Stop The ACLU

Alert: Contact Your House Representatives Now To Pass Public Expression Of Religion Act

2006-09-26T08:57:00.000-07:00

S 3696 (PERA), sponsored by Sen. Brownback (R-Kan), a companion bill to H.R. 2679 (PERA), sponsored by Rep. Hostetter (R-Ind.), would amend all relevant federal laws to eliminate the authority of judges to award taxpayer-paid attorney fees to the ACLU, or anyone else, in lawsuits under the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment against veterans memorials, the Boy Scouts, or the public display of the Ten Commandments of other symbols of America’s history with a religious aspect.

This legislation will stop your taxes from paying the ACLU to attack our Christian heritage and symbols. Act now before it is too late. It will be voted on today in the House.

NRB has learned that PERA, the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679) introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), is expected to be considered for a floor vote in the House, tomorrow, Tuesday, September 26th. This critical legislation, which has been supported by NRB, would protect our government agencies and their civil servants from having to pay huge attorneys fees awards to groups like the ACLU when they sue over references to God and religion in public settings. WHAT YOU CAN DO: Urge your listeners and viewers to contact their representatives in Congress and urge him/her to “vote for H.R. 2679, Public Expression in Religion Act of 2005, also known as PERA.” CONSIDER THIS: This legislation would avoid the outrageous funding (through taxpayer dollars) of the ACLU, atheist organizations, and others who want to strip acknowledgements of God from the public square, and for that reason this bill is a major plus. But more than that, it would also force more of these cases to face the bright sunlight of a court of law, rather than the present situation of government officials being intimidated into capitulating through private settlements with these radical secularist law groups for fear of facing mammoth attorneys fee awards if they lose at trial. WHY THE TIMING IS CRITICAL: PERA will be brought to the House Floor on the very challenging “suspension calendar,” which means that debate is limited, it is possible that amendments may be restricted, and the bill must pass with a 2/3-majority. Therefore it is critical that your audience contact Capitol Hill today!

I have already recieved a letter from my Representative and have been assured of his vote. I contacted him on the day the bill was approved by the House Committee on the Judiciary, so I got an old form letter. Nevertheless it was assuring. Find your Representative here.

Supporters of A.C.L.U. Call for the Ouster of Its Leaders

2006-09-26T08:54:00.000-07:00

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU.Com: Wow! This is quite interesting, especially since Stoptheaclu.com made the NY Times! NY Times:

More than 30 longtime supporters of the American Civil Liberties Union are calling for the ouster of the organization’s leadership, saying it has failed to adhere to the principles it demands of others and thus jeopardized the organization’s effectiveness. The new group is made up of donors, former board and staff members, and the lawyer who won what was perhaps the A.C.L.U.’s most famous legal battle, its defense of the right of Nazis to march through a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago. “We come together now, reluctantly but resolutely, not to injure the A.C.L.U. but to restore its integrity and its consistency of principle,’’ the group said in a mission statement to be posted on its Web site, www.savetheaclu.org, which is to go live on Tuesday. The statement does not name individual officials that the group wants to see removed, but in the past, criticism has been focused on Anthony D. Romero, the executive director, and Nadine Strossen, the board president, as well as members of the executive committee. The Web site, which was first reported in The New York Sun in June, initially will feature letters from members and donors who have joined the effort, lists of articles about the A.C.L.U. and ways for readers to join the effort. “It’s a home for A.C.L.U. loyalists who have been shut out of the organization,” said Ira Glasser, who was executive director of the organization from 1978 to 2001 and has signed the statement. Mr. Glasser emphasized that the group, conceived by Alan Kahn, a retired Wall Street executive and longtime A.C.L.U. member, was an informal one. “We’re not starting a new organization,” he said. “We’re a protest group, trying to get the board to exercise its fiduciary and governing responsibility in a way that it has not. We’re loyal to the existing organization and above all to the principles it is intended to advance.” Emily Whitfield, an A.C.L.U. spokeswoman, defended the organization, saying it continued to fight aggressively for the principles of free speech. “Our programs, both legal and legislative, have never been stronger,” Ms. Whitfield said, “and then there’s the phenomenal growth of the A.C.L.U., where we’ve nearly doubled staff, our revenues are higher, membership and donations are higher, and that, to us, tell us where we are right now, in terms of our organization. We’re proud of it.” She added, “We’re proud to be the leading organization fighting for freedom of speech on the Internet,” noting that the A.C.L.U. would go to court next month to argue that federal efforts to limit access to certain kinds of content on the Web to protect children violated the free speech protection in the Constitution. And she pointed out that other independent Web sites already reported and commented on the A.C.L.U., including acluprocon.org and stoptheaclu.com, among others.

