Enough was enough. Dismayed by years of the erosion of liberty through activist courts in1993, thirty-five leaders of various Christian ministries came together to discuss the growing legal threats to religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) was born. ADF’s purpose was to develop sufficient means to win - through training, strategy, coordination, and funding to support litigation. In just eleven short years, ADF has trained over 850 allied attorneys, 405 law students, and provided funding for over 1,500 cases, including twenty-six victories at the Unites States Supreme Court.

In December 2003, I appeared on the O’Reilly Factor to discuss the ACLU’s legal attacks on the public celebration of Christmas. During that interview, Bill O’Reilly asked, tongue in cheek: “Isn’t the ACLU an organization that started out with good beginnings, but has just gotten off track over the past decade?” There was no way to answer it in a 25-30 second sound bite. Craig Osten (my-co-author) and I pondered O’Reilly’s question and realized that most Americans believe this myth that the ACLU had good roots. We knew that the truth had to be told: that the ACLU had a completely different agenda for America right from the start, an agenda that sought to legally undermine every American institution in order to reshape our nation as the ACLU and its founders saw fit.

Baldwin fastidiously claimed he was not a communist, and in fact, purged the ACLU board members who actually belonged to the party when Stalin and Hitler linked arms in 1939. Despite this, Baldwin had repeatedly expressed admiration for the Soviets and had many communist and socialist allies. In an interview a few years before his death, ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin said to Peggy Lamson (a former ACLU board member): “The Communists say, we don’t care what the majority says, this minority is right, and if we can impose our will on the majority, we will do so.” This type of self-image sums up the modern-day ACLU, which has demonstrated, time and time again, blatant disregard for the will of the people and the democratic process. For example, the ACLU has filed or supported lawsuit after lawsuit to either block public votes on constitutional amendments affirming traditional marriage, or to overturn the results (which have yet to be in the ACLU’s favor). When Alaskan voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1998 affirming marriage as between one man and one woman, the ACLU’s former executive director said: “Today’s results prove that certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority vote.”

There are several examples. The files at the U.S. Supreme Court are a good starting point. In 1983, the ACLU submitted a friend of the court brief in the case of New York v. Ferber, arguing that the distribution of child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU Policy Guide states: “The ACLU believes that the First Amendment protects the dissemination of all forms of communication. The ACLU opposes on First Amendment grounds, laws that restrict the production and distribution of any printed and visual materials even when some of the producers of those materials are punishable under criminal law.” (i.e. child pornography). In the mid-1980s, when I serving as the Director of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, the then-legislative counsel of the ACLU testified that it was the ACLU’s position that once child pornography was produced, there should be no government restriction on its sale and distribution. 5. Recently a judge in California ruled that the Mt. Soledad cross was unconstitutional despite the majority of San Diego voters supported keeping the cross. What are your thoughts on judicial activism in America today? Should judges be using international law in interpreting the Constitution?

In his biography by Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin said: “I placed my faith in the courts…” What he meant by that was that he knew the ACLU could not achieve its aims through state and federal legislatures or by taking their case to the people. He knew that the courts would be the most useful method of imposing the ACLU’s agenda on the people. The outgrowth of that strategy is the judicial activism we see today, where the ACLU and its allies are using the courts to deny the expressed will of the people and to impose new laws via judicial fiat. In the Mt. Soledad case, the ACLU attorney James McElroy expressed his disdain for the majority when he said after the vote: "It still doesn't mean a damn thing. Voters should have never voted on it." ADF believes that judges should interpret the Constitution as written and consistent with its original meaning. It is not an “evolving document” with emanations from penumbras as judicial activists’ state. As far as international law, this is just another example of how the ACLU has tried to change the rules to get their way. They came to the realization that the Constitution can only be stretched in so many ways, that they are eventually going to reach a limit with how far they can advance their agenda with domestic laws and courts alone! I think Chief Justice John Roberts said it quite eloquently during his confirmation hearing when asked about international law. He said: “Looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. Foreign law, you can find anything you want. If you don't find it in the decisions of France or Italy, it's in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia or wherever." He went on to state that international law was a misuse of legal precedent and we would wholeheartedly agree. Nevertheless, the ACLU, along with its former counsel Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have been the biggest proponents of using international law as precedent to undermine our national sovereignty, which millions have sacrificed and died to defend and preserve.

