Print Page - ACLU v America, again

ACLU v America, again
Stop the ACLU cautiously looks at the ACLU's 10,000 page "list" of crimes committed by US troops in Iraq. Jay writes...

It is no surprise that the ACLU is more concerned about “rights” of our enemies than those of Americans. However, as for the legitimacy of the allegations, I will take a step back with caution.

The problem is the 10,000 pages are courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports, not a list. Anyone who's ever had to deal with the government must know their insane obsession over reams and reams of paper work. The 10,000 pages only involve 22 actual cases. So while we've been in Iraq for 4 and a half years, the 150,000 to 160,000 troops only committed 22 crimes? What kind of moron calls 22 killings in 4 1/2 years from 150,000+ people DURING A WAR a "pattern"?

But upon closer examination what the ACLU is calling "crimes" turns out to be more of the wild, anti-American lies typical of ACLU loonies. Here are a few of the "atrocities" the ACLU dimwits listed...

1. On January 14th, 2005, a vehicle approached a US Military convoy. The driver of the vehicle refused to move from the path of the convoy even after repeated warnings. A civilian contractor providing security for the convoy then opened fire on the vehicle injuring several occupants. One round, however, ricocheted and killed a bystander, Faysal Kamel Hamsa, who was standing on the side of the road. The three occupants of the vehicle, a man, a woman, and another of unidentified age, were only injured. The army ruled it a justifiable response. The ACLU, of course, considers it a crime.

2. On February 21st, 2005, an unidentified member of the US military lost control of their vehicle and struck an oncoming vehicle which resulted in the death of a 6-month-old child, Summa Soman Meero. The Military ruled it negligent homicide. The ACLU consider it the murder of an Iraqi citizen by US troops.

3. On January 25th, 2005, Abdulla Fawzi was admitted to the 86th Combat Support Hospital from wounds suffering in after opening fire on US troops. On January 30th, Fawzi died from his wounds. The US Military ruled this a combat death. The ACLU consider it the murder of an Iraqi citizen by US troops.

4. On April 21st, 2005, an Afghani man, Abdul Sayed Rahman, walked in front of a US Humvee doing just over 17mph. The driver attempted to avoid hitting Rahman, but the Humvee's side mirror clipped him. Rahman was immediately transported to military hospital at Bagram Airfield, but died from the injuries he received. The military ruled this an accidental death. The ACLU consider this the murder of a civilian by US troops.

5. On February 17th, 2005, two Afghani's fled upon the approach of Afghani and US Military vehicles. The US Troops pursued and killed both men. Autopsied showed that both were facing the direction of their attackers, and the follow-up investigation by Afghani police found spent shell casings from a weapon or weapons used by one or both men. The military ruled that there was insignificant evidence to rule whether the shootings were justified or not. Both Taliban and Al Queda hide terrorists among the local population, so pursuing suspects is routine, in order to protect both troops and civilians. Suspects who shoot at troops, are obviously presumed terrorists. Apparently, troops who shoot back at terrorists are presumed murderers by the ACLU.

6. On January 31, 2005 a riot broke out at Theater Internment Facility at Camp Bucca, Iraq. After two hours the riot began to escalate, and deadly force was used to quell the rioting prisoners. Three rioting prisoners were killed. The military ruled the killings justifiable. The ACLU classify it as the intentional murder of Iraqi Civilians by US Troops.

Other than a handful of real crimes, already widely publicized, the ACLU's "10,000 pages" are nothing more than their attempt to portray US Troops as wanton criminals, the exact same thing Liberals did during the Vietnam War. There is no caution needed with this story, since it is nothing more than the usual ACLU lies, decorated with a few, miniscule sprinkles of truth to make the lies appear different. The real crime is the treasonous behavior of the ACLU in attacking our troops while completely ignoring the atrocities committed by the enemy.

ACLU Florida Calls For Bush/Cheney Impeachment

ACLU of Florida Calls for Impeachment Hearings for Bush and Cheney

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida has followed the lead of the ACLU of Central Florida, the ACLU of Monroe County Florida, and the ACLU of the Treasure Coast (Florida), all of which followed the lead of the ACLU of Southern California in backing impeachment and calling for the National ACLU to do the same.

The ACLU was a prominent supporter of Richard Nixon's impeachment. In 2006 an ACLU panel argued for impeachment. In recent years, the national ACLU has lobbied against numerous offenses that appear quintessentially impeachable, but refused , despite intense lobbying by its members and others, to back impeachment. The national ACLU recently announced a new motto that many impeachment advocates view as a wish for the impossible (a reference to the current presidential administration): "One More Year, No More Damage."

Richard W. Spisak Jr. of the ACLU of Florida reported that the state chapter met in Fort Myers at 1:30 p.m. on Saturday and passed a motion in support of impeachment hearings for George Bush and Richard Cheney. The motion calls on the National ACLU to urge hearings in the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Florida Congressman Robert Wexler, a member of that committee, has recently been leading a push for hearings to begin. Florida citizens have been pushing for impeachment for a long time.

Motion Language Follows:
"The Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida urges the National ACLU Board of Directors to call for the convening of hearings by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives to determine whether to recommend Articles of Impeachment against President George Bush, and Vice President Richard Cheney to the House."

According to Spisak, "The debate was energetic with opposing perspectives on tactics related to national staff and issues related to potential complications. Ultimately those who felt this an important step, a pricipled step won the day."

Diane Lawrence, a leading Florida impeachment activist said that her group had lobbied Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, and that he recently hinted at his support for impeachment when speaking at an event in Florida with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a long-time friend from Simon's days in Michigan. At the event, hosted by the ACLU, Simon said that he disagreed with Conyers on one important point. Perhaps we now know what that point was.

ACLU Stops Bible Distribution in After School/Lunch Break Periods

In their continued efforts to destroy religion in America, the ACLU has won another loathsome victory against the free expression of religion. The AP reports that a rural school district near St. louis, MO can no longer allow representatives of Gideons International to give away Bibles to fifth-graders during after school periods or during their lunch break periods.

For more than three decades, the South Iron School District in Annapolis, 120 miles southwest of St. Louis in the heart of the Bible Belt, allowed representatives of Gideons International to give away Bibles in fifth-grade classrooms.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit two years ago on behalf of four sets of parents. In August, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary injunction against the practice.

The district altered its policy, saying the Gideons and others were still welcome to distribute Bibles or other literature before or after school or during lunch break, but not in classrooms.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry ruled both practices were illegal and granted a permanent injunction.

Naturally the ACLU claims that any vestige of Christianity in or near a school means that the poor kiddies are being FORCED to become slaves to Christianity. Sadly, they never take cases trying to stop Islam from being forced on our school kids proving that the ACLU only wants to destroy Christians and that they aren't the least bit interested in any issue like "religion in schools."

The school district is going to appeal these anti-religious judges' decision.

ACLU top-ten list of gov't 'failures' off-base, says conservative attorney

The legal counsel of a conservative alternative to the American Civil Liberties Union says if the ACLU had its way, the United States would never be able to fight any wars the way they were successfully waged all the way back to the time of the American Revolution.

