ChristiansUnite Forums

ACLU Lunacy     Posted 2005-10-17


The comedian Dennis Miller once suggested the ACLU should create an airline. No passenger would be searched or questioned, but ACLU members and their supporters would not be allowed to use any other jet. It was a not-so-subtle jab indicated that ACLU members don’t mind putting other people in danger.

A Tampa case bears out Mr. Miller’s statement. In another insane lawsuit, the organization is suing the Tampa Bay Bucs because fans are patted down before going into the Buc stadium. The pat down is hardly a violation of basic rights nor is it even much of an inconvenience.

The suit comes in the aftermath of Joel Hinrichs blowing himself up as he approached a packed football stadium in Oklahoma. Questions remain about the case, but it has been established that Hinrichs was a recent convert to Islam and had a large amount of explosives stored away. This incident looks suspiciously like a suicide bombing gone awry.

The ACLU seems almost suicidal in its lunacy. Members are callous in its disregard for the lives and safety of fellow citizens. One can only hope this type of reckless lunacy doesn’t spread to other organizations. This mentality is more dangerous to the nation than the bird flu.

It seems almost an afterthought to say that it’s chilling to realize a former general counsel of the ACLU — Ruth Bader Ginsberg — sits on the United States Supreme Court.

ACLU Defends Woman Who Gave Birth To Drug Addicted Baby

Once again, the ACLU are confused on who is truly the victim.

    Stephanie E. Robbins, 24, was arrested Tuesday at her home in the rural community of Wittman. She is charged with reckless endangerment and possession of drugs. Test results showed drugs in the bloodstream of Robbins' child, who was born at a Baltimore hospital, authorities said.

    The baby is being cared for by the county's Department of Social Services, officials said.

Without responsibility, all of our rights will crumble before our eyes. The ACLU obviously does not believe in responsibility. This woman needs help with her drug problem for sure, but she also needs to be held accountable for her actions. This fragile little life was born into this world addicted to drugs, and the ACLU thinks the mother is the victim.

Here was the ACLU's compassionate response to this.

    The ACLU says that because Maryland law does not define a fetus as a person, a mother shouldn't be prosecuted for conduct that could endanger her unborn child.

The ACLU have fought similar cases in the past, expect to see them take this one too. What ever happened to responsibility in America? The true victim here is a defenseless baby, but the ACLU had rather play the victim card for an irresponsible drug addict, that has put her own child's life at risk for her fix.

______________________________

HOW MANY A.C.L.U. LAWYERS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN?

The "tiny cross" people at the American Civil Liberties Union are at it again. These are the folks with extra-keen eyes and powerful magnifying glasses who examine the official seals of towns and counties, looking for miniature crosses that ACLU lawyers like to trumpet as grave threats to separation of church and state.

This time around, the folks with the magnifying glasses are leaning on the village of Tijeras, N.M., whose seal contains a conquistador's helmet and sword, a scroll, a desert plant, a fairly large religious symbol (the Native American zia) and a quite small Christian cross. "Tiny cross" inspectors are not permitted to fret about large non-Christian religious symbols, only undersized Christian ones, so the ACLU filed suit to get the cross removed.

The cross is obviously not an endorsement of religion, any more than the conquistador helmet and sword are endorsements of Spanish warfare. The courts have ruled, not always consistently, that crosses, as historical references in such seals and logos, are permissible. But the ACLU, these days, is strongly committed to seeing church-state crises everywhere, and thus pushes things way too far.

Last year the ACLU demanded that Los Angeles County eliminate from its seal a microscopic cross representing the missions that settled the state of California. Under threat of expensive litigation, the county complied. The cross was about one-sixth the size of a not-very-big image of a cow tucked away on the lower right segment of the seal, and maybe a hundredth of the size of a pagan god (Pomona, goddess of fruit) who dominated the seal. Pomona survived the religious purge. She is not the sort of god that the ACLU worries about, whereas the flyspeck-sized cross was a threat to unravel separation of church and state, as we know it. What will happen if the ACLU learns that Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Sacramento, San Francisco, St. Louis and Corpus Christi actually have religious names? We shudder to think.

The campaign to remove all traces of religion from public institutions, and in fact from the entire public square, is now far advanced. Part of that extremist campaign is to squelch private expression in and around public schools. Students have been punished for reading the Bible outside of class, for assembling after school to talk about religion, for thanking God or Jesus in a valedictory speech, and for bowing their heads (and therefore presumed to be praying privately) before lunch.

Another fairly common school crisis comes when a class is asked to write an essay or draw a picture of someone they regard as a hero. Mao Tse-tung or Vlad the Impaler will bring no rebuke, but if the hero is Jesus or Moses, watch out.

Last week the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York accepted the case of Antonio Peck, who, as a kindergartner in 1999, had his drawing censored from a class wall display because of church-state concerns. Along with the rest of his class, Antonio was told to draw a picture to illustrate his understanding of the environment. He drew a man with upraised arms, wearing a robe. When asked, the boy said the man was Jesus, who was "the only way to save the world." The trial will decide whether the school was guilty of viewpoint censorship.

In Tennessee, the Knox County board of education is being sued for refusing to allow a 10-year-old to read his Bible during recess. The school argued that recess is not free time and that the school can forbid the reading of religious material during that period. The Phoenix-based Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which defends religious liberties cases, supported the student.

After ADF intervened, a school in Torrance, Calif., backed down from its decision not to allow a student on a dance team to perform to religious music. ADF also defended students who had been forbidden by their schools to participate in the national Sept. 21 "See You at the Pole" prayer and religious event on school grounds. ADF argued that religious expression cannot be treated differently from any other constitutionally protected expression.

As if to prove that church-state objections can be found on the right as well as on the left, the band director at C.D. Hylton High School in Virginia pulled the song "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" by the Charlie Daniels Band after a conservative objected. He wondered why the school should be allowed to sing about the devil when they are not allowed to sing about God.

Next week: The ACLU sues to ban deviled eggs from the school cafeteria.

________________________

My Note: Instead of banning deviled eggs it will be "Angel Food Cake" or anything labeled "Kosher" that will be banned.

The religious symbol, the Native American zia, mentioned in the article as also being on the village seal is also on the New Mexico flag. The ACLU proves once again by not going after this religious symbol that they are targeting Christianity.

ACLU appeals two Vermont civil rights cases

October 24, 2005

By John Zicconi Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — The Vermont Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union will go to federal appeals court this week, trying to reverse a lower-court ruling allowing officials at a Vermont school ban images of drugs or alcohol on student clothing.

The ACLU will also ask the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to overturn another lower-court ruling allowing the federal government to conduct random screening of automobiles and luggage on ferries that cross Lake Champlain.

The ACLU claims the ferry searches violate passenger rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable search and seizures, while the Williamstown Middletown School's dress code violates a student's First Amendment right to free speech — a political statement that used drug and alcohol images.

"Students don't shed their rights when they enter the schoolhouse gate," said Allen Gilbert, executive director of the Vermont ACLU.

U.S. District Judge William Sessions last year ruled that Zachary Guiles' rights were not violated when Williamstown Principal Kathleen Morris-Kortz ordered him to cover up images on a T-shirt that were critical of President Bush.

The shirt referred to Bush as a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and called the president a "chicken-hawk-in-chief" who was engaged in a "world domination tour." The garment was covered with a variety of images, including cocaine and a martini glass.

The seventh-grader obtained the shirt at an anti-war rally. He was suspended for one day when he refused to cover up the shirt's drug and alcohol images, but was later allowed to wear the shirt if he covered up the drug and alcohol images with tape.

Session's ruled that the school could censor the images because they violated a school policy preventing the display of drug and alcohol images. The judge, however, ordered Guiles' disciplinary record expunged because initially he was also told to cover textual references to cocaine.

The judge ruled that words were different than images and could not be censored if they were used to convey a political message.

School officials are only interested in preventing messages that promote drug and alcohol use, and were happy with the compromise, said Tony Lamb, the school's attorney. But Guiles and the ACLU claimed the student's rights were violated, and appealed Sessions' ruling.

"We think the distinction between words and images when dealing with core political speech is a false one," Gilbert said.

"The judge said you can censor all drug and alcohol images if you have a policy that says so," Gilbert said. "That is an unworkable policy that denies students a chance to engage in further, meaningful discussion about the political messages they are trying to convey."

The appeals court will hear the case Friday.

The Vermont ACLU is also unhappy that the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 granted the U.S. Coast Guard the authority to randomly screen passengers riding ferries across Lake Champlain.

The law allows the Coast Guard to do random searches of car trunks, luggage and backpacks. The ACLU in 2004 filed suit on behalf of Colchester resident Michael Cassidy who uses a ferry to commute to his job in Plattsburgh, N.Y.

The government says the screenings, which it says are no less intrusive than the procedures undergone by airline passengers every day, are useful tools to thwart possible terrorist attacks.

The ACLU, however, claims there is not enough evidence that Lake Champlain ferries are an actual target to justify the searches.

"We are not saying all searches of maritime vessels are prohibited," Gilbert said. "We are just saying these on Lake Champlain cannot be justified. … The government must have a good reason for infringing on your constitutional rights."

U.S. District Judge J. Garvan Murtha earlier this year ruled the federal government has the right to conduct searches on ferries without proof of specific threats.

The ACLU says the law should force the government to spend its limited anti-terror dollars more wisely and should show there are "special circumstances" before conducting searches without a warrant.

"We have to force the government to make better security decisions," Gilbert said. "There are many forms of public transportation. Why do we search ferries in the middle of nowhere crossing Lake Champlain when we don't search a bus that is going right by a federal building in downtown Burlington?"

Carol Shea, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Burlington, declined to comment about the case, which will be argued at the federal appeals court Thursday.