The biggest threat to liberty today is the agenda of advocates of homosexual behavior, which Craig Osten and I detail in our previous book, The Homosexual Agenda: The Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. The ACLU has helped develop much of this agenda and has worked very closely with these advocates. The ultimate goal of many homosexual activists is to progressively silence and punish any dissenting viewpoints when it comes to homosexual behavior. In places such as Sweden and Canada, people with sincere religious objections to homosexual behavior are facing fines, loss of employment, and even imprisonment for expressing their views. How can we counter this? First of all, we can show up. When ADF and its allies have shown up against legal advocates of homosexual behavior in the courtroom, with the training, strategy, and coordination to win, we’ve been successful in defeating the agenda of homosexual advocates, including same-sex “marriage.” Secondly, it will take resources. The ACLU and its allies, including radical advocates of homosexual behavior, have tremendous financial resources at their disposal. The ACLU Foundation has $175 million in assets. The Gill Foundation, whose mission is to push the homosexual agenda, has spent millions of dollars to achieve its aims. The Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and Defense and Education Fund, and Planned Parenthood, all have massive amounts of funds, including millions from corporate America, to spend. Thirdly, Americans need to become educated on the threats to liberty, and that is why we wrote the ACLU book, as well as our previous book on the homosexual agenda, to awaken the majority of Americans who still respect the values of life, liberty, and family that made our nation great.

It’s not a public company and is controlled by a private board. It’s tough to “reform” an organization that had a very different agenda for America right from the beginning. In addition, they have had eighty years to build the legal precedents that they have used to advance their agenda, and even if the ACLU went out of existence today, those precedents would still be in place. Therefore, it is going to take a long-term, strategic effort to reverse those legal precedents, and put new ones in place that affirm religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage and the family.

ADF has a four-fold plan to fight and eventually defeat the ACLU. That plan is training, coordination, funding, and direct litigation. Our goals include training at least 5,000 allied attorneys over the next ten years to take on the ACLU and its allies and building an in-house attorney mentoring program - to train and equip the next generation of attorneys. But you train all the attorneys you want, and if they do not have a coordinated plan of action, it is not going to make much of a difference. That is why ADF focuses on strategic coordination to make sure that we are working in unity towards a common goal of reversing the legal damage inflicted by the ACLU and its allies on our nation, rather than working against each other. Thirdly, we make sure that when our allied attorneys show up in court to take on the ACLU, that they have the necessary financial resources to win. ADF has funded over 1,500 grants for legal cases and projects in just eleven years. Finally, ADF wants to grow litigators, lawyers on our staff who are actively involved in defending religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

We talk about the need to reform this in our book, as it has become a financial cash cow for the ACLU and one of their weapons in their campaign of fear, intimidation, and disinformation to force public officials to bow to their agenda. While ADF does not delve into legislative issues, we hope this effort by the congressman passes to fix this loophole which the ACLU has exploited for years to bully towns and municipalities into compliance.

ADF is thankful for any efforts that raise awareness of the ACLU’s dangerous agenda for America and encourages citizens to get involved in combating it. I believe that the American people are increasingly rejecting the ACLU’s agenda as more and more of it is brought into the light. Keep on doing what you are doing, highlighting the ACLU’s most recent outrageous statements and positions, and I am sure your efforts will be successful.

10/24/2005 09:33:00 PM|W|P|loboinok|W|P|Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

WASHINGTON — At least 21 detainees who died while being held in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed, many during or after interrogations, according to an analysis of Defense Department data by the American Civil Liberties Union. The analysis, released Monday, looked at 44 deaths described in records obtained by the ACLU. Of those, the group characterized 21 as homicides, and said at least eight resulted from abusive techniques by military or intelligence officers, such as strangulation or "blunt force injuries," as noted in the autopsy reports.FOX

Notice the leap to calling these deaths homicides. The ACLU bases these allegations on what? Their own word? They cherry picked 21 deaths from 44, and slapped them with the label of homicide. What I want to know is how this is any of the ACLU's business anyway, and who is funding this attack on the military. We've all seen the photos at Abu Ghraib, and investigations were put into place. War is ugly, and you can be sure the ACLU, who feel the need to stick its nose in foreign affairs of war, will not be going after any of the killers that sawed off the heads of American contractors, or burned them alive! No, these are the ones the ACLU have decided to defend. How American of them. One of these many, many, 21 deaths is even being disputed by his very own father.

Wahid, 28, was taken from his home by Afghan militia and accused of being a terrorist. The autopsy report said he died in American custody, though his father has blamed the militiamen.