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union released a list titled "2007: The Year We Didn't Get Our Freedom Back." The list supposedly documents the "top 10 ways our government failed us" last year. For example, the liberal organization claims the government has not put an end to "warrantless spying" by the National Security Agency. According to the list, the government also failed its citizens by not closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, which houses individuals suspected of terror-related activities against the U.S.

John Armor of the American Civil Rights Union says the ACLU continues to demonstrate that it is not the defender of civil liberties, as it claims. "We consider at least eight of [the items on the list] to be direct assaults on the Constitution of the United States and the government as it was designed under that Constitution," says Armor. "The ACLU does not live up to what it claims is its business."

Armor explains that no warrant is needed for foreign communications -- and what the ACLU really wants, he claims, is for the government not to defend Americans in a time of declared war. He says "when you look at how things were handled during World War II, World War I, the Civil War -- or for that matter, you can go all the way back to the Revolutionary War -- what the ACLU is saying is the United States government has no right to defend America in the same way that its armies and its generals have defended it in every war that its ever fought."

The attorney contends the ACLU was off-base on a number of the claims in its list.

Another ACLU ripoff

Two foreign nationals who said they were forcibly drugged by U.S. immigration officials during failed efforts to deport them have agreed to a settlement in the case, their attorney said Tuesday. In exchange for dropping the lawsuit, Amadou Diouf, a native of Senegal, will get $50,000, and Raymond Soeoth of Indonesia will receive $5,000 and be allowed to stay in the United States for at least two years, said Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The ACLU filed the case jointly with the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson.

Soeoth, who was appealing his case for political asylum, alleged in the lawsuit that he had been sedated with anti-psychotic drugs in December 2004 at a San Pedro detention facility. Diouf, who also was pursuing an appeal for permanent legal status, said he was medicated in February 2006 while on a commercial plane at Los Angeles International Airport.

Soeoth and Diouf became friends while being held for nearly two years at the Terminal Island detention facility in San Pedro. They reluctantly accepted the settlement when Soeoth and his wife lost their immigration appeal and were threatened with deportation, Diouf said. Soeoth, a Christian, fled his predominantly Muslim country in 1999 to escape religious persecution and "greatly feared returning to Indonesia," Arulanantham said.

Earlier this month, immigration officials said they would no longer forcibly sedate foreign nationals without a federal court order. At the time, ACLU lawyers promised to move forward with the lawsuit to gain compensation for Soeoth and Diouf. The settlement could make it more difficult to force the government to release details about its sedation policy, Arulanantham said.

The settlement reached Monday "does not constitute admission of wrongdoing by the government," but it does "reflect the fact that ICE has changed its policy regarding medical escorts for detainees," said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice.

Conservative legal groups team up to save veterans' memorials

The Alliance Defense Fund has announced an initiative to protect war memorials from liberal groups who claim the monuments violate the supposed "separation of church and state."

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the American Legion, and Liberty Legal Institute are joining forces to protect veterans' memorials from legal attacks by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union. During the past several years, the ACLU has targeted veterans' memorials that feature crosses or other Christian symbols -- suing cities and towns in which the monuments are located. Often, the ACLU is able to collect substantial court-ordered settlements as a result of such litigation.

But ADF senior legal counsel Doug Napier argues the memorials do not violate the U.S. Constitution. "The Supreme Court has never ruled these memorials violate the Constitution. There's no law out there that says you can't have them -- and they're memorials," emphasizes Napier. "They aren't advocating a certain religion; they aren't endorsing a certain religion."

The monuments, says the attorney, must be defended. "We cannot allow the memory of these families to be sullied by a few disgruntled people who don't like it," says Napier. "[Their opinions] shouldn't spoil it for the millions of Americans who support these memorials and the millions of veterans that they represent."

Napier says the cross is a universal symbol of sacrifice, and that scripture and other religious texts have been sources of comfort for those who have lost loved ones in war. He states that one person's agenda should not be allowed to diminish the sacrifice made by American veterans.

Court rejects ACLU challenge to wiretaps

An attempt to blast a crippled U.S. spy satellite out of the sky using a Navy heat-seeking missile — possibly on Wednesday night — would be the first real-world use of this piece of the Pentagon's missile defense network. But that is not the mission for which it was intended.
ADVERTISEMENT

The attempted shootdown, already approved by President Bush, is seen by some as blurring the lines between defending against a weapon like a long-range missile and targeting satellites in orbit.

The three-stage Navy missile, designated the SM-3, has chalked up a high rate of success in a series of tests since 2002 — in each case targeting a short- or medium-range ballistic missile, never a satellite. A hurry-up program to adapt the missile for this anti-satellite mission was completed in a matter of weeks; Navy officials say the changes will be reversed once this satellite is down.

The government issued notices to aviators and mariners to remain clear of a section of the Pacific beginning at 10:30 p.m. EST Wednesday, indicating the first window of opportunity to launch an SM-3 missile from a Navy cruiser, the USS Lake Erie, in an effort to hit the wayward satellite.

Having lost power shortly after it reached orbit in late 2006, the satellite is well below the altitude of a normal satellite. The Pentagon wants to hit it with an SM-3 missile just before it re-enters Earth's atmosphere, in that way minimizing the amount of debris that would remain in space.

Adding to the difficulty of the mission, the missile will have to do better than just hit the bus-sized satellite, a Navy official said Tuesday. It needs to strike the relatively small fuel tank aboard the spacecraft in order to accomplish the main goal, which is to eliminate the toxic fuel that could injure or even kill people if it reached Earth. The Navy official described technical aspects of the missile's capabilities on condition that he not be identified.

Also complicating the effort will be the fact that the satellite has no heat-generating propulsion system on board. That makes it more difficult for the Navy missile's heat-seeking system to work, although the official said software changes had been made to compensate for the lack of heat.

The Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates was briefed on the shootdown plan Tuesday by the two officers who will advise him on exactly when to launch the missile — Gen. Kevin Chilton, the head of Strategic Command, and Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who held Chilton's post until last summer.

"We all have an agreed-upon series of steps that need to be taken for this launch to be given the go-ahead," Morrell said, adding that no final decision has been made on when to make the attempt.

"The secretary is the one who will decide if and when to pull the trigger," the spokesman said, adding that Gates was departing Wednesday morning on an around-the-world trip that will include a stop in Honolulu, Hawaii, where a military command center will be monitoring the satellite operation.

Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.

Known by its military designation US 193, the satellite was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.

Morrell said the cost of adapting the Navy anti-missile system for the shootdown mission was $30 million to $40 million.

China and Russia have expressed concern at the planned shootdown, saying it could harm security in outer space. At the State Department on Tuesday, spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that the U.S. action is meant to protect people from the hazardous fuel and is not a weapons test.

China was criticized last year when it used a missile to destroy a defunct weather satellite.