Group offers SC counties legal assistance regarding prayer policies

(Columbia-AP) Oct. 24, 2005 - A Christian legal firm has offered to help a couple of South Carolina government entities craft policies that could allow prayers at council meetings.

The move comes after the American Civil Liberties Union sent letters to local government councils reminding them that the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a prayer before a meeting that invokes a specific deity is unconstitutional.

The Alliance Defense Fund says it is committed to helping legislative bodies put prayer practices in place. An attorney with the group, Jeremy Tedesco, says the councils haven't yet accepted the offer.

The Fourth Circuit's ruling came after Wiccan priestess Darla Wynn sued the town of Great Falls for praying to Jesus Christ at the start of council meetings.

Tedesco says his organization has contacted Anderson and Oconee counties as well as the city of Anderson.

Reno uses Jesus' name in prayer
By Andrew Dys The Herald

(Published October 25‚ 2005)

Rock Hill City Councilman Jim Reno is a man of his word -- even if his principles could possibly violate an order of the federal courts.

Reno opened Monday night's city council meeting with a prayer for Hurricane Wilma victims in Florida, ending the prayer with "in Jesus' name."

Rock Hill rotates prayers among all six council members and the mayor. Reno, a Christian and a lawyer, has said since the federal courts ruled against the Chester County town of Great Falls about mentioning a specific deity that when his turn came, he would only offer a prayer in Jesus' name.

After leaving an executive session after the meeting, Reno said "I have no comment. I prayed like I normally pray."

In the Great Falls case, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie issued an order prohibiting the Great Falls Town Council from using "the name of a specific deity associated with any one specific faith or belief in prayers given at Town Council meetings."

Great Falls fought the ruling, losing every step of the way. The federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Great Falls twice after Currie's ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Currie recently ordered Great Falls to pay Wiccan Darla Wynne's $55,000 in legal bills.

The S.C. Municipal Association has told public bodies that the Fourth Circuit ruling is the law and should be obeyed.

However, the city of Anderson has adopted a policy allowing rotated prayers that it believes allows for mention of Jesus.

Reno has said before that he has received widespread support from the community about his unwavering position to continue to pray to Jesus, even after the Great Falls court losses.

Mayor Doug Echols, re-elected last week, said after the meeting the council will continue to rotate prayers and allow members to pray "as they see fit."

The council met in closed session after its regular meeting to discuss three legal matters, including one identified in council papers distributed at the meeting as receiving "legal advice over a potential lawsuit."

Neither Echols nor the city's lawyer, Paul Dillingham -- who was in the hour-and-a half long executive session -- would say if Monday night's legal advice was in regard to prayers before meetings.

"It is not the intention of council to inhibit or advance any particular religion," Echols said afterward.

Some legal scholars have said public bodies could fight the Great Falls ruling on free speech grounds or because Great Falls was the sole defendant in Wynne's lawsuit.

Rock Hill now becomes at least the fourth public body in the state to mention Jesus in recent prayers before meetings. Some, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have hinted at more lawsuits.

A written appeals court ruling last year against Great Falls stated prayers before councils are part of American history and provide an opportunity for reflection and strength for believers.

"This opportunity does not, however, provide the Town Council, or any other legislative body, license to advance its own religious views in preference to all others, as the Town Council did here," the ruling states. "The First Amendment bars such official preference for one religion, and corresponding discrimination against all others."

Mike Cubelo, president of the ACLU Piedmont Chapter, called South Carolina elected officials who won't comply with the federal court rulings "political peacocks who want to show their religious feathers."

The federal court rulings are clear, Cubelo said Monday night. "I don't understand why these public officials don't seem to get it," he said.

ACLU on the rampage: ADF offers free help to mounting legal attacks on prayer at public meetings
Monday, October 24, 2005, 9:00 AM (MST)
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Comments
 


SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. - Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund have sent letters offering free legal assistance to three legislative bodies that have been threatened by the American Civil Liberties Union for their practice of opening public meetings with prayers that refer to "Jesus."

"Make no mistake, the ACLU's true agenda is the eradication of Christian prayers from our nation's public life, as their misuse of the term 'sectarian' confirms," said ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco.  "The ACLU claims that these prayers violate the Constitution because they are 'sectarian,' but as the Supreme Court has noted, the word 'sectarian' was used as a code word for the Catholic Church by people hostile to it.  Today, the ACLU employs the same word against Christianity in general."

ADF has offered free legal assistance to a city and two county councils in South Carolina in the wake of a mounting number of legal threats from the ACLU in that state with regard to so-called "sectarian" prayer at public meetings.

"Incredibly, the ACLU demands government control over the content of prayers.  The ACLU seeks to impose its desire for meaningless, God-free prayers through court orders by activist judges," Tedesco explained.  "This is nothing new for the ACLU.  They have a different vision for America than most Americans do and our Founders did."

ADF attorneys have been involved in defending Tangipahoa Parish School Board officials in Louisiana against an ACLU lawsuit for their practice of opening public meetings with what it labeled a "sectarian" invocation.

In the 1983 case Marsh v. Chambers, the U.S. Supreme Court noted,

    In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society.  To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.  

"The ACLU--the self-proclaimed defender of tolerance and inclusiveness--notably lacks tolerance for Christianity," said Tedesco.  "As long as the ACLU continues on this trend of threatening local government bodies for seeking divine guidance prior to their important work, ADF will make itself available to defend them."

Do-over "See You at the Pole" event huge success after ADF attorney writes letter to school
School officials originally denied students the right to assemble for prayer event
Monday, October 24, 2005, 8:45 AM (MST)
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Comments
 


BARNEGAT, N.J. - Officials at Russell O. Brackman Middle School originally stopped three students from praying as part of the "See You at the Pole" event on Sept. 21, but the participants increased to a much larger number at a "do over" event allowed after the school's principal received a letter from an ADF attorney explaining the law.

"Students not only have a constitutional right to participate in 'See You at the Pole,' but they also have a right to tell other students about it," said ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco.  "So long as students do not disrupt the academic process, school officials cannot interfere with their religious freedom."

"See You at the Pole" (www.syatp.org) is an annual student-organized, student-led gathering at the school flagpole where students pray for their school, friends, teachers, government, and nation.  A Brackman Middle School official acting on behalf of the principal approached three students, including Emily Tomsick and Kenan Wright, who were praying at the school's flagpole on Sept. 21.  The official reportedly ordered them to stop praying, citing concerns about mixing religion and schools.

"The censorship of the students' prayer as part of the SYATP event is blatantly unconstitutional under firmly established law and is a violation of the students' First Amendment rights," wrote Tedesco in his letter to the principal following the incident.

After receiving the letter, the school allowed the students to hold a "do over" event on Oct. 19.  Approximately 50 students and members of the community reportedly participated.

"The school should be applauded for doing the right thing in allowing the students to gather at the make-up prayer event," Tedesco explained.  "ADF is happy to have been a part in helping the school to understand what the Constitution really says about the First Amendment rights of its students."

The letter written by Tedesco to the principal of Brackman Middle School can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/TomsickLetter.pdf.  ADF produced an informational legal memorandum describing the constitutional rights of students who wanted to participate in the event.  The document is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/SYATP_ADF_Memo_2005.pdf.

Maryland school district does end-run around court decision on religious flyers
Appeal filed against Montgomery County Public Schools for avoiding court decision by illegitimately rewriting flyer distribution policy
Thursday, October 20, 2005, 11:30 AM (MST)
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Comments
 


RICHMOND, Va. - Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland filed an appeal Wednesday of a federal district court's decision that upheld a school district's revised flyer distribution policy.  The policy precludes CEF from having its flyers distributed at the district's schools while other religious, community, and government groups' flyers are not precluded.

Attorneys from Christian Legal Society represent CEF in the free speech case, which is funded by Alliance Defense Fund.  CLS attorneys filed the appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

"Religious speech is not second class speech under the Constitution," said CLS Litigation Counsel Timothy J. Tracey.  "This is just one more example of school officials misunderstanding the law, thinking they must censor private religious speech simply because they don't like CEF's point of view.  Our appeal challenges the school district's refusal to distribute CEF's flyers for its after-school meetings in light of the fact that the district does distribute flyers for similar after-school meetings sponsored by other groups."

Last year the 4th Circuit ruled that Montgomery County Public School's refusal to distribute CEF's flyers was unconstitutional discrimination.  The district subsequently adopted a "revised" policy to circumvent the court's ruling, claiming that many community groups may distribute their flyers within the scope of the policy; however, CEF's flyers are still not being distributed.

The second appeal filed Wednesday argues that the "revised" policy continues its previous discriminatory practice, which the Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional.  It further argues that the school district's "revised" policy actually violates CEF's freedom of speech more than the original policy did.

Ohio legislator takes on the issue of illegal immigration

By MIKE HARDEN
Scripps Howard News Service
26-OCT-05

Courtney Combs said he was bent over his Sunday breakfast at a Butler County, Ohio, Big Boy when a 90-year-old constituent separated him from his scrambled eggs long enough to tell him, "I appreciate what you are doing. I have to go to the emergency room once or twice a year, and those people don't pay."

"Those people," identified by Combs as illegal immigrants, could be charged with trespassing in the United States if the Republican's bill becomes law.

On first blush, Combs appears to be a xenophobic redneck pandering to the baser instincts of constituents in a county that has witnessed a 500 percent jump in its Latino population in the past 15 years. The county is home to a saloon that recently run afoul the ACLU for hanging out a sign advising patrons: "For Service, Speak English."

"I'm not anti-immigrant," Combs said. "I'm anti-illegal immigrant. These people pay $3,000 to $5,000 to get into this country. They are being abused. They need work. They've got to eat. It's a survival thing. These people will be taken advantage of because they will work for low dollars and do jobs no American would take."