I'm sure there are many other details in the other 20 cases that the ACLU failed to report, instead preferring to paint a picture of the American military as ruthless murderers. Other than anti-American propaganda, I really can't think of any reason the public needs to know about these things. The military have done their own investigations, and dealt out justice.

Details about the detainee abuse and deaths have been released by the Pentagon as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Many of the incidents have been made public previously, and in a number of cases soldiers and officers involved have been prosecuted and punished. "The U.S. military does not tolerate mistreatment of detainees," said Army spokesman Col. Joseph Curtin. "Past cases have been fully investigated. When there is credible evidence, commanders have the prerogative to prosecute." To date, there have been more than 400 investigations of detainee abuse, and more than 230 military personnel have received a court-martial, nonjudicial punishment or other administrative action.

But the ACLU don't need "credible evidence", they have concluded all on their own authority that these poor terrorists were murdered. All 21 of them without doubt.

"There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU's executive director. "High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable."

Oh, now I see! The ACLU are not concerned with soldiers who go overboard. They are concerned about "high ranking officials." They are concerned about our torture "policies." You've got to be kidding ACLU! Credible evidence missing: 1) An endorsed policy of torture. Can we please see this policy, or is the ACLU making this up out of whole cloth? 2) High ranking officials knowing about these things and sitting on their hands. Can we please see this evidence presented ACLU? 3) The 21 alleged instances of homicide, at least one of which is being openly disputed by the father of the alleged victim, somebody you wouldn’t exactly expect to be covering for the perpetrators. In my opinion, the ACLU is full of allegations and empty on evidence. The whole rhetoric of this being some sort of conspiracy in the government being covered up by some mysterious "high ranking officials" is complete paranoia! If anyone were trying to cover this up, the DOD would have never released the information to the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the military have been going out of their way to prosecute anybody suspected of misbehaving. The question stands: Where is the money for this activity coming from? Well, we know where its not coming from!|W|P|113021484364495373|W|P|ACLU Accuses Military of Murder|W|P|loboinok@gmail.com10/19/2005 10:24:00 PM|W|P|loboinok|W|P| We've got a double treat for you today folks! Nedd Kareiva, founder of our parent site Stoptheaclu.org will be on the radio! But first we'll be having a live stream of Alan Sears, the president of the Alliance Defense Fund debating Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State. Alan Sears will be on Barry Lynn's radio show Culture Shocks from 5 to 6pm Eastern Time, 2 to 3pm Pacific time. He will be discussing issues such as the the ACLU's policy to legalize child porn, their defense of sexual predators, and their positions on sick organizations like NAMBLA. If you haven't heard of Alan Sears take a look at The Alliance Defense Fund's website. They are one of the biggest forces out there fighting the evils of the ACLU. You can also check out his interview with Bill O'Reilly, or his interview with Frontpage magazine. If you want to listen, tune in from 5 to 6pm Eastern Time, 2 to 3pm Pacific using KCAA's live MP3 feed. Choose between the free iTunes or Winamp players to listen. If you want to talk to call in live on Culture Shocks, call them at 1-800-259-9231. Don't forget to mention Stop The ACLU.COM! You can also hear Culture Shocks weekdays on your radio station, including KCAA 1050AM in the Los Angeles area, WCBR in Tennessee, KGGM in Louisiana, WASN in Youngstown Ohio and Newcastle, PA, and WARL in Providence RI. I wouldn't encourage listening to this guy's station everyday, but definitley tune in today. I'm thinking Alan will rip him apart. And now, for the good news about our movement!!! I put this last because it will be later in the night, but our own Nedd Kareiva of Stop The ACLU.Org will be on WRWL Radio with Pastor Ernie Sanders to discuss the ACLU and our plans to cripple them. Pastor Sanders has the longest running radio show in Ohio (28 years per his site), has been in court with the ACLU over 20 times and not paid one dime to them. He fiercely opposes the ACLU's agenda and he is looking forward to speaking with him. He will be taking your calls so let's show Ohio and America we mean business against the ACLU. He will be on as long as they wish. He will mention the blog, so everyone try to call in and talk to Nedd. TOLL FREE ACROSS AMERICA: (888) 677-9673, LOCAL: (216) 901-0933 LISTEN: Via Crusader Radio live Internet feed or WRWL stations at its home page. SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER'S FUNDING OF THE ACLU We are trying to raise money for an ad in the Washington Times. We need to raise $2500.00! We're half way there with a little over $1,300.00! Please Consider A Donation Or Buy a bumper sticker from our store! This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. 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. Crossposted at Stop The ACLU|W|P|112978586287901401|W|P|Stop The ACLU Radio|W|P|loboinok@gmail.com10/11/2005 09:04:00 PM|W|P|loboinok|W|P|A Huge Thank you to Ian at The Political Teen for recording the video for me. Real Teen has atranscript from Monday night's show on the same topic. Click on pic, it will take you to The Political Teens Video of the Interview. Last night we reported on how a judge ruled that an Oregan law banning live sex acts was unconstitutional. We made a point that it was in essense the legalization of prostitution. We stated that as far as we knew that the ACLU was not involved. Watching the O'Reilly Factor tonight, I learned different. The ACLU filed a brief in favor of banning this law. Its not suprising in the least. The ACLU is in favor of fully legalized, unregulated prostitution across the board. Many libertarians agree that prostitution should be legal, and many think it should be left to the people of each state to decide. But where the ACLU gets radical is that it would place no limits on it whatsoever. The ACLU's Policy 211 is straightforward. "The ACLU supports the decriminalization of prostitution and opposes state regulation of prostitution". They base their argument on several points, including that existing laws are discrimination against women, and the right of individual privacy. They argue that what two consenting adults in private do is their own business. However, when you also oppose zoning laws, and regulation you can hardly argue that prostitution is a private business. As for it being a privacy issue, it seems a contradiction to me when they also state that the "public" solicitation of prostitution is "entitled to the protection of the First Amendment". "It's not just the bedroom that the ACLU wishes to make off-limits to public censure, but also the local street corner, presumably even if that corner is regularly used by school children crossing the street." Source They don't belive in zoning laws, and do believe in fully legalalized, and unregulated prostitution. So there wouldn't be any law that could keep a prostitution house from being a certain distance from your neighborhood, your Church, or your child's preschool. This is especially disturbing when they think child pornography distribution and possession should be legal.