The Navy ship-based system, which includes a command-and-control and radar system known as Aegis, as well as the SM-3 missiles, is just one segment of a larger, far-flung missile defense system that has been in development by the American military for more than three decades.

Managed by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, the program includes interceptor missiles sitting in underground silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., as well as radars around the world that are used to track an enemy missile and help the interceptor hit it.

As currently configured the missile defense system is designed mainly to counter a threat from North Korea. The Bush administration, fearing an emerging missile threat from Iran, is in talks with Poland and the Czech Republic to place interceptor missiles in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic. Russia has objected strenuously, saying such bases would be a threat to Russia.

ACLU seeks access to uncensored transcripts of terrorist hearings

John Armor, the legal counsel to the American Civil Rights Union, says the ACLU continues to demonstrate its preference for an American defeat in the war on terror by attempting to limit the U.S. government from obtaining information from military prisoners.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed suit seeking a court order that it be given uncensored transcripts of military hearings for 14 of the "high value" terrorist detainees. John Armor of the American Civil Rights Union -- a conservative alternative to the ACLU -- argues that would be the same as if, in World War II, someone had sued to have the interrogation records of German spies released. "[It's] insane on the face of it that they should ask a court to do such a thing," says the attorney.

Armor says it is not just irrelevant to the ACLU that tens, or hundreds, or even thousands of Americans may be killed if the information held by these "illegal combatants" is not obtained and used. He says it seems to be the goal of the ACLU to take steps that will keep that information hidden, and lead to those deaths.

"They do want to aid these guys," he exclaims. "If you look at it politically, not legally, the ACLU wants the United States to lose in the war on terror because it feels that governments which are socialistic are preferred to what we have -- and those are the kind of people we're up against," he adds. "Of course, the fact that they're murderous dictators seems to escape the interest of the ACLU, so they're rooting for the other side to win and trying to help them."

Armor says it is fortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly and clearly ruled against the ACLU's position on this issue.

After sucking city dry, ACLU 'hate machine' to be honored?
Council members considering proposal for day praising activists

The ACLU at times has battled San Diego in court over a historic cross on a veterans' memorial and the use of city facilities by the Boy Scouts, collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars of money from city taxpayers for its efforts.

Now the city is considering a plan to honor the organization.

"San Diego City Councilwoman Toni Atkins and Council President Scott Peters have placed on the city council docket one of the most despicable and anti-Christian items in recent years. They are planning to declare American Civil Liberties Union Day in the city of San Diego," warned James Hartline, who himself is a candidate for the city council this year.

"The American Civil Liberties Union has done everything possible to destroy Christianity in the American culture and government. From tearing down crosses on public property to removing crosses and the Ten Commandments from governmental buildings, there has been no greater hate machine against our constitutional right to free religious expression in America than the ACLU!" Hartline said.

"The idea that radical lesbian San Diego City Councilwoman Toni Atkins and her leftist council partner Scott Peters want to honor the ACLU by declaring a day of honor IN OUR NAME in the city of San Diego is just plain evil," he said.

Hartline, a longtime activist for family values in his city, said the ACLU has a history there of running a long-term battle to kick Boy Scouts off public property in Balboa Park that other organizations are allowed to use, forcing homosexual marriage on society, attacking pro-life protesters at abortion clinics and restricting the rights of school children to have Bible studies or pray on school grounds.

Hartline said the meeting is tomorrow, in an apparent effort by city officials to load the item onto a council agenda and adopt it with little public notice.

"We cannot ignore this terrible attack on our faith and values by allowing our name to be used to honor the horrific and hateful ACLU," Hartline said.

He told WND the issue is so important because it "institutionalizes the organization from a positive perspective."

"What's problematic from a legal perspective is the fact that the ACLU has gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal settlements, so if they sue the city again, it gets hard for opposition to go against them," he said.

"Naming a day in their honor is entering into very dangerous ground," he said.

Not only did the city pay the ACLU about $900,000 in one of its settlements, the ACLU has been on the opposite side of 80 percent of San Diego's residents on issues such as the Mt. Soledad Cross, he said.

"Here we have a council member wanting to honor a group that's going against the will of the majority of San Diegans," he said.

ACLU Fails in Attack on Baptist Children’s Home

After a 10-year legal battle, a federal judge has dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against a home providing social services for at-risk children. The lawsuit claimed the home, Sunrise Children’s Services, should not receive partial expense reimbursements from the government for its needy youth programs because of the home’s religious affiliation. The Alliance Defense Fund provided funding for attorneys with the Christian Legal Society and Thomas More Law Center to defend the home in the suit.

“Faith-based organizations should not be discriminated against for their beliefs. The reimbursement Sunrise receives has never been used for religious indoctrination. It has always been used for social services that help needy kids, and we are pleased the court has dismissed this needless lawsuit. This is an important victory for faith-based social service providers,” said Tim Tracey, litigation counsel for CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom.

“Sunrise Children’s Services has the same right to receive reimbursement to provide help to the children of Kentucky as any other social services provider,” said Pat Gillen, another attorney who worked on the case and now serves as a visiting professor of law at Ave Maria School of Law. “The ACLU and its allies fought long and hard to take away that right, but the court didn’t let that happen.”

The suit began when the children’s home, formerly known as Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, dismissed Alicia Pedreira, an employee who was involved in homosexual behavior. The Kentucky ACLU attempted to characterize Pedreira’s dismissal as religious discrimination and challenged the state and federal reimbursement the home receives, claiming its religious affiliation made the reimbursement a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. The court rejected the religious discrimination claim in 2001 and ruled Monday that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the reimbursements.

ACLU expanding into heartland

Associated Press smallNEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union announced by far the largest fundraising campaign in its 88-year history Monday, eying a dramatic expansion of its work on social justice issues such as homosexual rights in relatively conservative states.

The campaign's goal is $335 million, with $258 million already raised through behind-the-scenes solicitations over the past year, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said. Major donors include billionaire financier George Soros, who gave $12 million through his Open Society Institute.

"The purpose is to build a civil liberties infrastructure in the middle of the country - where battleground states are often under-resourced and our efforts are most needed," Romero said.

He cited issues such as immigrants' rights, homosexual rights, police brutality, and opposition to the death penalty as causes that would be pursued vigorously as the ACLU expanded in heartland states. At present, the ACLU's biggest offices are in the Northeast, the Pacific states and Illinois; targets for expansion include Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, and Tennessee, with even the smallest ACLU affiliates in line to get extra funding to hire new attorneys and launch new advocacy programs.

Romero said the ACLU envisions enlarging its Texas and Florida operation from less than ten full-time positions each to more than 40. Numerous new satellite offices would be opened. "We're going to build these offices into vibrant, muscular civil liberties machines, in places where our issues matter most," he said. "We've done great work in those states, but we've always been the David to the government's Goliath."