I'm a betting man, and I'd give 3-to-1 odds against Combs' bill becoming law, but I savor the prospect of the potential for legislative dialogue on the proverbial elephant in the living room that no one seems to want to discuss.

"I would be willing to open this thing up in committee and listen to any suggestions that will make this as palatable as possible and make it workable," Combs said, "but you can't bury your head in the sand and say everything is going to be fine when your county government is foundering."

He says illegals burden medical, social, educational and legal resources.

With his bill, an individual who, say, is stopped for speeding and cannot prove he is legally in the United States could be charged with trespassing.

Butler County Sheriff Rick Jones says that would allow him to take steps toward deporting the person.

Jones said yesterday he will begin billing the Cincinnati office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement $70 a day for illegals residing in his jail.

Combs has described Jones as a collaborator on his legislation. "The sheriff has threatened, when he arrests illegals, that he will bus them down to the (Cincinnati office of ICE) and drop them on the doorstep," Combs said, "but they would beat us back to Butler County."

Combs and Jones have suggested they are willing to be as hard on those who employ illegals as on the illegals themselves. "We have an underground economy," Combs said, pointing out that some employers "wink and nod" at immigration laws. Contractors hire subcontractors, who might be legal, who then hire laborers who aren't. The engine of capitalism chugs on.

"Last week, the president said we're going to tighten up the borders," Combs added. "We're going to do this and do that."

He didn't seem optimistic.

"I expect this is going to turn up the heat on them," Jones said of the possible impact of Combs' bill on the feds. What Combs wants the feds to do on the immigration issue, as the axiom suggests, is "Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way."

I don't imagine my political sensibilities inhabit the same solar system as those of Combs and Jones. But as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what or who brings the issue of illegal immigration to the fore.

A legislative (and, one would hope, public) dialogue might not end the divisiveness, but it's a start.

I get the impression that the ACLU has other motives for wanting this turned down.


Thursday, October 27, 2005

ACLU Challenging ABQ Voter ID Ordinance


Associated Press
      The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico sued the city of Albuquerque on Thursday over its new voter ID ordinance, contending it's unconstitutional.
    The ordinance, approved by voters Oct. 4, requires people who vote at the polls to present a current, valid identification card that includes their name and photograph. People who vote absentee are exempt from photo ID requirements.
    "Why should people who actually show their faces at the polling place suffer more rigorous identification requirements than someone who votes from a distance?'' said Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU. "It doesn't make sense. We're creating two classes of voters. The Constitution doesn't permit that.''
    Mark Shoesmith, an assistant city attorney, said the city could not comment because officials had not seen the lawsuit.
    However, he said the ordinance contains fail-safe procedures to make sure people get to vote — even if they lack a photo ID — by using paper provisional ballots. A canvassing board later counts those that are ruled valid.
    "You always get a provisional ballot as a last recourse,'' Shoesmith said.
    Voters then have a number of options to make sure their ballot gets counted.
    Shoesmith said the ordinance gives people up to 10 days after an election to present photo identification at the city clerk's office. People who don't have a photo ID can present two types of non-photo identification with their name and address or sign an affidavit verifying their identity. After the city verifies the person is registered to vote, the city issues a photo ID, he said.
    In addition, people who object to having their photo taken can sign an affidavit saying so, he said.
    "You can get your photo ID from us before election day, on election day or within 10 days after the election for your provisional ballot to count,'' Shoesmith said.
    The ACLU's Simonson said, however, "if you're poor or homeless, there's a good chance you don't have any of the permissible forms of identification.''
    "Wealth shouldn't determine your ability to participate in democracy,'' he said in a news release. "Americans shouldn't have to jump through unnecessary hoops to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.''
    Earlier Thursday, a federal appeals court refused to let Georgia demand photo identification from all voters at the polls. Last week, a federal judge barred Georgia from enforcing a new photo-ID law during local elections next month, saying it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax that could prevent poor people, blacks and the elderly from voting. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift the stay.
    Georgia's law does not allow alternative forms of identification. Under it, voters have to show either a driver's license or a state-issued photo ID, available for up to $35. Previously, voters could show Social Security cards, birth certificates and utility bills.

ACLJ To Protect Free Speech of Pro-Life Demonstrators


by Jay on 10-28-05 @ 11:35 am Filed under Uncategorized, 1st Amendment, News

    (Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law, said today it is pleased that the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to take a case involving the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute against pro-life demonstrators – a case that the Supreme Court tackled two years ago and at that time determined RICO could not be used against demonstrators. The case was kept alive after the 2003 decision by the National Organization for Women (NOW). The ACLJ represents Operation Rescue (OR) in the case and is hopeful the high court will settle this issue once and for all.

    “We’re pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to take this case and has a critically important opportunity to remove a dark cloud that has been hanging over the pro-life movement for nearly 20 years,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who served as Counsel of Record for Operation Rescue in the 2003 case and represents OR in this case. “The high court acted correctly two years ago in determining that RICO could not be used against the pro-life demonstrators in this case. By taking this case now, we are hopeful the high court will move to vindicate these pro-life demonstrators once and for all. It is an important case that puts the issue of abortion front and center at a time when the make-up of the court could very well change before this case is argued next term.”

    The Supreme Court ended the RICO case in 2003 when by a vote of 8-to-1 the high court ruled that merely obstructing the operations of a business, without obtaining any money or other property, was not “extortion.” The high court concluded that “all of the predicate acts [under RICO] must be reversed,” that “the judgment that [defendants] violated RICO must also be reversed,” and that “the injunction . . . must necessarily be vacated.” When the case returned to the 7th Circuit, ACLJ attorneys asked that the case be sent back to the district court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the defendants. NOW, however, argued that despite the Supreme Court ruling, the RICO case was still alive and the injunction should remain in effect. The appeals court agreed with that argument and the ACLJ filed a petition asking the high court to take the case.

    The case has attracted the notable support of amici curiae (friends of the court) across the political spectrum.ACLJ

Note: None of these amici curiae briefs were filed by the ACLU, the supposed protector of free speech. As a matter of fact, they have been active in encouraging these RICO lawsuits in the past.
The ACLU is nominally opposed to the RICO statute, and there are some senior members, like Washington official Antonio Califa, who are truly opposed to the invocation of RICO against any protesters, including opponents of abortion. However, due largely to the influence of Benshoof, the ACLU’s record is grievously stained in this area.Twilight of Liberty

It was actually her suggestion in a booklet titled, “Preserving the Right to Choose: How to Cope with Violence and Disruption at Abortion Clinics.” The ACLU would not tolerate the use of RICO against nuclear weapons dissidents, but in the case of anti-abortion protesters the matter is quite different. In fact, the ACLU has actually used the RICO against them. When pro-life demonstrators were sued under RICO in Philadelphia, the local chapter of the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Northeast Women’s Center.

Suit targets Statehouse prayers

By Richard D. Walton
The two sides on the issue of prayer in the Indiana Statehouse staked out their positions today in federal court, with the plaintiffs arguing the largely-Christian prayers illegally exclude people of other faiths and proponents contending they constitute protected freedom of expression.
The arguments were made in connection with a lawsuit brought by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union against Rep. Brian Bosma in his capacity as speaker of the House of Representatives.
   
Ken Falk, the ICLU's legal director, told Judge David Hamilton that the prayers said in the House at the start of each day overwhelmingly espouse Christian beliefs. He called for House officials to develop guidelines to ensure that future prayers do not promote one religion over another.
Falk stressed that the organization was not seeking to have the prayers reviewed in advance. "We are not asking the speaker to censor anyone," he said.
Attorney Thomas Fisher, representing Bosma, said clerics of all faiths are free to volunteer to deliver the prayer.
The U.S. Constitution, he added, does not require people of faith "to check their conscience at the Statehouse door."
Judge Hamilton made no ruling Friday.
Outside the courthouse after the hearing, Bosma told reporters he expected a prayer to be said when the House meets next month for organizational day.

Sixth Circuit Court Prepares to Hear Tennessee's Choose Life Case
Pro-Life Forces Appealing Lower Court Ruling Against Plates

More than a year after U.S. District Court Judge Todd Campbell enjoined distribution of Tennessee's Choose Life specialty license plate, pro-life forces are preparing to make their case in an appeal before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. "Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court continue to underscore what we've said all along," said Brian Harris, President of Tennessee Right to Life. "Legislatures have not only the right to make policy decisions which favor specific viewpoints, they also have a responsibility to do so," said Harris.

Oral arguments in the lawsuit, ACLU v. Bredesen, have been set for 9:00 a.m. (EST), Wednesday, November 2, 2005 at the Court of Appeals, 100 E. Fifth Street in Cincinnati.

At question in the case is whether specialty license plates reflect the views of individuals or views of state government. Pro-abortion activists have so far succeeded in blocking the pro-life plate claiming that the Tennessee Legislature could not authorize the Choose Life plate without also making provision for a pro-abortion plate.

Harris says, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically ruled on the question and has plainly stated on several occasions that, while states may not criminalize abortion, state legislators may make policy decisions which favor "normal childbirth over abortion." The Supreme Court has also held that states may refuse to fund abortions even while funding programs which assist pregnant women in bringing the unborn child to birth. "Tennessee's Choose Life plate is clearly a program in which the legislators overwhelmingly agreed that providing practical assistance to women facing difficult pregnancies was both benevolent and appropriate," said Harris.