"Students of liberty, from John Stuart Mill to Thomas Emerson, have all intentionally excluded children from their formula for freedom. The ACLU does not. Not even when the subject is pornography.Quote from Twilight Of Liberty

In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography." The case is...: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 It can be found here.

The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit." The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be " a gross violation of privacy."Quotes from Twilight Of Liberty

I don't think that any other ACLU stance evokes more anger from me, than this one. I mean, how sick can you get? Do these people not have a conscience at all, or are they just plain EVIL? How can one argue this sick, twisted view in the name of "protecting civil liberties?" Please, some liberal out there that loves defending this evil organization...explain this to us.

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

As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers' ages was impermissible. "If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or Star Wars," he said, "there can be no such requirement for Hustler or Debbie Does Dallas."Quoted Reference

Is the ACLU completely retarded? I would love to think there was some kind of saving grace for an organization that says it is about protecting civil liberties, but with positions like this...which you KNOW are against the will of the people, I don't know if there is. My head is about to explode just typing this stuff! Let's take a deeper look at the industry that the ACLU wants to defend here. "It would be a mistake to think that all the children who are being exploited sexually are kidnapped by "kid porn" operators. Many of the children are being sold to people by their parents. In some cases, the parents have agreed to perform incest with their children. Gonorrhea of the throat in infants as young as nine and eighteen months has been reported". source This is as sick as it gets folks. But the ACLU believes it is a freedom being denied to people. And before liberals start to ask. Yes, the ACLU has a current policy advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession. Yes, the ACLU still currently defends pedophile organization's.

"Mere possession should not be a crime," said John Roberts, executive director of the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union." Quoted Reference

O'Reilly made a great point in his interview with Alan Sears tonight that while they support these radical positions under the freedom of expression banner that they oppose other forms of expressions like maintaining the border, or celebrating Jesus. The founding fathers did not write the Constitution with Live sex shows in mind. The ACLU continually usurps the will of the people. He goes on to say, this isn't democracy, this is judicial facism, and its also a joke. He says in his talking points that the 400,000 members of the ACLU need to wake up and smell the totaltarianism. This organization is about undermining freedom, not protecting it. So why do they have 400,000 supporters? Alan Sears states in the interview that he doesn't think their supporters, or even some of their lawyers know just how radical their organization is. He states that he has debated many of their lawyers that are shocked when he reveals some of their radical positions. He talks about former ACLU lawyers that woke up and smelled the coffee. We also had that privaledge. Check out our interview with a former ACLU lawyer, Mr. Reese Lloyd. The truth is this organization wants to turn America into a different country. One where laws are set aside in favor of unbridled chaos. One vastly different than what our founders intended. One along the lines of their founder when he stated...