Romero said the fundraising campaign was designed to capitalize on a favorable climate for the ACLU. Since he became executive director in 2001, its annual budget has tripled to $107 million, and its membership has nearly doubled to more than 550,000, Romero said. "It's patently evident that the best fundraiser for the ACLU has been George Bush and his cadre of cronies," Romero said. "If the Republicans loses control of Congress and the White House, we can be sure the religious right will be much more active on the state level -- our work will be critical there."

Officials of two conservative legal groups often at odds with the ACLU were not pleased by the fundraising announcement, which came during the ACLU's annual membership conference in Washington. "The most dangerous organization in America is trying to become more dangerous," said Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

Mathew Staver, founder of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, said the ACLU "already has been an antifamily and in some cases anti-religious liberty and anti-life organization."

"Any future expansion would simply increase its destructive presence and be concerning to people of conservative, moral values," Staver said.

The ACLU said its biggest previous fundraising campaign, to expand its endowment, ended in 2002 with a haul of about $52 million.

Time for conservatives to wake up

A pro-family leader says a recent announcement from the ACLU -- that it is expanding its work on social justice issues in the country's heartland -- ought to unite conservatives against such a judicial threat.

The American Civil Liberties Union says it has already raised $258 million over the last year and is seeking $77 million more to hire new attorneys and launch new liberal advocacy programs in states like Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, and Tennessee. Major donors to the ACLU's fundraising campaign include billionaire financier George Soros, who gave $12 million through his Open Society Institute. (More details)

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero says the group plans to, among other things, expand its advocacy on behalf of illegal aliens and homosexuals seeking marriage rights in heartland states.

American Values president Gary Bauer says the ACLU campaign is one more sign that conservative and pro-family people "better wake up."

Gary Bauer"I still hear a lot of grousing, a lot of complaining about the election, about nothing's at stake, there are no choices or whatever -- that couldn't be more wrong," Bauer emphasizes. "The left right now is on the offensive; they are raising massive amounts of money. This ACLU announcement makes it clear they're going to take the battle right into the heartland where the pro-family movement is the strongest."

Bauer says the ACLU is going to use the courts, their regulators, and every other option available to force the country to accept their "radical left-wing agenda." Pointing to the outcomes in the last two presidential elections, he says liberal activists understand they are in a battle to make America in their image.

"The day after those elections you didn't hear [liberals] moaning and groaning and firing [accusations] at each other and blaming each other," he recalls. "What you saw ... was people going to microphones and saying 'We're going to fight even harder. We're going to raise even more money. We're going to do even more things at the grassroots level until we prevail.'"

Bauer laments that many "men and women of faith" currently lack the "fighting spirit" that exists on the left.

ACLU bats .000 in TN school case

The ACLU has come up empty in another attempt to stop religious expression by students in a public school.

The American Civil Liberties Union asked the court to ban students in the Wilson County, Tennessee, schools from five faith-related activities -- playing a song with a religious reference in honor of a three-year-old cancer victim; observing the "See You at the Pole" student prayer event; participating in the National Day of Prayer; and holding any Thanksgiving or Christmas observances that included religious references. The liberal legal group also wanted to ban a parents' prayer group from meeting anywhere on campus.

Nate Kellum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), represented two students' families: the Walkers and the Golds. He says the ACLU came up 0-for-5 on its requests.

"This is a clear win for religious freedom and, if not a total loss for the ACLU, certainly a hollow, shallow victory. The court acknowledged that Christians -- like the Walkers, like the Golds and their families -- cannot be discriminated against for their beliefs, and that personal prayer, mentions of God, and Christmas references are constitutionally appropriate in the school," Kellum contends.

The ADF attorney says the lawsuit should clear up any confusion about the ACLU's goals with regard to any public expression of Christian belief. "The ACLU, with this lawsuit, hoped to wipe out every reference to God, but walked away with a 'take nothing' judgment. We are very pleased that the Walkers and the Golds were able to repel the ACLU's unmerited attacks," Kellum explains.

The order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee states that all of the activities the ACLU contested at the school may continue.

Quote from: Pastor Roger on June 10, 2008, 10:01:23 PM

I posted a tongue-in-cheek thank you in another thread here about how the ACLU had caused one person to wake up and to start an organization that has grown quite quickly. However I also agree with this article. It is way past time for America as a whole to wake up to the realities of the destruction that the ACLU and other people like them are doing.

We need more of the sort of thing that person is doing with the Ten Commandments and more of what this next article is about.

Brothers and Sisters,

It's far past time for people with any decency, morals, and ethics to become educated about what the ACLU and groups like them are attempting to do. We finally have some pretty strong organizations fighting the ACLU and other destructive groups like them. All decent people should stand up and support the American Defense Fund, The Thomas Moore Law Center and other DECENT ORGANIZATIONS trying to preserve what's left of America.

We also need new laws making it harder for groups like the ACLU to take taxpayer dollars in court cases. The ACLU also needs to be paying for ALL COSTS associated with their frivolous cases designed to harass and/or bankrupt everything that is associated with decency in this country. The ACLU is the big and evil BULLY ON THE BLOCK. IT TAKES A LOT OF MONEY AND RESOURCES TO FIGHT THIS BULLY. Bluntly, the ACLU and BULLY organizations like them need to be put out of business - especially the BUSINESS OF EXTORTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS!

ACLU blasted on own blog
over 2nd Amendment stand
Forum poster: I just took the money slated to re-up
my lapsed membership and used it to re-up with NRA

The American Civil Liberties is getting blasted on its own blog site for holding onto the belief that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes a collective right for militias to have weapons, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the right applies to individuals.

"Sorry ACLU you lost me," wrote SuperNaut. "I just took the money I had slated to re-up my lapsed ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership."

Hundreds of comments have been posted in just the first few days of July, almost uniformly condemning the ACLU's explanation of its position on gun rights, which is that individuals don't have them.

"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller," the page started. "While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."

The fine print said, "We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability."

Then it specifically asked that comments endorsing or opposing specific political candidates not be posted.

It seems as if posters could hardly wait to punch the "submit" button.

"So pretty much, your policy went from 'we agree with the decision in US v Miller that gun ownership is not a constitutional right' to 'we disagree with DC V Heller and still believe that gun ownership is not a constitutional right,' meaning that despite whatever ruling is laid down, the ACLU will be against the individual right of private gun ownership," said DJ Rick in launching the long list of several hundred comments.

"I was really hoping that the ACLU would at least reconsider its stance, now invalidated by the SCOTUS, and come around to the popularly accepted and now legally accepted view than an amendment in the bill of rights (whether it be the Firs (sic), Second, Third or whichever) actually protects an individual's right," he said.

"Q. How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? A. 1, 3, 4, 5…," he wrote.

"The ACLU's position was wrong before Heller; to maintain it now is absurd. Not one of the justices in Heller endorsed the 'collective rights' viewpoint. If the ACLU believes that it is the best public policy that individuals should not own guns, it should campaign for the removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution," wrote Posey.

"Does that mean that I can interpret the constitution as not providing for a right to privacy? … Does the ACLU only defend civil liberties it agrees with?" wrote NotSurprised.