Wow! I'm glad we are being noticed. Anyway, I'm even happier that those within the ACLU are waking up to its hypocrisy and are attempting to do something about it. I probably will not agree with all of the things this new organization is trying to accomplish, but one thing I can agree on is the ACLU's hypocrisy. If the organization could stand on real principles it would be much more difficult to critique. Hypocrisy is always the easiest thing to target the ACLU with. I wish the group luck, but I think they have an uphill battle. I really think the ACLU are entirely too corrupt to be saved. Whatever people within the organization that stand up on principle have had efforts to silence them or they have been voted out. From the savetheaclu website:

We reject the claim that the ACLU is injured not by its unprincipled, anti-libertarian actions, but by those who disclosed or criticized them. Repeated breaches of principle by the ACLU leadership have been fundamental and cannot simply be attributed to isolated lapses in judgment: they reflect basic disrespect for the values that the ACLU was created to defend. This has gone on for so long, and has become so pervasive, that we now believe that only a change in leadership will preserve the ACLU and insure its future as the nation’s leading civil liberties group.

Hey, getting rid of the hypocrisy in the ACLU will not get rid of all of the ACLU's numerous problems, but it is a start.

ACLU To Board Members, STFU!

2006-05-24T09:26:00.000-07:00

Crossposted from: Stop The ACLU

This is the kind of hypocrisy that Conservatives and most reasonable liberals can agree that the ACLU needs to some house cleaning on. Via NY Times… The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization’s policies and internal administration. “Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement,” the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals. “Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising,” the proposals state. Given the organization’s longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals.

Read the whole story at Stop The ACLU

Calling For A Special Counsel To Investigate ACLU

2006-02-17T17:40:00.000-08:00

Stop The ACLU has an extensive list of reasons why the ACLU should be investigated.

I am calling on Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States of America, to call a Special Counsel to investigate possible criminal wrongdoing and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those responsible within the ACLU for any damage to top secret programs that have been enacted in furtherance of National Security and the war on terror; any funding directly or indirectly aiding a terrorist organization; giving representation, aid and comfort to admitted terrorists; invading the privacy of their own members; hindering the ability of the government to protect the citizens of the Untied States of America; and any attempt to destroy evidence of any of these acts.

If you are concerned over the ACLU, whether it be your religious liberty being attacked, or your National Security...see Stop The ACLU for details on how you can help.

The ACLU's Legacy of Hypocrisy

2006-01-25T20:51:00.000-08:00

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU Convincing liberals that the ACLU is leading us down a dangerous path is about as productive as talking to a rock. Perhaps this is because I mostly deal with far left liberals who share the same insane views and have the same radical agenda as the ACLU. Anyone who believes that the ACLU is there to purely defend the Constitution is naive at best. Surely there are some moderate liberals out there that can concede that the organization is in need of reform. A balanced society can not survive resting in the fringe. A Nation only concerned with security will drift toward a police state, and one that follows the absolutist views of liberty like the ACLU will drift toward anarchy. The ACLU proudly display a banner that states, Keep America Safe and Free, but any honest person will admit that the ACLU have done nothing for the safety of America. As a matter of fact, all evidence leads to quite the opposite. The ACLU are always ready to put the security of America at risk in the pursuit of its absolutist views of liberty. Many of the ACLU's former leaders have noticed the irresponsible shifting of the ACLU away from true civil liberty protection into a much more dangerous agenda. For example take the words of this former Executive Director of the ACLU

