortion "rights."  As a society, we are so worried about the rights of the person in the "right now" - so much that a law was passed to legalize abortion, to me known as the murdering of innocent babies.  The ACLU is involved in this due to the lucritive financial opportunities presented.  Sure, they go off on their tangents and support organizations such as NAMBLA, or prisoners who are being "mistreated" (shoot, they get better treatment than innocent babies), but the financial opportunities aren't as prevalent there.  This article on Jay's site has some great debate going on so I urge you to take a peek!

Also, please don't forget to check out the Blogburst post - this ties nicely into the aforementioned post - selective civil rights.  While it's stated that "everyone" has a right to speak their mind, have peaceful protest, etc., when it comes to pro-life, the ACLU is reluctant to support those pro-life protesters. 

"To the ACLU, anti-abortion protesters are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60's, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom.

I'm so tired of the double-standard and tired of being put down for my beliefs - if a person speaks of pro-choice, it is a "right."  If a person speaks of pro-life, they are imposing their religious beliefs.  I could care less if anyone has the same religious beliefs as me, as a matter of fact, my religious beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to how I feel about abortion. 

As a woman, I know what I need to do to prevent pregnancy.  That's my responsibility and my obligation if I do not want a child.  Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control and if I become pregnant after being careless, I shouldn't kill my baby because of my own stupidity.  If I don't want my child, there are others out in this world who are incapable of bearing a child, but have a heartful of love to give.  My father was adopted and I know quite a number of others who are adopted as well, and greatful that they didn't end up as "medical waste" following an arranged murder by their own mother. 

I would add that it is completely unfair that a man does not have the right to be involved with what happens to HIS child.  The baby didn't arrive in the woman's womb due to some fluke - he is as responsible as she is and should have the right to say that he wants her to carry the child to term so he can raise the child.  He should also have the right to say that he doesn't want his baby killed and would like him or her adopted by a caring family.  Does the ACLU step up for these dads?  Absolutely not. 

Show Comments »

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst

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.

Prostitution is private? But isn't the prostitute engaging in business, isn't she providing a service? Would we not regulate and license a business? You wouldn't want a general contractor to work on your house without a license would you? That would be unsafe as is an unregulated prostitute.

However, the ACLU doesn't believe in that philosophy. The question of privacy comes in if the government is allowed to regulate the oldest profession.

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

Privacy applies to two consenting adults when no contract is involved; a date with no expectation of performance is a far cry from paying for a service.

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 of disease.

The more I learn about the ACLU, the more I am convinced that they want to establish a new society based on everything immoral. They are blinded by their elitist ideology to the point they can't even conceive of the possible consequences that will result if they are enacted. The scary thing is that they hold so much power, and lack so much responsibility. They must be stopped.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU Freedom Of Thought Mad Tech Respublica The Wide Awakes Angry Republican Mom Kender's Musings American Patriots What Attitude Problem? Life Trek Gribbit's Word Def Conservative An American Housewife A Tic In The Mind's Eye Cao's Blog Regular Ron Freedom Of Is This Life? Patriots For Bush California Conservative 4 Truth NIF Obiter Dictum PBS Watch Xtreme Right Wing Daily Inklings Miss Patriot Jack Lewis.net Conservative Dialysis Conservative Angst Kill Righty American Warmonger Birth Of A Neo-Con The Nose On Your Face The View From Firehouse Ogre's View Fundamentally right Conservative Rant My Political Soap Box Common Sense Runs Wild Redstate Rant Time Hath Found Us American Dinosaur Merri Musings And Rightly So Sweet Spirits of Ammonia Smithereen's Files Pulpit Pounder Ravings of J.C.B. Is It Just Me? Blogtalker Parrot Check Stuff You Should Know Rancher Blog Christmas Ghost Vista On Current Events

Cross Posted at Stop the ACLU!

Show Comments »

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.

Show Comments »

Stopping the ACLU's Appetite for Destroying Religious Freedom

Jay over at Stop the ACLU! has an article outlining the action Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., is taking to "curb the ACLU's appetite for filing suits targeting religion in the public square by introducing a bill that denies plaintiff attorneys the right to collect attorneys fees in such cases."

Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., is expected to file his measure next week to amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorneys fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings.

Please check out Jay's post over here.

Show Comments »

"...one nation, under the ACLU..."

I'm a parent of a child in grade school.  My child gets inundated with liberal messages all the time.  His school has "guidance meetings" and has a program geared at helping kids "cope" in society.  His school has a liberal nut case teacher who has bumper stickers that no grade-school child needs to see every day on the way into the building. 

Right now, as it stands, my son's class says the Pledge of Allegiance each and every day.  And each day I wonder, when is the ACLU going to get its wish and alter the Pledge forever?  Two little words that make anyone who favors the ACLU seethe with anger.  UNDER GOD.

The ACLU argues that having those words in the Pledge is a violation of the First Amendment of which a portion reads:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." 

I find it amazing that anyone would believe that two words in a pledge would be forcing an establishment of religion.  I find it equally unreal that our society has "evolved" to the state that it is in today. 

When I was growing up and in school (and no, it wasn't that long ago!) we had kids in our class who were not part of a religion that believed in God and also had kids whose families were athiest.  I clearly remember these kids standing with their class and saying the Pledge of Allegiance with the exception of those two words "UNDER GOD."  Did they get in trouble?  NO.  Did lightening come down from the sky and strike them down?  NO.  Did anyone question their patriotism and love of country?  NO!  And life went on every day.  I don't remember these kids complaining that because they stated the pledge they were now forced into religion.  THEY HAD A CHOICE.

For me, the first amendment was written to protect people on both ends of the spectrum - those who do not have religious beliefs and those who wish to practice their religious beliefs.  The ACLU's actions do not support those of us who are religious and wish to express our beliefs.  Instead, their actions will only prove to require us to someday practice our beliefs in whispers behind closed doors unless their runaway train is stopped.  Yet this gang of thugs is willing to sing praises for the murdering of babies, the right to kill people who are not in a position to articulate their wishes, and the right to treat criminals better than the victims.   

I was doing a little research on the internet and came across a contest that the Northern California ACLU puts on for junior high and senior high students.  I find the winning entries (mind you judged by "qualified educators" and approvals to ask teachers for advice, etc.) to be very ACLU-ease, and admittedly a bit frightening.  It is readily apparent that their teachers and/or parents carry the ACLU torch.  I also find it interesting that this not-for-profit (i.e. very budget conscious??  HA!) organization was able to award $1200 in prize money for their 2004 artist and essay contest.  It seems as those they are starting to develop their minions at a young age.  I encourage you to take a look at the essays and art and spend some time with your kids and educate them on what this country is REALLY founded on.  I sure am!

Show Comments »