WND reported when the Supreme Court decided in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the Second Amendment actually provides an individual right to own firearms, not just the right for states to form armed militias.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion.

"We are very pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling today. This is a win for all Americans, and it vindicates the individual's right to keep and bear arms," Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, told WND then. "We are now going to go after other cities' laws that unlawfully ban gun ownership by law-abiding people."

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

And Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The ACLU had maintained, and still holds, that the "right of the people" designates a collective belief in an armed militia, not having guns in homes.

There was no relenting on the part of forum posters, however.

"I don't know why this [is] the only consitutional (sic) right the ACLU doesn't defend. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of INDIVIDUALS, so the idea that the Bill of Rights protects a 'collective right' is absolutely preposterous," wrote TexasCivilLibertarian. "The ACLU needs to change its position on the Second Amendment from the politically correct orthodox liberal position to the truly civil libertarian position. We cannot pick and choose which rights are worthy of more protection than others."

"If the ACLU wants to maintain its credibility as the defender of the bill of rights then it must endorse the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and not maintain its pathetic stance claiming it disagrees with the SCOTUS. The fat lady has sung. Get with the program," said John Fredrickson.

"I don't want to hear any more about the ACLU prevaricating on how they 'disagree' with this individual right protected by the Bill of Rights. What I (and many other members) now want is for the ACLU to step to the forefront of protecting our Second Amendment rights so that the d----- NRA will stop being the only place liberal gunowners can turn to," wrote Samuel. "Will you just get with the program? Numerous polls show [about] 75% of US voters know the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and [about] 65% of registered DEMOCRATS agree with that position. We need you to show some leadership and embrace our rights, not leave the Second Amendment neglected for the NRA to continue to wrap in right-wing rhetoric.

cont'd

"Doesn’t your sense of decency demand you treat all of our Constitutional rights equally?" he wrote.

"We now have the ACLU explicitly denying what the Supreme courts (sic) calls a specific enumerated right. This is even more egregious than the KKK demanding segregated bus seating, water fountains, and restrooms since the Constitution doesn't enumerate the right for integration of public and private accommodations," said Joe Huffman.

"It's a pity really, when bigotry, prejudice and cognitive dissonnance (sic) so easily brushes aside a fundamental human right, and the clear historical facts that support the establishment of that right, when it doesn't suit one's taste," wrote Norasfolks.

"I thought the ACLU's purpose was to uphold the rights of American citizens, as dictated by the Supreme Court. Am I missing something?" questioned Jay Rascoe.

"What about the First Amendment? It talks about freedom of the press, and 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble.' That's the same 'the people' as in the Second Amendment, which you've asserted is a 'collective right.' Maybe we should limit freedom of speech to registered press members (who will, of course, be required to store theiri typewriters in a disassembled and locked state, so that they are not able to exercise that collective right at a moment's notice)." wrote Mark Jaquith. "We'll take their fingerprints, run a background check, and make them demonstrate competency at composing headlines. Of course, no press will be allowed to operate within Washington D.C. – to keep illegal typewriters off the streets."

Other comments:

* From Luis Leon: "Your arguments are incredibly lame."

* From Steve: "Why would I give money to a group that … wants to deny me one of the most basic [of civil liberties]."

* From Novus: "I am disgusted and repulsed."

* From WLC: "If there was any coubt that the ACLU is pushing a left wing political agenda, that argument is over."

* From Brad: "Perhaps ACLU really stands for the 'Anti-Civil Liberties Union'!"

* From A Pennsylvanian: "Are you for real?"

A reader has to go far down the list to find the first even neutral comment, from tgirsch, who said, "I'd like the organization to have no official opinion on the second amendment, and simply stay out of those issues. There are plenty of pro- and anti-gun organizations that can handle those cases, so it seems to me that the ACLU can maximize its efficacy by simply staying out of the way and focusing on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments, as they historically have done."

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, came to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the District of Columbia's ban on handguns unconstitutional, reversing a U.S. District Court decision.

Security guard Dick A. Heller, 66, was one of six district residents who filed the challenge to the ban. The others were determined by the appeals court to not have legal standing.

The district also required residents who owned handguns or rifles before the 1976 ban took effect to keep the weapons in their homes. Any legal firearms had to be kept unloaded and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled.

ACLU vying to stop Naval prayer

Do Americans want a military free of all religious influence?

That is the question being posed in response to a letter from the ACLU to the United States Naval Academy demanding that midshipmen not be allowed to pray before their noon meal.

For decades, lunch at the U.S. Naval Academy has been preceded by a brief, voluntary prayer. But earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote the Academy demanding that the prayers cease. The ACLU claims the prayers violate the so-called "separation of church and state." But Joel Oster, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, says the real intent of the letter is clear.

"The ACLU wants to rid the U.S. government from anything religious. And this is just another example of them trying to get involved and trying to strip America from its religious heritage and its religious practices, and it must be stopped," Oster contends.

He says the ACLU and other anti-religious groups are seemingly even more aggressive in their opposition to all things godly than they have been in the past.

"I think they're ramping up their attacks. While in the past, maybe they've said, 'We're not really going after all prayer, just overtly sectarian prayer,'" he points out. "Now, the gloves are off and it's clear they're going after any and all prayers," Oster explains.

Oster says that ADF tries to avoid the distinction between sectarian and non-sectarian prayers because government should not be in the business of scrutinizing the content of anyone's prayers. He argues that the military should be able to determine how to best prepare its men and women for combat, including acknowledging that there is a spiritual dimension to military service. ADF has offered to defend the Naval Academy free of charge if the ACLU sues.

ACLU given 'veto power' over free-speech rights

Christian groups are appealing a federal judge's ruling that bars the Gideons from distributing Bibles to students of the South Iron Missouri School District.

The South Iron School District allows off-campus organizations to distribute literature to students before and after school, and during other non-instructional times such as lunch breaks. But the American Civil Liberties Union sued, saying the Gideons should not be allowed to hand out Bibles because of their religious nature. U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry agreed.

"In fact, the federal judge said...the ACLU must be able to have the say-so over whether religious literature can be distributed -- and obviously, if the ACLU has that say-so, no religious literature will ever be distributed," says Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

But Staver points out that the First Amendment prohibits any "heckler" from having the right to prohibit free speech. "...The ACLU may not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but, frankly, the Constitution requires equal treatment," states the attorney. "...Hecklers may heckle all they want to, but they may not veto private religious speech."

Staver is asking the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule Judge Perry. He says that, to his knowledge, no other U.S. court has ever ruled that a private, third party should be given veto power over private religious speech.

The ACLU falsifies information again in order to achieve their agenda of supporting terrorism

The ACLU released a reports that the TSA had over one million names on the "Terrorists Watch List". This report from the ACLU also claims that a number of prominent Americans such as Former Assistant Attorney General Jim Robinson, Ted Kennedy, Catherine Stevens, and "Robert Johnson" are on this list.

The following is a list of these accusations made by the ACLU followed by the truth.

MYTH: TSA's watch list has more than 1 million names on it.