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history. But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU's press release: "We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion." Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change. The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled "The Nuremberg Files," after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called "baby butchers." ... This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past. None of the anti-abortion group's intimidating writings explicitly threatened violence. Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants' First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief taking no one's side but arguing that speech constitutes a physical threat only when the speaker intends his statement to be taken as one. ...Before anti-abortion zealots started getting sued, the ACLU had much more tolerance for menacing speech. Few of the 20th century's great social movements were entirely peaceable. The labor, civil-rights, antiwar, environmental and black-power movements were an amalgam of violence, civil disobedience and highly charged rhetoric. But to gag fiery speakers who call for harm to the establishment because others in the movement pursue their political goals with fists, guns or bombs would do terrible damage to strong, emotive pleas tot social change. It is something neither the ACLU nor, thankfully, the courts have countenanced in the past. That's why in 1969 the ACLU helped defend a Ku Klux Klan member who had called for violence against the president, Congress and the Supreme Court. At the ACLU's urging, the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating violence was constitutionally protected unless it incited imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. This case was later used to defend the speech of black militants. The ACLU also applauded a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that speeches promising violent reprisals were protected by the First Amendment. During the civil-rights movement, a leader of the NAACP called for "breaking the necks" of blacks who violated a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, and published a list of those who did. Some of the boycott violators were beaten. The court ruled that despite the atmosphere of fear, all the speeches and lists were part of a debate on a public issue that needed to be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

I would argue that the Constitution doesn't protect all of these extreme positions of the ACLU, but that isn't the point he is trying to make. The issue is the ACLU's curious commitment to "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" free speech when it involves things such as virtual child pornography, but not when it involves a something like a boss making racially offensive statements. Unfortunately, there are some people who are so hypnotized by the ACLU's absolutist views and of the ACLU's campaign for pedophilia and child pornography that they are prepared to defend an organization that has become a shadow of its former self--a group that lets its idealistic and skewed understanding of the establishment clause trump freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Stop the ACLU had the opportunity last year of interviewing a former ACLU lawyer. He was concerned with much of the same things.

The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due.” “But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.” “The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.”

It seems that the many of the ACLU's greatest critics came from their very ranks. The division within the ACLU will continue as long as the ACLU continues on the irresponsible, hypocritical path it is on. America needs a civil liberties union, sadly the ACLU isn't doing that job. If the ACLU succeeds in the dangerous direction it is steering America, they will ironically be putting in jeapordy the very liberty they claim to protect. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.

Counselman Sues For Right To Pray

2006-01-11T22:03:00.000-08:00

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU It is happening all across the nation. The ACLU sue city counsel after city counsel over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsel meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick. This was the case in Fredericksburg. But one man isn't taking things lying down.

Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner has filed suit against his fellow council members, saying the council’s newly adopted prayer policy violates his constitutional rights. Turner is being represented by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates for free expression issues. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, asks the court to rule that the city’s prayer policy is unconstitutional, and to order that Turner be allowed back into the council’s prayer rotation. The council voted 5-1 in November to adopt a policy of offering non-denominational prayers devoid of any Christian or other specific religious references. Turner abstained from that vote, and Councilman Matt Kelly voted against the policy. The vote came after Turner had been excluded from the council prayer rotation for more than a year. The council got a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in July 2004 saying that the civil liberties group would file suit if Turner continued to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his prayers. Turner, who is pastor at First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, had always closed his prayers before council meetings by invoking the name of Jesus Christ before the ACLU complaint. On the same night of the November vote for the nondenominational prayer policy, Turner asked to be put back into the prayer rotation, and to give the opening prayer before the Nov. 22 council meeting. Mayor Tom Tomzak said today he asked Councilwoman Debby Girvan to give the prayer at that meeting instead of Turner, because, “I did not want to unleash a 1,000-pound gorilla-the ACLU-on the City Council.” However, Tomzak said he does believe Turner’s rights are being violated, and the suit filed today is “a lawsuit that I probably agree with.” “He’s a very passionate man, a man of faith and a man of principle, and he believes his rights have been violated,” Tomzak said of Turner. Neither City Council members nor City Attorney Kathleen Dooley had seen copies of the lawsuit earlier today. The suit calls the new prayer policy “an unlawful attempt by the City Council to prescribe the content of prayers given at City Council meetings by Turner and other members of City Council.” John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said Turner approached his organization last fall, saying he believed his rights were being violated. “All he wants is to say Jesus Christ at the end of the prayer,” Whitehead said. “He’s not asking for any money. ... It’s a very simple suit.”