The Choose Life plate passed overwhelmingly in the final days of the 2003 legislative session 80-14 in the state House and 26-4 in the state Senate. Pro-abortion Governor Bredesen refused to sign the bill into law, allowing it to take effect without his signature. Supporters of the plate quickly presented more than the required pre-paid applications and submitted 1,265 applications in just six months representing drivers from each of the state's 95 counties. Those applications are still being held by the Tennessee Department of Safety pending the outcome of the Choose Life lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood against distribution of the plates.

The Bredesen administration has refused to defend the Choose Life plate in the appeal leaving only pro-life advocates to argue against the ACLU in support of free speech, fair treatment, and equal access.

"There's not another non-profit which can match the immediate public support realized by the Choose Life plate," said Harris. Many non-profits have failed to meet the one year limit to collect the required 1,000 applications and have had to seek legislative extensions. "The other side wants to talk about fairness, I encourage them to introduce a bill if they want their own plate," said Harris. "All we're looking for is a fair opportunity to do what every other Tennessee non-profit is allowed to do. Give us the exact same consideration accorded other non-profits and I guarantee we'll come out just fine."

How tools of war on terror ensnare wanted citizens

Tuesday, November 01, 2005
By Barry Newman, The Wall Street Journal

Driving in from Mexico last March, Jaime Correa was stopped by federal inspectors at a border post near San Diego. They fed the 21-year-old U.S. citizen's name into a computer with a fast link to the federal government's huge database of criminal files. Readout: Wanted in Los Angeles for attempted murder.

Another citizen, Issah Samori, walked into a federal office in Chicago the previous year. He is 60, a cabbie, and was there to help his wife get a green card. An immigration clerk fed his name into the same computer. Readout: Wanted in Indiana for speeding.

The border guards handed Mr. Correa over to the San Diego police, who locked him up. The Chicago police came to collect Mr. Samori. He spent the night on a concrete slab in a precinct cell.

Detentions of American citizens by immigration authorities for offenses large and small are becoming routine -- and have begun to stir a debate over the appropriate use of the latest technologies in the war on terror. Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, immigration computers have been hooked up to the expanding database of criminal records and terrorist watch lists maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The computers are now in use at all airports, most border crossings, and even in domestic immigration offices, where clerks decide on applications for permanent residence and citizenship.

The screenings are mainly meant to trap foreigners, and especially foreign terrorists, but they have also proved to be a tool in the hunt for American citizens wanted by the police. In 2003, U.S. Customs and Border Protection says that it alone caught 4,555 Americans this way. In 2004, the number rose to 6,189.

Some law enforcers applaud that tally. Citizens with nothing to hide, they argue, shouldn't care if their names are put through a criminal search, and criminals should have no "expectation of privacy." The arrests have brought in some serious offenders, like Mr. Correa, a Los Angeles gang member, who was accused of a drive-by shooting. He was convicted this month of assault with a firearm, and sentenced to eight years in prison. There have been others like him: citizens wanted for armed robbery, murder and sex crimes.

But some legal scholars and defenders of privacy worry that easy access to criminal databases is giving rise to indiscriminate detentions of citizens for minor offenses, and to a "mission creep" that is blurring the line between immigration control and crime control. Routine encounters like Mr. Samori's, some say, shouldn't give civil servants a "free shot" to fish for records unrelated to the administrative purpose at hand.

It isn't as if those the computer snags are being "pulled over for a broken tail-light," says former Atlanta policeman Mark Harrold, who teaches law at the University of Mississippi. Rather, as he sees it, they are being caught as they engage in civil pursuits "like going in for a marriage license."

Born in Ghana, Mr. Samori has lived for 35 years in a brick house on Chicago's South Side. When he and his new Ghanaian wife, Hilda, sat down in an immigration clerk's cubicle in mid-2004, Mr. Samori knew that as a citizen he had a right to sponsor her for permanent residence. The two came ready to show that their marriage was genuine. But the clerk just stared at his computer.

"He said we can't do the interview," Mr. Samori recalls. "I asked why. He said, because we have an arrest warrant on you. I told him, whatever it is, I'm ready to face it."

The clerk reached for his phone. Two officers appeared. Hilda Samori cried as her husband was led out. He spent three nights in jail on his way to Indiana court, where his reckless-driving charge, a misdemeanor, was eventually set aside. Mrs. Samori had to wait a year and a half for her green-card application to be reopened.

Immigration service officials say reporting wanted citizens has become standard procedure. "If you have unfinished business with the police, it's best to take care of that before you come in asking for a service or a benefit," says Christopher Bentley, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the border-protection agency's domestic sister. Apart from confirming a citizen sponsor's identity, he says, clerks search for warrants to make sure that no one on federal property poses "a threat to public safety or national security."

On the borders, the same principles have long applied. Like the immigration service, the border agency now belongs to the Department of Homeland Security. Border inspectors, who wear uniforms and carry guns, are the first line of defense against terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal immigrants trying to enter the U.S. When they face suspicious people -- mostly with dubious documents -- they used to hold them for long security checks. Today, border inspectors need only swipe passports through readers for warrants and watch lists to pop up. Millions of citizens returning from abroad now have their names scanned this way.

Behind the new dragnet is the FBI's National Crime Information Center, a repository of 40 million records covering everything from terrorists to stolen boats. On a single day in 2005 -- May 28 -- the center handled a record 5.3 million queries. Its biggest user now, with 1.5 million daily searches, is Customs and Border Protection.

"There was authority before 9/11 to stop people, but the software makes it easier than ever," says Jeffrey Lustick, a lawyer in Bellingham, Wash., a town near the Canadian border where these arrests are commonplace. "What was theoretical has become real."

The same FBI database is also available now to clerks who carry out the duties of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service. Each year, the clerks, who wear street clothes and sit behind a desk, evaluate over a million applications for citizenship and permanent residence, most sponsored by green-card holders and citizens. While clerks at other federal agencies rarely have reason to see FBI files, the immigration-service's clerks do.

Because lawbreaking can disqualify applicants, all must submit to fingerprinting and a full criminal-history check. The job used to be done by hand with the FBI's help. Now fingerprints have gone digital, and immigration clerks can hunt for applicants by name on the FBI warrants list. Citizen sponsors aren't fingerprinted, but "in the course of doing our business," says Mr. Bentley, their names are checked against the warrants list as well.

"When an individual comes into our office," he adds, "if there's an outstanding warrant, we will call local law enforcement and let them know the person's here."

The policy hasn't been announced, but immigration lawyers around the country say they have slowly been made aware of it over the past two or three years -- often by surprise.

cont'd on page two

Page two

Paul Zoltan, a Dallas immigration lawyer, says his foreign client's citizen wife was arrested in 2003 at her marriage interview and charged with shoplifting. "My trust in your office has been deeply shaken," the lawyer wrote the immigration service, complaining that the arrest had nothing to do with the immigration service's job. He got no reply, and the service has no comment. A citizen husband at an interview in Chicago was held for hours on a Georgia cocaine-possession warrant, says his wife's lawyer, Rebecca Reyes. The warrant was "years old," she says. Georgia wasn't interested; the husband was released.

Jim Austin watched as his client's citizen wife was arrested for trespassing in Kansas City, Mo. Rebecca White took her foreign client's two children into a bathroom in Seattle so they wouldn't see their citizen father taken away; the charge was failure to return household rental equipment. Also in Seattle, a citizen sponsoring his wife's application was jailed overnight on a warrant for someone else.

"They apologized," says Diana Moller, a lawyer who represented the wife, explaining why the man preferred not to give an interview. "He wants to leave it at that."

Arrests of this kind have become common enough that many lawyers now quiz citizens about warrants before sending them into immigration interviews. The service doesn't count the citizens it arrests; if any dangerous criminals have been among them, it can't say.

Customs and Border Protection can. When it nets citizens on their way into the country who are wanted for serious crimes, it puts out press releases. Two standouts from the Mexican border: a man from North Carolina wanted for multiple sex crimes against children in Arizona and Massachusetts; and a young couple on the run from Colorado, both wanted for committing a double murder. And one from the Canadian border: an escaped robber from Seattle driving a stolen car with a shotgun in the trunk and an Uzi in his luggage.

"This technology is a fast, effective weapon in the war on terror," one announcement quotes the agency's chief, Robert C. Bonner, as saying, "but also gives our agents a means to apprehend criminals and fugitives of every kind."

At airports, the border agency's screening for fugitives has become still more efficient with the passage of a new antiterror law requiring flights from overseas to transmit passenger lists before landing. Now, inspectors can organize welcoming parties in advance.

"They're surprised, let me tell you," says a former inspector at Los Angeles Airport who asked not to be named. Often, his warrants were for Las Vegas gambling debts. "Couples come back from Cancun and the husband has to explain. The wife says, 'Why didn't you tell me?' I've seen tears. I've seen breakdowns."

In 2003, the Transportation Security Administration, also part of Homeland Security, floated the idea of screening all passengers for warrants, citizens included, before they board domestic flights. The TSA's goal was to "ensure that passengers do not sit next to known terrorists and wanted murderers." After an outcry across the board -- from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union -- it backed off, and now is rolling out a system that limits such searches to terrorist-watch lists.

At the immigration service, the authority to run checks on citizens dates back to at least 2002, the service says in a statement. That's when the FBI granted the old INS access to "certain" files "for the purpose of adjudicating immigration-benefit applications." The new service says it derives limited access to files on citizens from that deal with the FBI.

The arrangement comes as news to legal experts and law-enforcement officials, including Judson Barce, the prosecutor in Benton County, Ind. "A civil authority ran a criminal check?" he says. "How do they do that?"

It was thanks to the search run by a Chicago immigration clerk that Mr. Barce was able to bring Issah Samori to justice.

As soon as the clerk said the word "warrant," Mr. Samori guessed what it was about. Six months earlier, on a Sunday drive to visit a relative, he was heading south in his Camry on a state highway when a Benton County police car pulled him over.