BUSTER: First, TSA doesn't have a watch list. TSA is a customer of the Terrorist Screening Center, a component of the FBI that is responsible for maintaining the consolidated terrorist watch list. The center has said publicly that there are less than 400,000 individuals on the overall consolidated watch list, 95 percent of whom are not U.S. persons and the vast majority of whom are not even in the U.S.

TSA uses two subsets of this list, the no-fly and selectee lists. These small subsets of the overall list are reserved for known or suspected terrorists that reach a threshold where they should not be allowed to fly, or should get additional scrutiny.

MYTH: There are 1 million names on U.S. Government terror watch lists.

BUSTER: There are less than 400,000 individuals on the consolidated terrorist watch list and less than 50,000 individuals on the no-fly and selectee lists. Individuals on the no-fly and selectee lists are identified by law enforcement and intelligence partners as legitimate threats to transportation requiring either additional screening or prohibition from boarding an aircraft.

MYTH: The ACLU's math estimates that there will be 1 million people on government watch lists this July.

BUSTER: Assumptions about the list are just plain wrong. While a September 2007 report may have said that there are 700,000 records on the terrorist watch list and it was growing by an average of 20,000 per month, that is not the same as the number of individuals on the watch lists. A new "record" is created for every alias, date-of-birth, passport and other identifying information for watch listed suspects. The ACLU does not account for the name-by-name scrub that took place in the Fall of 2007 by all government agencies involved with the lists through the Terrorist Screening Center. This review reduced the no-fly and selectee lists by almost 50 percent and eliminated records of individuals that no longer pose a threat.

MYTH: Ted Kennedy, Catherine Stevens, and "Robert Johnson" are all on the no-fly or selectee watch lists.

BUSTER: These individuals are NOT on the no-fly or selectee lists. They, and other Americans, are being misidentified as individuals on the selectee list. Today watch list matching is carried out by the airlines for every passenger manifest. In cases when individuals with similar names are misidentified, folks experience inconvenience like no remote check-in but they are allowed to fly. Once TSA's Secure Flight initiative is in place the number of misidentifications will be GREATLY reduced. Under Secure Flight, TSA assumes watch list matching from dozens of airlines and implements a uniform, efficient matching process. Today the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a single point of contact for individuals who have inquiries or seek resolution regarding difficulties they experienced during their travel screening at transportation hubs--like airports and train stations--or crossing U.S. borders.

FACTS ABOUT TERROR WATCH LISTS:

Terror watch lists keep legitimate terror threats off of airplanes every day, all over the world.

According to the Congress' investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, terror watch lists have, "helped combat terrorism" and "enhanced U.S. counterterrorism effort."

Our partners in the law enforcement and intelligence communities work tirelessly and in some cases under great physical danger to identify individuals that pose a terror threat. The simple truth is that it would be negligent to not use this information to our advantage.

ACLU Continue to Enable Terrorists

As if your common sense wasn’t enough, the fact that the American Civil Liberties Union has reservations

about a new surveillance system being employed at ferry docks by the Washington State Patrol should reassure everyone that the idea is a good one.

Earlier this month, WSP started running criminal checks on the license plate numbers of all vehicles boarding ferries to and from Bainbridge Island as a test of its fledgling Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) system.

WSP may seek funding to install the ALPR system at other Washington State Ferries terminals, including Southworth, if the Bainbridge and Seattle testing is successful.

The ALPRS system uses digital cameras to photograph the license plate of each vehicle as it pulls away from the terminal toll booth. The license plate numbers are then digitized and checked against four FBI criminal databases.

A computer will automatically flag a vehicle if it has been reported stolen, if it is listed in an AMBER Alert, if someone associated with the vehicle is wanted for a felony crime, or if the license plate is associated with a suspected terrorist.

If a vehicle matches any of those criteria, an alarm is sounded at a WSP command center in Seattle, and a trooper is dispatched to verify the plate number and investigate the vehicle.

Sounds like a pretty nifty setup to us, one with the potential to keep Washington residents safe. Which apparently drives the ACLU crazy.

Doug Honig, spokesman for the ACLU chapter in Seattle, said the organization has no problem with the camera system being used for flagging stolen vehicles, potential child abductors and wanted felons.

He does, however, have concerns about flagging vehicles based on federal terrorist watch lists, because the ACLU believes those lists are often erroneous.

His group is also concerned that license plate information will be stored for two months, even if the vehicle is not flagged for criminal activity.

The mere fact that the ACLU is agreeable to using surveillance cameras to thwart one type of crime but not another underscores the basic hypocrisy of its position.

We know of no credible evidence to suggest that terrorist watch lists are inherently any less reliable than any other FBI database. Given the recent emphasis on terrorism, one might assume such lists are, in fact, given more scrutiny.

In any case, just because someone is considered a potential terrorist doesn’t mean they’re going to be arrested on the spot, thrown in jail and water-boarded. But it does mean they bear watching, which is precisely what WSP aims to do.

And that’s a good thing.

From where we sit, a terrorist who would potentially injure or kill hundreds of commuters aboard a ferry boat represents a significantly more serious threat than a car thief, and we applaud WSP for taking proactive steps to ensure such a disaster doesn’t happen in Washington.

As for the ACLU, one can’t avoid the suspicion that the organization isn’t quite as worried about the new surveillance system failing as it is that it might actually work.

Lest we forget, it’s been almost seven years since the most devastating attack in history on American soil, but the threat hasn’t gone away — as much as some might wish to believe it had.

Good intentions and happy thoughts won’t keep us safe in these dangerous times. It will take diligence, intelligence and a commitment to never taking chances where human lives are concerned.

To that end, an electronic surveillance system that can detect the presence of a terrorist before he or she has a chance to act works just fine.

And if that doesn’t sit well with terrorists and their enablers, so much the better.

Ten Commandments poster inside courtroom approved
Display compares Decalogue with 7 'humanist principles'
Posted: August 11, 2008
5:39 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A federal judge has rejected a demand from the American Civil Liberties Union that she censor a document posted in an Ohio courtroom titled "Philosophies of Law in Conflict" because the Ten Commandments are included.

"It is truly unfortunate that the ACLU apparently has nothing better to do than to file baseless charges against a dedicated public servant like Judge [James] DeWeese," said Francis J. Manion, a senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.

"A first-year law student – looking at the facts and law of this case – could have told the ACLU that there never was a legal basis for this ridiculous contempt charge. We're pleased that the [federal] court acted expeditiously in tossing out this latest gambit in the ACLU's ongoing harassment of Judge DeWeese."

The latest conflict in the nationwide battle over the display of Ten Commandments monuments and representations involved the ACLU and DeWeese, who several years ago had a copy of the Decalogue posted in his courtroom and was sued by the ACLU, resulting in an order that the Ten Commandments could not be posted by themselves in the courtroom.

Subsequently, DeWeese posted the "Philosophies of Law in Conflict" a document that includes the Ten Commandments as well as a list of "humanist precepts" and a commentary by the judge about the two conflicting philosophies.