One would think that it would be simple, yet the ACLU don't seem to get that. Religious expression in America is under attack. It is a shame that an organization that claims to protect our rights are the number one censor of Christian religious expression. If they were trying to get rid of all prayer at counsel meetings, we would have a different argument, but they are targeting Christian prayers and individual expression. It is good to see this man is standing up for his rights. More people should do so. Currently there is legislation, introduced by Representative Hostettler that could put a stop to these ridiculous lawsuits. Hostettler’s proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney’s fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets. SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.

Stop Paying For The ACLU

2005-12-28T00:22:00.000-08:00

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU One of our contributors, Craig McCarthy, set up a petition to stop taxpayer funding of the ACLU, quite a while ago. We are trying to help Craig reach at least 25,000 signatures. We are not that far away. Just two days ago, I put up as one of Stop The ACLU's best posts of 2005, my interview with former ACLU lawyer, mr. Reese Lloyd. I had no idea it would be such great timing. Mr. Reese strkes again in a podcast with Congressman Hostettler.

Rees Lloyd made the comments in an online podcast hosted by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in which the two discuss the congressman's legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square – such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal. Lloyd, a California civil-rights attorney, is an officer with the American Legion who wrote a resolution passed by the national organization supporting Hostettler's bill. As WorldNetDaily reported, Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets. Hostettler says some organizations have created a new civil liberty – a right to be protected "from religion, which is found nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights." The Indiana congressman blames "a very select group" for "perverting" the original statute, including the ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separate of Church and State. "They use this statute to extort behavior out of individuals," the congressman said, citing the Indiana Civil Liberties Union threatening local educators. The group sent a letter to officials saying they would be sued and be forced to pay attorney's fees should any graduation prayers be offered at commencement ceremonies. The threat sent the message, Hostettler said, that individuals tied to school districts could be impoverished personally. Said the lawmaker: "When officials see the potential threat of a lawsuit, they stop allowing children to write papers for English class – when they're asked to write about the most important person in their life and they decide to write about Jesus Christ." Hostettler's bill would allow cases to move through the courts without public officials worrying about being held personally liable for thousands in attorneys fees. "Let's let these cases go forward; let's let the courts decide what's constitutional and what's not, and let's not leave it up to the ACLU," he said. Hostettler explained that while government entities can pay attorney's fees charged to individual elected officials, they don't legally have to, which puts the politicians on the hook. Saying most taxpayers are in favor of allowing public religious expression, the congressman noted the irony of those same taxpayers being forced to pay the ACLU to sue their local governments. "The current threat to public officials is very real; it's ongoing," Hostettler stated. "It's been the case for several years that public officials are scared to death to suggest any type of public recognition of our Christian roots. It's a problem that needs to be addressed in Washington, D.C." PERA would prohibit damages, court fees and attorney's fees from going to plaintiffs in establishment-clause suits while keeping the original purpose of the civil-rights law, Hstettler says, to provide a means for those whose religious liberties have been blocked to find justice. The congressman wonders why the ACLU would oppose his legislation since it still provides for "injunctive relief" – e.g., a court can rule in the ACLU's favor and force the removal of a Ten Commandments display – but takes out the monetary incentive for lawsuits. "If they're not out for the money but are really out to preserve our civil liberties … then the ACLU should not be opposing my bill," Hostettler commented.