The patrolman said Mr. Samori had hit 86 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone, fast enough to be reckless in Benton. Mr. Samori says he called the county to get a court date, but no appointment letter ever reached his house. That was the last he thought about the ticket until he and his wife went in for their marriage interview.

After the immigration clerk found the warrant Benton County issued because Mr. Samori had missed his court date, he spent two nights in Chicago-area jails. Then Benton's sheriff arrived to drive him, in handcuffs, 70 miles to Indiana, where Mr. Samori spent his third night in a cell.

In court the next day, he didn't contest the charge. "I just wanted to get it over," he says. In return for a $400 bond, he was set free. He returned a month later with proof that he had taken a defensive-driving course. The reckless-driving charge was dismissed. Less the sheriff's expenses for driving down from Chicago, he got a refund of $203.98.

At the end of July, after an 18-month pause, the Samoris sat down once again at a clerk's desk in Chicago's federal building to complete their green-card interview. They brought a pile of papers and an album of wedding pictures to prove their marriage is real. They are still waiting for the immigration service to make its decision.

Article Last Updated: 11/02/2005 12:22 AM
Cross may return to Redlands' city logo
Brad A. Greenberg, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
REDLANDS -- They say one man can make a difference, but in this city it took two or perhaps none.

A year and a half ago, the American Civil Liberties Union told Redlands officials that two residents had complained that the city's 42-year-old logo promoted Christianity because it bore the image of a cross. The rights group threatened to sue.

The City Council voted in closed session to remove the cross from the logo.

On Tuesday, Redlands voters are to decide whether the cross should be returned and tax dollars should be used in a legal battle that could cost upwards of $500,000.

Stars have risen in the firmament of this suburban drama. But two names don't even make the credits the purported church-state whistle-blowers.

That's left many wondering: Who are the Redlands Two?

"If you find them, let me know," said Scott Siegel, one of the most vocal supporters of the cross logo. "I'd be interested to find out if they really exist."

The ACLU insists its assistance was solicited.

"We weren't looking to pick a fight with the city of Redlands," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney of the Southern California ACLU.

State and U.S. court rules require a plaintiff to claim injury. For the Redlands cross, that meant an unhappy resident or two.

There could be any number of reasons why those residents have remained anonymous. Just ask Darrell Barker, the first person to publicly complain about the Redlands cross.

In 1986, Barker, a former Redlands resident then living in San Bernardino, sent a letter to the mayor stating, "From an atheistic viewpoint, many of us find the Christian torture symbol offensive."

Once his request to have the cross removed hit the local newspapers, Barker said he was ostracized and lost his job.

"I was treated like a second-class citizen," Barker said by phone from his Phoenix home.

Because Barker was not living in Redlands, the ACLU couldn't sue the city. The group needed a resident's complaint. No one stepped forward until winter 2004.

The logo to be voted on on Tuesday is made up of four sections, each representing a community staple: industry, agriculture, education and religion. The religion quadrant bears a shining cross floating above a church steeple.

Supporters of the cross claim the symbol is historic to Redlands long known as "a city of churches," according to Edith Parker Hinckley's 1951 book about Redlands, "On the Banks of the Zanja."

Last year, Don McCue was asked by city officials to research whether Redlands had more churches than neighboring cities. A review of city directories from 1940 showed Redlands had 30 percent more churches per capita than Riverside and San Bernardino. But "iron-clad proof" has proven elusive, said McCue, archivist and head of special collections at A.K. Smiley Public Library.

Redlands also is home to the Asistencia, the former ranch outpost of the Mission San Gabriel. But the City Council in January rejected an alternate logo that would have had five sections, including one for the Asistencia.

The disputed logo was adopted by the City Council as the official city seal in 1963. The logo was not used by the city clerk to authenticate city documents, but it appeared on most city business and property until 20 months ago.

The ACLU's two-page letter threatening to sue arrived at City Hall on March 11, 2004.

Days later, the council voted to remove the cross. It was covered on maintenance trucks and drilled through on police and fire badges.

The issue was dormant until it appeared in The Sun on Easter weekend.

City Hall was flooded with phone calls and letters some irate, some supportive. Mayor Susan Peppler soon appeared on the conservative TV talk show "The O'Reilly Factor" to defend the city's decision.

Council members largely have remained neutral if not fiscally pragmatic. An estimate by the city found that defending the logo and losing could cost taxpayers up to $750,000.

The Rev. John Walsh, chaplain of the University of Redlands, worked with several clergy members to support the city and formed Citizens for Inclusivity and later Redlands Values Coalition. Pastor Don Wallace of Redlands Christian Center and Siegel, a Seventh-day Adventist, formed Save Redlands' Seal.

The city was divided.

Then the populous revolt occurred: Siegel began collecting signatures for a ballot initiative. Measure Q would return the cross to the logo, which would be authenticated as the official Redlands seal.

If Q is approved, the ACLU again has threatened to sue. But the ACLU's lawsuit would no longer hinge on the existence of the Redlands Two.

"If you stand by your conviction that there should be a cross on the logo, then I want to see you write a personal check to defend that position. Don't use money from Redlands taxpayers to pay for your beliefs," David Swenson wrote in a letter to the council. "If a measure to get a cross back onto the Redlands logo is passed the very next check I write will go to the ACLU."

Vets Fight Display At Caledonia War Monument

(Caledonia, NY) 11/02/05 -- Controversy over the use of a Civil War monument for a performance art event boiled over Tuesday night at a village meeting in Caledonia, Livingston County.

Some residents, mostly veterans, pushed the village board to cancel a planned performance art event they say is anti-war.

However, Mayor Dean Manley and the board wouldn't talk about the event, citing legal issues.

The artist, Cindy Defelice of Bergen, says the show isn't anti-war, just critical of the goals of war. The same artist once got approval and then was rejected in an attempt to cover that entire monument with dandelions. Now, she wants to fill the public intersection where the monument is located with a live art event.

Bob Rapone, a Caledonia native and a Vietnam War Vet, thinks they should move the event.

"She can do this with permission and permits in the town park, but I don't think she should do it anywhere near the monument," he said.

The Rochester chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said it hasn't been contacted about the case, but ACLU Attorney Scott Forsyth thinks Defelice would have grounds for a lawsuit if her event is cancelled.

"She's fully cloaked by the First Amendment she has the right to express herself at that site," he said.

Last week, Defelice, said she has no intention of suing the village board to push the project forward. She was unavailable for comment on Tuesday.

Unless the board changes its mind, the event will go ahead in spring 2006

Cobb fights suit vs. prayer

By RICHARD WHITT
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/02/05

Cobb County officials argued Tuesday to keep the name of Jesus in prayers at County Commission meetings, claiming in court documents that constitutional principles "squarely support" their position.

In a 50-page response to a federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking to stop clergy from invoking Jesus' name at meetings, lawyers for the county cited historical precedence and current practices.

The county said the ACLU's request for an immediate halt to the prayers — filed on behalf of seven Cobb County residents — is unnecessary. They cited a multiyear delay in filing the suit as evidence that plaintiffs would not suffer "irreparable harm" if the prayers continue while merits of the case are settled in court.

The ACLU filed suit last August in federal court in Atlanta, claiming that overtly Christian prayers promote Christianity and are repressive to other religions. Cobb lawyers said members of Jewish and Muslim faiths are regularly invited and have given invocations.

Invocations made "in Jesus' name" are commonplace and have been for centuries, the county's lawyers said.

"As a matter of historical fact, the exact prayers given in the first Congress explicitly referred to Jesus Christ," the county's legal brief said. The county's response also cites a prayer "in the name of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" that was delivered at the opening of the U.S. House on July 19, 2005.

Calls to ACLU attorneys Maggie Garrett and Gerry Weber were not returned Tuesday. Jeffrey Selman, a Cobb resident who first complained about the prayers and is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, also did not return calls.

Cobb Commission Chairman Sam Olens said the prayers meet constitutional requirements for separation of church and state and promised a vigorous defense.

"We feel very strongly that their case is improper," Olens said. "If they're looking for a test case, we're not it."

South Carolina
County Councilman Claims Victory In Fight For Prayer
Nov 3, 2005, 09:55 AM

Two months since the A.C.L.U warned city and county councils to stop using Jesus' name in prayers during public meetings, the Attorney General issues a stern response.

 

FOX Carolina’sJamie Guirola reports, the short letter even accuses the A.C.L.U. of possible defamation.

 

In September the A.C.L.U. warned Oconee County and the cities of Anderson and Seneca of the potential high cost in legal fees.  The A.C.L.U. threatened legal action if the governments didn't uphold a ruling by the federal appeals court.  The court said referring to a specific god like Jesus Christ shows preference for one religion and officially discriminates against all.

 

Bill Rinehart/Oconee County Councilman:  “Not everyone runs for cover when the A.C.L.U. rattles”.

 

But 2 months and nothing's changed at any of the 3 councils warned by the A.C.L.U.  Councilman Bill Rinehart says complying is a violation of his freedom of religion.

 

Rinehart:  “Just because I'm a public official doesn’t mean I’m surrendering my personal rights. My personal freedoms. My civil liberties”.

 

And the attorney general agrees with all three governments.  Wednesday, he wrote a letter to the A.C.L.U. saying it:  "appears to...create..Controversy and chill the free exercise of religion"

And its threats "seem calculated to intimidate".

 

The A.C.L.U. says the Attorney General doesn’t get it.

 

Mike Cubelo/A.C.L.U.:  “He seems to still not understand what the courts want here and they don’t want government prayer, government officially endorsing one religion over the other”.

More on the Oconee County case. An Attorney General with his priorities on straight.