The Ten Commandments state the biblical foundation for morality: You shall have no other gods before me, You shall not kill, You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, and the rest.

The humanist precepts include: The universe is self-existent and was not created. Man is the product of a cosmic accident, and there is nothing higher than man, Ethics depend on the person and the situation, There is no absolute truth, The meaning of law evolves, and others.

The result was a request from the ACLU that the judge be held in contempt for posting the Ten Commandments. However, the judge who originally ordered the first Ten Commandments display removed said the current display is perfectly legal.

"The court can find no principled basis upon which to find that, or even fully consider whether, the new display is constitutionally impermissible," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen O'Malley in her opinion.

She held DeWeese is not in contempt of her prior order and further, said the ACLU's attempt to censor the philosophies of law was "misplaced.

The ACLU had accused DeWeese of putting up the display, which graphically compares and contrasts the Ten Commandments with the seven humanist principles, in violation of O'Malley's 2002 injunction against the Ten Commandments under the caption "Rule of Law."

The ACLU claimed DeWeese was in "public defiance" of the court order and was "undermining the administration of justice."

O'Malley found no validity to the ACLU argument.

"It was clear from the start of this latest episode in the ACLU's harassment of Judge DeWeese that the ACLU was choosing to ignore current law regarding public displays that include the Decalogue in an educational or historical setting," Manion said. "The U.S. Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear – in cases brought by the ACLU itself – that government officials are permitted to discuss, acknowledge and display the Ten Commandments in a context that underscores the role played by Decalogue in 'history, civilization or ethics.' Any reasonable person can see that this is precisely what Judge DeWeese's current display does.'

Along with the displays of the differing faith systems, DeWeese has added his own commentary.

"All law is legislated morality," he writes. "The only question is whose morality. Because all morality is based on faith, there is no such thing as religious neutrality in law or morality."

He continued, "Ultimately there are only two views. Either God is the final authority, and we acknowledge his unchanging standards of behavior. Or man is the final authority and standards of behavior change at the whim of individuals or societies."

"Our Founders saw the necessity of moral absolutes. President John Adams said, 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other,'" he continued.

"The Declaration of Independence acknowledges God as Creator, Lawgiver, 'Supreme Judge of the World," and the one who providentially superintends the affairs of man," he said. "I join the Founders in personally acknowledging the importance of Almighty God's fixed moral standards for restoring the moral fabric of this nation."

An image of DeWeese's commentary has been posted on the ACLJ website.

DeWeese told the Mansfield News Journal the ACLU simply was trying to silence his speech.

"It's really about a debate of philosophies and how that affects our criminal caseloads," he told the newspaper. "I put both sides up. People can make their own decisions."

Arkansas Town Expands Curfew, With Assault Rifles

One of the issues guaranteed to get the America Civil Liberties Union (I’m trying to remind the ACLU what the A stands for) up on their moral high horses is people actually owning guns. Another is “excessive police force.” A third would be curfews.

Here they get all three

Quote

HELENA-WEST HELENA, Ark. — Officers armed with military rifles have been stopping and questioning passers-by in a neighborhood plagued by violence that’s been under a 24-hour curfew for a week.

On Tuesday, the Helena-West Helena City Council voted 9-0 to allow police to expand that program into any area of the city, despite a warning from a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that the police stops were unconstitutional.

Police Chief Fred Fielder said the patrols have netted 32 arrests since they began last week in a 10-block neighborhood in this small town on the banks of the Mississippi River long troubled by poverty. The council said those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueled violence to stop, no matter what the cost.

“Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I’m fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the citizens see it here,” Mayor James Valley said. “The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.”

You know PC Fielder is speaking to the ACLU and weak kneed liberals, right? The people would sooner protect criminals from having to stop acting criminally instead of the law abiding citizens.

Quote

However, such stops likely violate residents’ constitutional rights to freely assemble and protections against unreasonable police searches, said Holly Dickson, a lawyer for the ACLU of Arkansas who addressed the council at its packed Tuesday meeting. Because of that, Dickson said any convictions coming from the arrests likely would be overturned.

Right on time! Free assembly goes with, according to the 1st Amendment, the word peaceably, which is something criminals tend not to do. And, no, I am not talking about Code Pink. Also, the point of the phrase was to allow people to assemble to protest the government, not hang on a street corner selling crack to 14 year olds and doing drive by’s.

And, in terms of the arrests, what Dickson means is that the ACLU will fight to overturn any arrests of stone cold criminals

Quote

“The residents of these high-crime areas are already victims,” she said. “They’re victims of what are happening in the neighborhoods, they’re victims of fear. But for them to be subject to unlawful stops and questioning … that is not going to ultimately going to help this situation.”

No, Holly, they are not victims of fear. They are victims of crime. Real, honest to goodness crime. Why don’t you have their back, Holly?

BTW, the town told the ACLU to take a short stroll off a short pier, even going so far as to ask Holly Dickson if she lived in that neighborhood, which must have caused serious liberal sputtering and indignation, followed by a totally unrelated “morality” speech.

It really is great to see another town put the ACLU back in their place.

Prayer in public: Can you still say 'Jesus'?
ACLU sues to stop clergy from invoking 'religious messages' at meetings

The American Civil Liberties Union is asking the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stop a suburban Atlanta county from opening its meetings with prayers that mention "Jesus" or other "sectarian" references, claiming the invocations represent government favoritism of Christianity.

The three-judge panel of the court, however, was immediately skeptical of how the ACLU expected prayers to be crafted without appering to favor one religion over another.

"What about King of Kings?" Judge Bill Pryor asked ACLU lawyer Daniel Mach in the case's hearing last week. "Is that sectarian?"

"What about Lord of Lords?" Pryor persisted, interrupting the ACLU lawyer's arguments. "The God of Abraham? … What about the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad?"

Judge Charles Wilson wondered just how far Mach was suggesting the county go in editing people's prayers.

"As a practical matter, how do you draw the line?" Wilson asked.

He also asked what steps the ACLU suggested the Cobb County, Ga., board of commissioners take before its regulation became "some sort of censorship" or "just government prayer."

At one point in the hearing, ACLU attorney Mach pointed out that the invitations Cobb County sends to guest clergy already ask that the prayers not proselytize or disparage other religions. According to the Associated Press, Mach suggested that the invitations simply be amended to ask the clergy to refrain from invoking "religious messages" at all.

Cobb County attorney David Walbert countered that such restrictions would make it a "virtual impossibility" for clergy to draft any kind of meaningful prayer.

Liberty Legal Institute Chief Counsel Kelly Shackleford was indignant about the ACLU asking clergy to pray without "invoking religious messages."

"I think this is really where you pull the cover off and see what you're really looking at with the ACLU," Shackelford told OneNewsNow. "This is religious bigotry; it's anti-free speech; it's everything that they're supposed to be against."