In the podcast, Lloyd decried the "terrorizing litigation tactics of the ACLU." Said Lloyd: "Not only can the ACLU brings these suits and compel taxpayers to pay them to destroy the public display of our American history and heritage, but so can Islamist terrorists or Islamist sympathizers in our midst. "All they have to do is walk into court, make their claim that they're offended by the sight of a cross or other religious symbol, and they're going to win the case because judges follow one another under stare decisis," or deference to precedent. The judges would then order that fees be paid to the Islamists, Lloyd contends. Lloyd said this issue came into focus for him when he witnessed the fight in San Diego, Calif., over a cross on a veterans' memorial on public land in the Mohave Desert. "For me, that was the one step taken too far," Lloyd said. "Now, for the first time, the ACLU was attacking the very veterans who secured their freedom." A civil-rights activist since the '60s, Lloyd worked with the ACLU in the '70s and was "very supportive" of the 1976 Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act because it was a "noble attempt to assure that people who had legitimate civil-rights violations and injuries could secure legal representation." Stated Lloyd: "The ACLU has perverted, distorted and exploited the Civil Rights Act … to turn it into a lawyer-enrichment act." Lloyd says the American people are "oblivious" to how many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are going to the ACLU each year. The attorney pointed out many attorneys in cases brought by the ACLU are volunteers, so the fees the group is awarded normally do not go to reimburse an attorney but rather directly into the organization's coffers.

Hostettler's bill, which was introduced first in 2003 without success, currently has 35 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and sits in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

The Center For Reclaiming America claims that they have over 100,000 signatures backing this bill. Honestly, I don't know what they are waiting on. If we can up our petiton from 19,000 to 25,000, I will personally take the signatures to Congressman Hostettler myself....I promise you. I only live two hours from D.C. SIGN OUR PETITON TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU ....and spread the word as far and wide on this petition as you can! CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND TELL THEM TO SUPPORT PERA

ACLU Loses In Subway Search Case

2005-12-02T19:59:00.000-08:00

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU In a victory for National Security, and the American citizen not to be blown up, a judge ruled today against the ACLU, and for NYC Subways in their effort to protect their citizens.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled on Friday that police had a constitutional right to randomly search passengers' bags on the New York City subway to deter terrorist attacks. U.S. District Judge Richard Berman ruled the searches were an effective and appropriate means to fight terrorism, and constituted only a "minimal intrusion" of privacy. "The risk to public safety of a terrorist bombing of New York City's subway system is substantial and real," Berman wrote in his opinion. "The need for implementing counter-terrorism measures is indisputable, pressing, ongoing and evolving." Random bag searches began on July 22 after a second set of bomb attacks on London's transit system. In a statement, Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised the ruling, calling bag searches a "reasonable precaution" that police would continue to take. The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), which had sued to stop the searches, plans to appeal, Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a statement. She said the "unprecedented" bag search program violated a basic freedom.

Well of course they plan to appeal, they wouldn't want common sense to prevail! I understand the ACLU's concern on this. No one wants to live in a police state. However, I think they are completely overzealous in this. The majority of people do not mind being searched if it means they will live another day. Besides, the ACLU would have another fit if we were to try to implement profiled searches. And they have even proven through their lawsuit in Tampa against Raymond James Stadium that they are against searches across the board. The irony is that on their own building they have a sign that says you may be subject to search upon entering. The ACLU have twisted a legitimate attempt to protect NY's citizens into a scare tactic method completely overexaggerated. Why can't they see what most people can? The threat of being blown up is a greater risk, than the far fetched idea of a police state.

Ruling: Pregnant Moms Can Now Harm Babies

2005-12-02T03:02:00.000-08:00

WND

The Supreme Court of Hawaii has ruled that unborn children are not “human beings,” and therefore women cannot be prosecuted for causing the death of babies by harmful behavior during their pregancies.

The unanimous decision overturns the manslaughter conviction of 32-year-old Tayshea Aiwohi, who was found guilty in connection with the death of her newborn son by smoking crystal methamphetamine shortly before his birth.

“I’m extremely happy and grateful,” said Aiwohi. “I believe [the case] changed me into a better person and I just hope to share that with others.”