Date Published: November 3, 2005

Praise God! I pray that he wins this case.

McMaster supports councils who use 'Jesus' in prayers

The Associated Press

State Attorney General Henry McMaster says he will take on the American Civil Liberties Union if the group takes a city or county council to court over prayers said before meetings.

McMaster wrote a letter to the Piedmont Chapter of the ACLU, after the group wrote its own letters to the Oconee County Council and the Anderson and Seneca city councils in September, asking them to follow a federal court order to stop using the name of Jesus Christ in prayers.

"There is no federal or state law which tells people that they must pray or not pray in any particular way, as this would be in direct conflict with the express words of the United States and South Carolina constitutions guaranteeing the free exercise of religion," McMaster wrote.

McMaster's letter was addressed to ACLU chapter president Mike Cubelo, who wrote back to the attorney general saying he is mixing up "government prayer issues with individual freedoms."

"This dispute has never been about an individual's right to pray as he chooses," Cubelo wrote. "The ACLU supports this right wholeheartedly ... Our dispute, however, is about government prayer which favors one religion or denomination over others."

McMaster said his office will support a council if the ACLU takes it to court. "The point is the ACLU's intent is to find fault with any prayer and that is contrary to the South Carolina and U.S. Constitutions," McMaster said.

The dispute is over a July 2004 ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a lower judge's decision that prayers before meetings of the Great Falls Town Council were unconstitutional because by mentioning Jesus' name, they honored one faith over another.

The ACLU's letters reminded the councils of the decision and warned lawsuits may follow if members do not follow the ruling.

Since the group wrote its letter, Oconee County Council member the Rev. Bill Rinehart ended his prayer before a meeting asking for wisdom, direction and guidance "in the name of Jesus."

"The attorney general supports our premise all along that we do not forfeit our personal rights just because we are elected to office," said Rinehart, who also is a pastor for a Seneca church. "The attorney general has come forward and issued a real strong rebuke and we have won this round. How many councils, school boards have acquiesced just because the ACLU rattled their saber?"

ACLU Concerned Over Gideons
by Jay on 11-05-05 @ 6:53 pm Filed under Church And State, News

Rememember your parents talking about how times have changed? I’m only 28 but I’m starting to feel old. I’m starting to say things that my parents used to say. My, my, how times have changed.

When I was in the 8th grade, the Gideons came to our school with boxes full of tiny little pocket sized New Testaments. There was no requirement to take one, just take one if you wanted it. All voluntary, no problem. I remember taking two. That same day I got in a fight with someone, and I was inciting it. We had a high porch outside our gym, and one of the known bullies kept pushing me off. I was attempting the philosphy of “turn the other cheek”, and it was working. I kept going back to the porch, and saying, “that was fun, do it again.” Each time he pushed me harder, and was getting very aggrevated that I seemed to be enjoying it when he was trying to show he was more powerful than I was. We both got in trouble.

Back in those days they had a cut piece of wood called a paddle. Perhaps unbelivable to many of you, they would use this paddle on your behind as a means of discipline. As we waited for our punishment, I suddenly realized that I had two Gideon’s Bibles! An ephiphany began! If I could put the little books in my back pockets, perhaps I could cushion the pain of the paddling. I mentioned the idea to the bully. He thought it was ingenious! We became best friends right there, and throughout our highschool years. Though we have lost contact, I would still consider this guy as one of my best friends. So did the philosphy of “cover the other cheek” work? Well, of course not. The teacher was too smart for that.

Anyway….as my parents used to say, “times have changed.”

    Two Gideons International representatives were in the Robert S. Payne Elementary School cafeteria Friday alongside a table of small red Bibles.

    The two men had permission to be there from Lynchburg City Schools. Superintendent Paul McKendrick said city school policy requires students to give the Gideons representative a form signed by a parent before they can accept a Bible.

    The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Kent Willis, said the practice merits a closer look. Source

Permission slips to recieve a little book. Whats so threatening about a little book? Something that each individual have a choice on reading or not. Something each individual has a choice on whether to belive as truth or not. The ACLU were concerned over the permission slip portion too, but for different reasons.

    School division policy requires that parental permission forms to accept the text be sent home with students prior to the Gideons’ arrival, McKendrick said.

    For Willis, that raises more concerns.

    “The most important question here is what role does the school play in the religious activity?” Willis said.

    “The reason courts have allowed schools to have Gideons come is that the school can claim to play a passive and neutral role. They’re not recruiting Gideons.

    “But if a school goes so far as to send a note home, that seems to me to be a much more active role.”

I find this a very ironic position for the ACLU to take. The very reason the school even went through the effort of providing permission slips was probably out of fear they would get sued by the ACLU, or some other bloodthirsty liberal activist group.

My how times have changed. This school shouldn’t need permission slips of any kind according to the legislative judicial branch in the 9th District. They just ruled a blanket decision that parents have no right on what a public school can teach their children. In that particular case the school was teaching seven year old children about touching private parts, and sexual desires. No permission from parents required in this. The ACLU, no where to be found. Not a peep from them. But to hand out a tiny little New Testament, the ACLU are concerned.

Informing Parents of what goes on at school concerns the ACLU when it fits their agenda. The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky has urged state school leaders to do a better job informing parents of their right to keep their child’s information away from military recruiters.

One father faced criminal charges after expressing his concern over his 5 year old son being taught gay tolerance. In another kindergarten class a teacher cenored a five year old’s drawing because it included a drawing of Jesus. In another school they were teaching children to be Muslims. The ACLU were nowhere to be found in any of these cases. But when it comes to tiny little books, the ACLU feel that liberty is threatened. My, how times have changed.

Rally planned by religious leaders over council prayers

(Seneca-AP) November 5, 2005 - An Oconee County minister says faith groups have begun lining up financial contributors in case a fight over prayers in public meetings goes to court.

The Reverend Wayne Morton is president of the Oconee County Ministerial Association and says several physicians and businessmen have come forward and offered financial assistance if the issue brings litigation.

His group and the Beaverdam Baptist Association are sponsoring a prayer rally on November 17th to support local elected officials who want to say Christian prayers in meetings.

The American Civil Liberties Union has sent letters to several local governments that say their public prayers may violate laws that prohibit government-sanctioned prayers to a specific deity.

Attorney General Henry McMaster weighed in this week, saying the ACLU's letter is legally inaccurate.

The dispute is over a July 2004 ruling by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a lower judge's decision that prayers mentioning Jesus' name before meetings of the Great Falls Town Council were unconstitutional because they honored one faith over another.

 Prayer rally organizers invite ACLU members

By David Williams Oconee-Pickens Bureau
November 4, 2005

SENECA - American Civil Liberties Union officials say they welcome an invitation to an Oconee County Prayer Rally.

The rally, sponsored by the Oconee County Ministerial Association and the Beaverdam Baptist Association, is a call to show support for Oconee County Council and Anderson and Seneca city council members who pray in the name of Jesus to open their meetings, said the organizer, the Rev. Wayne Morton.

"We support people praying; that's their right," said Mike Cubelo, president of the Piedmont Chapter of the ACLU.

The ACLU, which has sent letters to the three councils advising them their prayer practice, may be in violation of the law. Mr. Cubelo said the ACLU's point is that when a government official offers a prayer at a government meeting, then it's a government prayer.

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster weighed in on the issue this week, saying the ACLU's letter is legally inaccurate. But the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled that a specific deity cannot be named in invocations given at governmental meetings.

The case of Darla Kay Wynne versus the Chester County town of Great Falls ended when the U.S. Supreme Court would not hear an appeal. The town was eventually ordered to pay about $53,000 in legal fees.

"Mr. McMaster already tried all this and got slapped down," said Neil Caesar, a Greenville attorney and ACLU member who is handling legal maneuvers for the ACLU. "We simply ask Mr. McMaster to offer advice and council to local governments. This all started as information and now you have those who are going out of their way to violate the law. We need to be rational and weed out the hysteria."

Mr. Morton, president of the Oconee County Ministerial Association, said the Nov. 17 Prayer Rally is a way Oconee County can come together and show support for its elected leaders.

"We've invited Mayor Richard Shirley (Anderson) and Mayor (Dan) Alexander (Seneca) and the Oconee County Council," Mr. Morton said. "We'll even invite the ACLU because there are a lot of people who want to pray for them."

Mr. Morton said waging a campaign for prayer is war and it requires a war chest.

"We've had several physicians and businessmen come forward and offer financial assistance if it does go to litigation," Mr. Morton said.

He did not say how much had been raised and he did not want to identify the financial backers.

The ACLU is a non-profit organization that operates on contributions and does not receive government funding, Mr. Cubelo said.

Mr. Morton said the Beaverdam Baptist Association has about 86 churches as members, many of which are also members of the 144-member Ministerial Association.

Mr. Morton said about 40 members of the Ministerial Association attended a breakfast meeting Friday and heard from the Rev. Bill Rinehart, a county council member and the council's official chaplain who leads the invocation.

"Bill Rinehart shared his perspective on how he should not have to limit his personal faith just because he has been elected to office," Mr. Morton said.

Mayor Alexander said, "the power of prayer for me is one of the strongest things we can do for each other. Seeing more people united together is very comforting."

The rally will be at 7 p.m. at the Seneca High School Auditorium on Wells Highway. For more information about the rally, call Mr. Morton at (864) 247-5428.

Group Asks Bush to Quit Boy Scouts Role
By Joey Lomicky - Trustworthy, helpful, friendly and kind are all traits found in the Boy Scout Code; however, homosexuals and atheists are not.

Washington, D.C. - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire - infoZine - That is why Scouting for All, a grassroots advocacy group aiming to make scouting available to everyone, publicly requested for the second time Thursday that President Bush resign as honorary president of Boy Scouts of America.