"The government really has no business telling anybody how they should or should not pray," Shackelford said. "And the fact that the ACLU is trying to use the power of government to tell people how to pray is just an incredible invasion of freedom, and (it) shows that they are not about freedom and liberty at all. They're about oppression and trying to stamp out religious speech."

The ACLU, together with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, are arguing on behalf of seven individuals who filed suit in 2005 challenging the "sectarian" nature of Cobb County's invocations, claiming 70 percent of the prayers were Christian or mentioned Jesus Christ.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Richard Story ruled the prayers could continue and said that because the county invites clergy from all denominations, the practice doesn't constitute endorsement of one religion over another.

Story did, however, criticize the county's practice of selecting its invited clergy by merely thumbing through a phone book and awarded $1 to each of the seven plaintiffs.

The ACLU then appealed the case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, ALCU attorney Mach argued that federal appeals courts in Richmond, New Orleans, Chicago and San Francisco already have ruled sectarian invocations at government meetings violate the First Amendment.

Cobb County attorney Walbert, however, disagreed with the argument, saying that the U.S. Congress has opened its sessions with sectarian prayers since the appointment of the first Senate chaplain.

"Everything that is at issue here was clearly being done in 1789," Walbert said.

The AP reported Judge Pryor also questioned the reasoning, pointing out that even the Supreme Court opens its session with a prayer that could be called sectarian: "God save the United States and this honorable court."

With arguments concluding last week, the court is expected to rule on the case sometime in the coming months.

ACLU attack dogs maul student prayer
Group snarls at admin for allowing invocation, Christmas concerts at churches

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on behalf of two high school students who say they are offended by the school's policy of allowing prayer at voluntary events and holding Christmas concerts at churches.

The students, from Pace High School in Pace, Fla., are identified only as Minor I Doe and Minor II Doe in the lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court because they are both under 18. The complaint alleges disclosure of their names would put the students at risk of "social ostracism, economic injury, governmental retaliation … and potential physical harm."

Benjamin Stevenson, staff attorney with the ACLU of Florida's Northwest Region office, released an ACLU statement accusing school officials of using governmental positions to promote individual religious beliefs in public school.

"Parents, not the public schools, should be responsible for deciding whether their children receive religious education," said Benjamin Stevenson, staff attorney with the ACLU of Florida's Northwest Region office. "Religious freedom is eroded when the government endorses any particular religious viewpoint."

The lawsuit states, "(S)tudents not only face overt compulsion to adopt the religious beliefs of school officials, but also must contend with subtle coercive pressures to conform their religious beliefs to those favored by school officials."

According to the complaint, graduation ceremonies at the high school have included prayers by students who are "often members of groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes or the Christian World Order." Attendees are asked to stand during prayer. The grievance also alleges Pace High School has conducted school-sponsored events at private places of worship and that school officials have promoted personal religious views and proselytizing of students in class and during extracurricular activities.

The complaint claims teacher and girls' track coach Clint Martin has used a bullhorn to preach to cross-country students before school in the parking lot. It also states faculty and staff invite students to pray before sports events such as football and basketball games and before club meetings.

Pace High Principal Frank Lay and Superintendent John Rogers, defendants in the suit, declined to comment on the pending legal action. However, Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief said he believes the school should refrain from endorsing religions.

"The government should not be in the business of deciding which religions to promote," he said in an ACLU statement. "Individuals, families and religious communities should be free to make their own decisions about religion."

ACLU silencing praying coaches
Charlie Butts
11/13/2008

Are public school coaches permitted to pray silently alongside their players? The Rutherford Institute is taking this question to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision.

Coach Marcus Borden ran into trouble with a new policy at East Brunswick High School in New Jersey, which stated that coaches cannot recognize prayers initiated by their players because coaches are public employees and their participation would violate "separation of church and state." Borden told WorldNetDaily that he simply wants to bow his head during the prayer out of respect for his students and his team.

John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute says the school's policy would nullify a tradition that has been part of the high school's pre-game routine for the last 25 years.

"But in our case, all Coach Borden wanted to do was to bow his head silently as the students prayed in the locker room -- sometimes what they call 'take an eagle.' They'd go down on one knee, and he's standing outside behind the circle of players," he explains. "He's not influencing them. He's just listening and really just doing what coaches have done -- since Knute Rockne, by the way."

The Institute won on a lower level, but the ACLU convinced the school district to appeal. "It's a very important case. We've had a lot of people file briefs on our behalf," Whitehead adds. "I think the Supreme Court's going to hear this case. It's going to really set the tone for what can be done in public schools."

Whitehead believes this policy, if it stands, will strip high school teachers and coaches across the nation of their First Amendment and academic rights.

ACLU silencing praying coaches (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=315234)

Disabled Children Lose Fight Against ACLU

by Stop The ACLU

I’ve got good news and bad news tonight regarding the ACLU. I’ll start you off with the bad news and then give you the good news. The bad news is that the ACLU won one, and disabled children lost in the process.

Quote

The American Civil Liberties Union won its fight against disabled children Wednesday when the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a state program that allowed special needs kids to use vouchers at private schools so that they could receive the best educational opportunities. ADF attorneys joined attorneys from the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe last year in submitting a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a Christian school in defense of the voucher program, which was upheld by the Arizona Court of Appeals.

“The ACLU, People for the American Way, and the teachers’ unions have denied disabled children the educational opportunities they deserve. They are the ones hurt by this,” said ADF Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Special needs students who attend Christian schools shouldn’t be penalized for their beliefs.”

“Any tuition that goes to a religious school is through the choice of the parent and for the benefit of the child. It is not ‘state support’ of that school,” explained Orrick attorney Raymond Mullady, who co-wrote the friend-of-the-court brief. “We truly disagree with the high court’s decision and are saddened by its consequences for Arizona’s special needs children.”

John and Dina Phipps and Brendan and Susan Fay, founders of Father’s Heart Christian School for the disabled, removed their developmentally and physically challenged children from the Arizona public school system because of the inadequate education they received there. Two of the children suffer from autism and the other from learning and physical challenges.

Upon receiving the customized instruction they needed at Father’s Heart, their behavior and participation improved remarkably and their academic performance rose several grade levels in just one year after leaving the government school system. The children receive vouchers through the Arizona Scholarships for Pupils with Disabilities program to attend Father’s Heart, but Wednesday’s decision from the Arizona Supreme Court effectively kills the program.

Cave Creek Unified School District board member Virgel Cain, the ACLU, People for the American Way, a number of teachers’ unions, and others filed suit against Arizona State Superintendant of Public Instruction Tom Horne to challenge the constitutionality of the voucher program.

Meanwhile your tax money is paying to install footbaths for Muslims in a public school somewhere and the ACLU remain silent. Somewhere CAIR is teaching school children about Islam, and the ACLU remains silent. However, they won’t sit idly by and allow autistic children to receive a better education. Absolutely not if it involves attending a Christian school. They should be ashamed, but they are probably quite proud of themselves.

ChristiansUnite Forums

Entertainment => Politics and Political Issues => Topic started by: Soldier4Christ on September 05, 2007, 07:30:34 PM