So, responsibility goes out the window on this one. This irresponsible mindset is much too far reaching in today’s American society. Taking responsibility for one’s concious actions is fading fast. People need to realize that along with rights, comes responsibility, and with that responsibility our very rights and liberties hinge. Who takes responsibility for the death of this child? According to this court, no one.

Tayshea gave birth to her son, Treyson, July 15, 2001, but the boy perished within two days with high levels of methamphetamine and amphetamine in his system, according to the local coroner.

The woman allegedly admitted to using the drugs for three days before the birth and took a “hit” on the morning her son was delivered.

In their ruling, the justices cited statutes noting a crime needed to be committed against “a human being.” They declared since Treyson was not a “person” when Tayshea was smoking the drugs, she could not be prosecuted for harming the infant in her womb.

“The proscribed conduct must have been committed at a time when Treyson ‘qualified’ as a ‘person,’ defined by the Hawaii Penal Code as ‘a human being who has been born and is alive,’” they wrote.

“It is so insane,” Nancy Heisser of Grants Pass, Ore., told WorldNetDaily. “A little baby died, and the mother walks away scot-free. This is a travesty against this little one.”

What kind of future impact will a ruling like this have? Under the new, federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, people other than the mother who cause the death of an unborn child can face prosecution. If this had been a boyfriend who had kicked the woman in the stomach, or pressured the drugs on her, there might have been a conviction. But according to this court, we are not even talking about a human being, so what does it matter. This is one horrible decision after another. From the decision to drugs while pregnant, to the decision of the Court to hold no one responsible for this irresponsible death. I wonder if after the case was over, this woman went out for another hit.

ACLU Vs. National Security

2005-11-16T22:26:00.000-08:00

In conjunction with the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the ACLU has lobbied hard against Arab-profiling at airports for years. “Profiles are notoriously under-inclusive,” says ACLU legislative counsel Gregory Nojeim. “Who knows who the next terrorist will appear as? It could be a grandmother. It could be a student. We just don’t know.”Source

The airline industry’s fear of such lawsuits is based on solid historical precedent. In 1993, for instance, the ACLU joined forces with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) to sue Pan American World Airways for having detained a man of Iranian descent during the first Persian Gulf War.

So, the ACLU says political correctness trumps common sense. They block that route of securing ourselves from being blown up. What to do? Hmmm.. I've got it! Lets do random searches!

ACLU Files Suit Over Random Subway Searches.The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the New York chapter of the ACLU, has announced that they intend on filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan today. The suit claims that the random bag searches before boarding the subway system is unconstitutional.

City lawyers have noted that an al-Qaida training manual advising terrorists to avoid police checkpoints gives the city some justification for its random searches of bags entering the subway system. Ok, so the ACLU says no profiled searches, and no random searches. What about searches across the board? Nope. Raymond James Stadium tried it, and the ACLU sued. So, where does that leave us with searches? I think we can conclude that the ACLU are against all searches. Is this because they stand by the principle of the fourth amendment? The irony and hypocrisy here is that, the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search. Apparantly their war against searches is not based on principle. But searches are not the only that brings criticism on the ACLU on the topic of National Security. The ACLU and CAIR have actually taken up quite a number of cases together. In 2003, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU awarded its yearly “Liberty Flame Award” to the Ohio chapter of CAIR “for contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties.” This same Ohio chapter, in August of this year, refused contributions from the United Way, as to not complete a required counterterrorism compliance form. But it isn't isolated to one rouge chapter.

In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds. “The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.” The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.

What is this all about?