"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

In today's times of judicial activism, the ACLU is winning in its goals. Please help us fight this evil organization before its too late for America. We are trying to get an ad in the Washington Times. It will cost us $2500.00. We are half way there with 1,270.00. Please consider a donation.|W|P|112908995666278626|W|P|ACLU Perverting The Constitution|W|P|loboinok@gmail.com10/05/2005 09:09:00 PM|W|P|loboinok|W|P|Yesterday, the new session of the Supreme Court opened with the controversial topic of assisted suicide. The legal debate is over States rights, but for America the real debate is a moral one. The "death with dignity" crowd plea that someone who is terminal and suffering should be allowed to die in a less painful way. There may be many of you that agree, but I think this opens the pandoras box. Once we hand over power to the medical community to determine who is fit to live, we open the door for some Dr. Death type zealot to step in. Many doctors feel if they were compelled by the State to comply with the wishes of a patient to help them die, it would be a violation of their hypocratic oath. North American Patriot points out from an article in the Scientific American Of the 34 euthanasia cases, Ogden found that half were botched and ultimately resulted in increased suffering. This is where the moral line gets drawn. "The ACLU recognizes the right of a patient to euthanasia..."--ACLU Policy Guide of 1986. They have also went to the defense of many in assisted suicide cases, and other "right to die" cases See here. In 1988 the ACLU supported a proposal in Michigan that would allow a panel of physicians to determine whether a person is terminally ill and mentally competent to choose to have a physician-assisted death. These were all voluntary cases involving terminally ill people, so what is the problem? The problem is a moral one, and another case for the slippery slope argument. It is based on the intentions of our founders. The ACLU attempts to promote euthanasia and assisted suicide in the guise of "the right to privacy". Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not private acts. Instead, they involve one person participating directly in the death of another. This is a matter of public concern since it can lead to significant abuse, exploitation and degradation of care for some of the most vulnerable people among us. Oregon, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only places in the world where laws specifically allow euthanasia or assisted suicide. Oregon permits assisted suicide. The Netherlands and Belgium allow both euthanasia and assisted suicide. We can learn some important lessons of such concepts from history: "In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled. Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry. The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged "the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."Source Could this happen in America? I fear we have opened a door that could very well push us in that direction. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this law, many other states could follow suit. First its voluntary, then we get into the issue of guardianship, which can lead to sick babies, deformed babies, etc... Many of you will not like what I have got to say, but here it is...I'm gonna go evangelical on you; an individual has no right to take their own life. It is important to understand this. Allow me explain. The opening refrain of the Declaration of Independence provides the necessity of an absolute standard upon which the rule of law must be based: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;..." Declaration of Independence First of all, and most importantly, notice who the founders believed endowed us our rights. Then notice that while the right of life was granted, there is no right to choose your death. Thomas Jefferson said, "the chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that, and you have abandoned all." Abraham Lincoln was faced with the same issue when he questioned the institution of slavery. He said,"I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon priciple, and making exceptions to it, where it will stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?" The individual is granted the gift of life by God. Who has the right to take it away? A legal guardian? A Court? In my opinion, the only one who has the right to take away life is the Creator who granted it. If you put that right into the hands of the individual, a panel of doctors, a legal guardian, or the judicial system, you have given up that right. God grants our rights, not the State. If the State granted rights it could take them away, and that is where the danger lies. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, they are about changing public policy so that doctors or others can directly end or be involved in ending another person’s life. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about the right to die. They are about the right to kill. Life is not the gift of the State. To give consent to the State to be involved in the taking of human life is to grant a right to the State that does not belong to it, a license to kill. It allows the State to exercise a "right" over something that was not the State's to give in the first place. For human life belongs to God's realm, not the government's. In order to protect any rights we must protect all rights, beginning with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our best hope for civil liberties protection is not the ACLU, but to return to the rule of law based on the inalienable right to life endowed to all men by their Creator. The rule of law intended by our founders. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal. You will be added to our maling list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.|W|P|112857180482353200|W|P|ACLU's Euthanasia|W|P|loboinok@gmail.com