Although its website proclaims that it does not receive “any government funding,” it does get money from a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions. Last year it got $470,000 from the program. (The ACLU’s 2002 annual budget, the most recent available, was $102 million.) Now it had a choice: give up the money, or sign a promise certifying that the ACLU “does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on” government watch lists of suspected supporters of terrorism. Trouble was, the ACLU had strongly opposed the lists, saying they were often inaccurate and violated the constitutional rights of some people. But it really hated the idea of giving up the money.Source

So what did they do? Well, at first they decided they would try to trick the government. They decided to keep the money, AND keep hiring anyone they pleased, by what Nadine Strossen called a “clever interpretation.” Their solution was that if they remained ignorant of who was on the list, then they couldn’t “knowingly” hire anyone on the list. Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, tells the New York Times: “I’ve printed [the lists] out. I’ve never consulted them.” To make a long story short, when The New York Times outted them, they caved in. But they didn’t cave in to the government, they just decided to forgoe the money, so they could still ignorantly hire people on the government watchlist. Isn’t that nice? However, this isn't the end. The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations 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. This is something the ACLU finds worthy of celebrating. In my opinion this is reason to be suspicious of what the ACLU does with its funds. It isn't a far fetched idea to wonder if the ACLU uses its funds to support terrorism. The ACLU's history is tainted in this arena.

In 1985 Samuel L. Morrison, an employee of the Naval Intelligence Support Command was convicted and sentenced for stealing classified spy satellite photographs from his office, cutting off the “secret” designation and selling them to a foreign publication. The ACLU claimed that Morrison had the right to steal and sell these classified documents and the under the First Amendment.

Positions like these might be easier to understand if we look at ACLU Policy #117. They title this policy “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies”. ” Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluating foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations. Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by eliminating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense. Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries. Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records….”

The ACLU Defends the P.L.O.

“I’m afraid even the good guys on civil liberties are going to be against us on this one.” Those are the words of ACLU Executive director Ira Glasser on the ACLU’s decision to represent an agent of Yassir Araftat’s Palestine Liberation Organization. I wonder if his definition of “good guys” meant American citizens who care about their country and are not willing to grant sworn terrorists complete freedom within our borders. If so, he is absolutely correct. We are against that one. “Arafat’s group of ruthless murderers had set up an “information office” in Washington D.C, only a few blocks from the White House.

The ACLU Defends "Mad Dog" of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi.

“In 1985, the ACLU learned of an alleged plan by the CIA to engineer Qaddafi’s overthrow. Outraged, they put together a “strenuous” public protest against this proposed action. In a letter fillled with self-righteous indignation, Morton Halperin, Director of the ACLU Washington office, expressed his opinion of that plan to Sen. David Durenberger, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with copies to everyone imaginable. And to make sure no one was left out, the ACLU also issued a press release trumpeting it’s opposition to any attempt to oust Qaddafi.”

The ACLU has also shown itself a willing tool of the terrorists, waging a massive anti-anti-terrorism legal campaign. This pillar of the legal Left denounced the government’s requirement that men aged 16-25 holding “temporary visas” from nations with known ties to terrorism register with the INS; represented Sami al-Arian, the North American fundraiser and co-founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (filing a brief upholding his inalienable right to fresh briefs!); rallied on behalf of convicted al-Qaeda benefactor Maher Mofeid Hawash; urged local communities not to cooperate with federal anti-terror investigations; and opposed the FBI’s monitoring Islamist mosques. As David Horowitz notes in his book Unholy Alliance, radical Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer Ron Kuby notes the “passionate…identification” most lawyers feel with their clients, such as that of convicted terror enabler Lynne Stewart for World Trade Center bomber Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Given her aid for international Islamic terrorism, the government is right to keep a watchful eye on those who perpetually side with the enemy. Front Page Magazine

They have fought hard for the release of Abu Ghraib images depicting sickening torture of our enemies, further inflaming the propaganda war on the side of the enemy. The ACLU also submitted a 37-page report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee describing specific U.S. breaches of the political and civil rights covenant. The report included sections on “Excessive Government Secrecy”; “Racial Profiling of the U.S. Arab, South Asian, and Muslim Communities”; “Criminalization of Political Protest”; “Increased Surveillance Powers”; and “Random Searches.” Recently the ACLU have decided to represent two detainees who claim the U.S. Military threw them into lions dens. Somebody is lion alright. They have also accused the U.S. military of outright murdering 21 detainees. They have even advised the majority of the prisoners at Gitmo that they did not have to answer questions from military interrogators. Actions like these have enraged groups like The American Legion, and Christians for Reviving American Values, who are asking Congress to investigate the ACLU. The American Legion is already mobilizing its members to fight the ACLU over issues such as the Boyscouts. The sympathy for the enemy also has them fired up. To many of these groups, and to many Americans, the perception is that The ACLU cares more about terrorists than it does about America. As you can see, balancing national security interests with a respect for civil liberties is not the goal of the ACLU. Its goal is the absolute pursuit of civil liberties, without regard for its consequences. Gone are the the carefully worded policies that guided Union thinking during World War II. Gone, too is any kind of talk about the enemies of the United States. It is hard to imagine a person vile enought, or a crisis serious enough, to shake the ACLU from its absolutist position during wartime. The tragedy is it is not just the nation's security that stands to lose as a result, it is the cause of liberty itself. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Stop The ACLU Interviews Alan Sears

2005-10-26T18:36:00.000-07:00

First of all, I want to thank you on behalf of Stop The ACLU, all of our contributors, and supporters. It is an honor to have this interview with you. We appreciate the Alliance Defense Fund does for America by fighting the ACLU, and protecting life, and liberty. 1 Could you tell us a brief summary of how ADF came about?

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.

2. What inspired you to write your new book, The ACLU vs. America?

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.

3. What would you say to those people who say that just because the ACLU was founded on Communism does not mean that they still have communist goals?

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.”

4. I have read in your book that the ACLU filed a brief in favor of legalizing child pornography. When I wrote about this, many people wanted solid proof. Where can one see in the record how the ACLU defended this?

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.

6. What do you find is the biggest threat to liberty in our society today? How can we counter this?

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.

7. Is it possible to reform the ACLU? Can they be changed, or is countering them the only option?

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.

8. What is your strategy in fighting the ACLU? Are there other ways people can get involved?

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.

9. Currently there is legislation in the House by Congressman Hostetler that is asking to reform the attorney’s fees act in the Civil Rights Act to not apply in Establishment Clause cases. Does ADF support this?

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.

10. Do you support grassroots efforts like Stop The ACLU.Com and Stop The ACLU.Org in informing the people of the ACLU’s actions and other civil liberties groups? How can we motivate others to get involved? What would your advice be in helping our organization’s success?

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.

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.

ACLU Accuses Military of Murder

2005-10-24T21:33:00.000-07:00

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!

Stop The ACLU Radio

2005-10-19T22:24:00.000-07:00

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

ACLU Perverting The Constitution

2005-10-11T21:04:00.000-07:00

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.

ACLU's Euthanasia

2005-10-05T21:09:00.000-07:00

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.

Washington Times Ad Fundraiser

2005-09-30T13:02:00.000-07:00

Update: We have now been approached by Newsmax with interest for an advertisment. Their cost is the same, but will reach more people. We still want to put an ad in the Washinton Times, but we would also love to have one with Newsmax. So, we will shoot for double the original goal, but once we reach the original goal, we will use it for the Washington Times. This is a sticky post and will remain up top until we reach our goal. Please scroll down for new material. We are trying to raise money to get an ad in the Washington Times. Thank you to all our supporters. Thanks to you we have raised $1,150.00 so far. Goal: $2500.00 Current: $1,150.00 Please Donate

Or Buy a bumper sticker from our store!

Thank you for all the support to our cause.

Judge orders release of Abu Ghraib photos

2005-09-29T11:00:00.000-07:00

Item:

NEW YORK — Saying the United States “does not surrender to blackmail,” a judge ruled Thursday that pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America’s image.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the release of certain pictures in a 50-page decision that said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven they “do not need pretexts for their barbarism.”
The ACLU has sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes taken at the prison as part of an October 2003 lawsuit demanding information on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture. The ACLU contends that prisoner abuse is systemic. Source

I’m sure the ACLU are throwing a party with their buddies at CAIR over this one. Just what we all wanted, more sickening pictures to fuel the flames of jihad. Posted by Jay