At a press conference, Bush was given a badge of dishonor for backing BSA.

Volunteers and former Eagle Scouts joined the California-based group, as did representatives from the American Humanist Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Secular Coalition of America and the Liberal Catholic Church, which is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.

"How can President Bush support this?" asked Steven Cozza, the group's 20-year-old cofounder and a former Scout.

"The BSA is giving out a message of hate and bigotry," he said. "They're educating youth every day. ... If they taught inclusion instead of hate, things would be different."

In June 2000, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that as a private organization BSA had protection under the First Amendment to control its membership.

Since then, Boy Scouts of America, one of the largest youth organizations in the country, has denied membership to atheists and homosexuals. BSA membership was more than 3 million in 2004, with more than 1 million adult leaders.

"It's an atrocity that's happening in America," said Scott Cozza, Steven's father, a former assistant scout master and Scouting for All's president.

Scouting for All is holding Bush to his 2003 State of the Union address in which he, referring to education, vowed that no child should be left behind.

Scouting for All advocates said leaving children behind is exactly what Bush is doing by supporting BSA.

"There is no reason that No Child Left Behind should not expand itself beyond the realms of education," said the Rev. Edward Correll Jr. "Bush is associating himself with an organization that habitually leaves children behind."

Bush is not the first president to serve as honorary president of the Boy Scouts, but he would be the first to resign.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., who in July 2000 led several congressional colleagues to request then-President Clinton to resign as honorary head of the Boy Scouts, is troubled by the organization's intolerance. Clinton did not resign.

"Private groups have the right to choose their membership and leaders, but the federal government should not honor intolerance because it is not a value we want to teach to our children, nor is it a value that the president of the United States should support," she said.

Gregg Shields, BSA national spokesman, said Bush's endorsement of the Boy Scouts is simply his choice.

"It's the president's decision and we respect it," he said. "Our membership standards reflect our values."

Shields said he understands Scouting for All's desire to change BSA's policies, but the organization has decided not to change.

"The value structure is different," he said. "If you were an atheist or homosexual, the Boy Scouts isn't probably the best place for you."

While they don't expect Bush's resignation or changes in BSA's policy any time soon, the group hopes that parents and Scouts across the country will sever their connections with the Boy Scouts until inclusion is granted.

Eric Marx, 46, of Chevy Chase, Md., a former Scout, will not allow his 9-year-old son to join. Marx said he remembered Scouts as having a historical mission of respecting others and teaching fair and just treatment.

"I've not been an activist," he said. "But because of their policies, we never joined."

Roy Speckhardt said he was once asked by a humanist Eagle Scout, "Why doesn't performance alone prove worthiness?"

"A person's religion and sexual orientation have nothing to do with the merit behind scouting ideals," said Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association.

Shields disagreed. "Performance alone is not enough," he said. "These are values that we share."

Shields said that boys with differing values have the option to join "other fraternal organizations."

Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should restore the cross to the Redlands seal.

When the American Civil Liberties Union threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated, officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the religious symbol will return.

If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.

"This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said it is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it reinstates the cross.

"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a message of favor for one religion over others."

Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a cross off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.

Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot, resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the city seal.

"What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to sue, then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided on its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a ridiculous statement."

________________________

Yes, the ACLU actually employs someone whose primary mission is to "track crosses on seals statewide" and eradicate them.

More on this along with the actions taken by students at Arrowhead Christian Academy can be seen at:
   http://www.redlandsweb.com/about/events/seal_controversy.htm

I did some research in this, I am now going to let y'all see what is going on. So please read the body, of the message. Least before you read my own notes. This came to me, as an e-mail. I wanted to find out why, words were missing. Words from an American President.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

A MESSAGE FROM AN APPALLED OBSERVER:

Today I went to visit the new World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. I got an unexpected history lesson. Because I'm a baby boomer, I was one of the youngest in the crowd. Most were the age of my parents, veterans of "the greatest war," with their families. It was a beautiful day, and people were smiling and happy to be there. Hundreds of us milled around the memorial, reading the inspiring words of Eisenhower and Truman that are engraved there.

On the Pacific side of the memorial, a group of us gathered to read the words President Roosevelt used to announce the attack on Pearl Harbor:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941-- a date which will live in infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked.

One elderly woman read the words aloud:

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph.

But as she read, she was suddenly turned angry. "Wait a minute," she said, "they left out the end of the quote. They left out the most important part. Roosevelt ended the message with "so help us God.'"

Her husband said, "You are probably right. We're not supposed to say things like that now."

"I know I'm right," she insisted. "I remember the speech." The two looked dismayed, shook their heads sadly and walked away.

Listening to their conversation, I thought to myself, "Well, it has been over 50 years. She's probably forgotten."

But she had not forgotten. She was right.

I went home and pulled out the book from book club. "Flags of Our Fathers" by James Bradley. It's all about the battle at Iwo Jima. I haven't gotten too far in the book. It's tough to read because it's a graphic description of the WWII battles in the Pacific.

But right there it was on page 58. Roosevelt's speech to the nation ends in "so help us God."

The people who edited out that part of the speech when they engraved it on the memorial could have fooled me. I was born after the war. But they couldn't fool the people who were there. Roosevelt's words are engraved on their hearts.

Now I ask: "WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE WORDS OF HISTORY?????????"

Send this around to your friends. People need to know before everyone forgets. People today are trying to change the history of America by leaving God out of it, but the truth is, God has been a part of this nation, since the beginning. He still wants to be...and He always will be!

If you agree, pass this on. If not, MAY GOD BLESS YOU
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

My own comment;
I did quite a bit of research to find out why, "so help us God", was missing. Seems the ACLU threathened to sue, the National Parks Service, if "so help us God" was etched into the memorial. I am appaled by the gross negilance of the Anti Christian Lawless Union, trying to erase our American history. The Anti Christian Lawless Union, has no right, to change, history, the way it happened.

As a God fearing Christian, I already have a beef with the Anti Christian Lawless Union. However, while researching this, I didn't know who, was behind editing of FDR's words. So I was suprised, in some ways to find out, it was again

Resting in the hands, of the Lord.
Bob

Acts 3:19 So repent (change your mind and purpose); turn around and return [to God], that your sins may be erased (blotted out, wiped clean), that times of refreshing (of recovering from the effects of heat, of reviving with fresh air) may come from the presence of the Lord;

Brothers and Sisters,

It appears that the ACLU devils have their little horns into everything that pertains to GOD in this country.

There is pending legislation that just might remove the power of the ACLU, and I would say that it's just about time. As a country, we've had all of them that we can stand. They are even giving liberals a bad name and are an embarrassment to this country. They don't know it yet, but they are even helping to get Democrats out of office and elect Republicans in their place.

The mystery of recent elections isn't really a mystery at all. The people of America don't want a country without God and without morals.

Here's a NEWS FLASH for the ACLU and their supporters. We still get to vote in this country, and our votes determine what will be done and how it will be done. The ACLU isn't in charge of anything, and their voice isn't any more important than mine. The voters all over America are telling the ACLU and those like them that WE DON'T WANT THEIR GARBAGE AND FILTH. We will refuse to let them dictate what our children will be taught and how they will be raised. The LORD Willing, the power of the ACLU will be removed and the rightful order of things will be restored - one person - one vote. Tort reform and other proposed legislation might even force the ACLU to pay fines, penalties, attorney fees, and reparations for garbage law suits - current and maybe even past suits. I will be praying for just that.

Love in Christ,
Tom

1 Peter 1:3 NASB  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

And another AMEN! to that.

CARSON CITY
New Nevada law on false complaints unconstitutional
Nov 6, 2005, 09:42 PM

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, a Federal Appeals Court ruling nullifies a new Nevada law that made it unlawful for citizens to file a false complaint against Public Officials.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said last week that a similar California law was an unconstitutional "Infringement of Speech" because false statements in support of officers were not criminalized.

Nevada ACLU officials say the decision will apply to a Nevada law passed in June that made it a misdemeanor to file a false report against any Public Official since Nevada falls under the court's jurisdiction.

Legislative Counsel Bureau officials say they have not reviewed the decision in detail.

But they say the new state law now might be overturned if it's challenged and the 2007 Legislature could consider Legislation to repeal it.


(My note:  The ACLU doesn't like this law because it would also stop many of their lawsuits.)

     I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, or if anyone's heard about this, but I was listening to Christian radio the other day and there was a talk show guest discussing the ACLU, and to point out I guess the lowest depths of their depravity, he mentioned their work defending a group called the "Manboy Association" or something like that.

     I've heard about the guys before, but have yet to actually read about them, I don't know if I even want to on the net. But this group is completely incredible in it's motives, and the ACLU jumped to aid these guys. I don't think I even want to mention their goals and aims, it is so twisted.

     This is probably the creepiest thing I've ever heard of so far, but along with the whole gay agenda, it makes me feel we are witnessing the decline on American civilization, just like the excesses and perversion of Rome back in the day. It's truly disturbing.

The "Manboy Association" that you are speaking of is called NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). It is indeed an association full of perversion.

 

Congressmen back Scouts in ACLU suit
90 lawmakers file brief arguing for Defense sponsorship
Posted: November 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Ninety members of Congress filed a brief yesterday with a federal appeals court declaring support for the U.S. Defense Department in its sponsorship of the Boy Scouts of America's national jamboree.

The department's backing of the quadrennial event, attended this year by more than 40,000 Scouts, was opposed in a 1999 lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU contends federal government sponsorship violates the First Amendment, because the Boy Scouts require members to swear an oath to "do my duty to God and my country."

The next jamboree is scheduled for 2010 to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America.

Represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, the lawmakers' friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit seeks a reversal of a lower court decision that declared the Defense Department's sponsorship unconstitutional.

The 1972 statute passed by Congress, the lower court declared, violates the so-called "separation of church and state."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, says the lower court simply "got it wrong."

"The military provides the Boy Scouts with support and services that aid both the military and the Scouts without endorsing religion," he said.

The ACLJ contends the purpose of the bill passed by Congress was to advance the military's goals, not advance the Boy Scouts' religious beliefs.

The brief asserts the Defense Department's support comes in the form of "non-religious supplies and services."

"The military's rental of forklifts and trucks, transportation and military equipment, restoration of Fort A.P. Hill after the Jamboree, and provision of other secular services is clearly 'neutral and nonideological,'" the brief said. "The only possible message that the military's aid can be viewed as conveying is that patriotism, self-reliance, physical fitness and support of the military are positive things."

In March, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., introduced legislation to make sure the Boy Scouts of America can use government facilities for gatherings, meetings and events.

The ''Support Our Scouts Act of 2005" would protect the organization from attacks by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups challenging federal support for the BSA because the organization administers a religious oath and prohibits homosexuals as scout masters.

The Pentagon last year settled a lawsuit by telling military bases around the world not to become direct sponsors of Boy Scout troops or Cub Scout dens. Military personnel can now sponsor Boy Scout groups only in their civilian capacity.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the threat of lawsuits by the ACLU has forced the BSA to pull the charters of thousands of scouting units from public schools.

'BIBLE LITERACY PROJECT' MAKES A MOCKERY OF BIBLIAL LITERACY
  by MONTANA NEWS ASSOCIATION

/MNA PRESS/ NOV 9, 2005-- The Bible faces a rising onslaught of ridicule, and legal assaults. Its most vocal antagonists include People for the American Way and the ACLU. Why would such opponents applaud a textbook titled, The Bible and Its Influence? Why such support for a revolutionary curriculum published by the Bible Literacy Project?

The answer may lie in the word revolutionary. This new curriculum fits into a set of social and political changes that would try to affect every
American. Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily, summarized it well in his exposure, of a "political movement" called Communitarianism, "which places the importance of society ahead of the unfettered rights of the individual."

"I still believe in old fashioned freedom" Farah concluded, "In the inalienable rights of the individual and the limited powers of the state, these are concepts at odds with Communitarianism."

General Ben Partin shares that concern. In a recent conversation (11-2-05), he recalled that, "The 1928 Program of Third International calls for disarming the citizenry as a final step in the 'preparatory phase' of a Communist 'War of National Liberation.'" Not surprisingly, the 1991 Communitarian Platform calls for domestic disarmament. What is the difference between "disarming the citizenry" and "domestic disarmament?"

Amitai Etzioni, founder of the Communitarian Network, is a member of Mikhail Gorbachev's World Political Forum. The Forum website introduces Etzioni as "Director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies." Etzioni's agenda fits Gorbachev's modernized Communism well. Dialogue (Marx's dialectic process) is essential to both.

The Bible Literacy Project's textbook illustrates the process. Inviting speculation and new interpretations, it instills new meanings in student's minds:

1. Prompts students to question God's character: "Do you think Adam and Eve received a fair deal as described in Genesis?"

2. Undermines Christianity: "Jesus was also seen as an example of self sacrifice that can be imitated." ... "...find examples of such Christ figures in literature, film or even music."

3. Ridicules Biblical warnings: "You've probably seen cartoon or movie depictions of the prophet of doom, a shaggy bearded individual in ragged robes, ranting from a soapbox..." "Try your hand at doing some apocalyptic writing."

Many people closely involved with the Bible Literacy Project are members of the Communitarian Network and share it's mission. They serve on the Bible Literacy Project Board of Directors and Advisory Board. Some of these are:

Charles Haynes, a contributor to the BLP textbook, speaks both for the Bible Literacy Project and for the Freedom Forum, formerly the Gannett Foundation (the liberal Gannett media). Not only involved with the Communitarian Network, he also serves on the Advisory Board of The Pluralism Project', which includes Margot Adler, a Wiccan priestess. As senior scholar at the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center, Haynes works closely with its lawyer Oliver Thomas, who co-authored "The Right to Religious Liberty," the "basic ACLU Guide."

Os Guinness has worked with Charles Haynes for over 15 years. Quoted by Amitai Etzioni, he is signatory to two Communitarian papers. David Blankenhorn (Board of Directors of BLP), Mary Ann Glendon and Jean Bethke Elstain (Advisory Board of BLP) are also signatories to the Communitarian Platform.

Communitarian ideals sound noble to those who don't remember the terrors of last century's experiments with collectivism. The Bible Literacy Project will spread those ideals and make a mockery of true Biblical literacy.

ACLU: Extend tax break to all religious books

By BILL RANKIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/15/05

A retired Atlanta librarian and a Sandy Springs bookshop owner are challenging a state law that grants a sales tax exemption for purchases of the Bible and other books pertaining to "Holy Scripture."

Their lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, said if such works are exempt from sales and use taxes, other philosophical, religious and spiritual works should be as well.

"The law is written in such a way that minority religions don't get the same tax exemption as better-known religions such as Christianity and Judaism," said Maggie Garrett, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, which represents the two plaintiffs.

State law exempts from sales tax all "Holy Bibles, testaments and similar books commonly recognized as being Holy Scripture." The decades-old law also exempts "any religious paper ... when the paper is owned and operated by religious institutions and denominations," but it does not define religious paper.

State Revenue Commissioner Bart Graham, the defendant in the lawsuit because his agency oversees collection of sales taxes, said he was unaware of the dispute until notified of the lawsuit Monday afternoon.

"Most organizations or advocates will approach us to isolate a specific issue they have," Graham said. "Often we can take a number of issues off the table, either by rule or regulation. ... We don't like to start in court, but if someone wants to go down that road, we're more than happy to accommodate them and work through the issue."

Graham said his office, responding to a previous inquiry, had suspended the sales tax for purchases of the Quran, the holy book of Islam. But the office has not had inquiries about other religious or spiritual texts, he said.

Heather Hedrick, a spokeswoman for Gov. Sonny Perdue, said, "It appears that the question lies in the definition of Holy Scripture."

Filing suit were Thomas Budlong, a retired librarian and former president of the Georgia Library Association, and Candace Apple, who owns the Phoenix & Dragon Bookstore, which specializes in metaphysical books.

Apple said if the state is not going to tax the Bible, "it should be consistent and not tax scriptures from other religions and traditions or from a philosophical bent of those who do not follow a particular religion but who are searching for life answers."

If two customers are standing at the counter, one buying a Bible and another purchasing a sacred Hindu text, "I shouldn't have to say to the person buying the Bible, 'You don't have to pay tax because you have the right religion,' " Apple said Monday.

The lawsuit notes that Apple could be prosecuted for a misdemeanor for not collecting sales tax on her store's metaphysical and spiritual books.

Budlong objected to having to pay sales tax on his recent purchases of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values" and "The Bhagavad Gita," a sacred Hindu text, the lawsuit said.

The tax exemption is unconstitutional because it has "the primary effect of endorsing religion in general and Judaism and Christianity in particular," the lawsuit said.

Garrett, the ACLU staff attorney, emphasized that the lawsuit does not seek to strike down the sales tax exemption for Bibles and other Holy Scripture works.

"We're just saying the exemption should be broader so that it applies to religious text and nonreligious text."

The ACLU lawyer said the easiest solution is for the Legislature to amend the statute so that it encompasses a broader spectrum of religious and spiritual materials.

"I wouldn't expect it," said Michelle Hitt, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram). "It's not an issue that's been discussed, at all."

The law dates back to 1950s when Gov. Ernest Vandiver issued an executive order suspending the sales tax. Gov. Lester Maddox issued a similar order in 1970, and the Legislature approved it the following year.

According to the ACLU drivers with DUI's are not to be punished.

________________________________


Pink plates for DUI's in Florida?


E-mail This Article
Printable Version
 

Clearwater, Florida - A state senator wants bright pink license plates on vehicles driven by convicted drunk drivers with limited driving privileges.

Republican senator Mike Fasano of New Port Richey filed a bill earlier this month that requires the first three characters on the
plate to read "D-U-I."

Fasano says this might embarrass people and make them think twice about drinking and driving.

The bill also says police may stop any vehicle with a D-U-I plate without probable cause to check the driver.

Ohio and Michigan have similar laws in place. Other states have debated the issue, but failed to pass it due to privacy reasons.

A spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida says the group is against the pink plates because they punish and ridicule.

Hello Pastor Roger,

I think this is a great idea, but I think that all members of the ACLU also need pink tags on their cars. And the same rules should apply - probable cause for a stop not required for law enforcement.  ;D

I was just thinking out loud that we might need to extend this law for all ACLU members to wear all pink clothes and pink shoes outside of their homes.  ;D

Amen Brother,

The ACLU doesn't want people to be punished for their crimes so in essence they are aiding and abetting in my opinion. This in addition to the crimes against God and the nation they should also be punished. I think the pink clothes and shoes would be fitting.

They also need to be covered in "RED", (the blood of Jesus Christ) then they could be rehabilitated and perhaps actually do some work that is worthwhile.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The Reverends Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK) and Patrick J. Mahoney will visit ACLU headquarters today to hand-deliver more than 20,000 petitions demanding that the left-leaning liberal attack group back off of terrorizing communities and individuals who seek to affirm America's Judeo-Christian values.

Schenck, who heads up Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital, and Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, asked their respective members to sign the statements after the ACLU sued a small rural school district in Adams County, Ohio, over four displays of the Ten Commandments in front of public schools there. The ACLU won an order for the Commandments to be removed, then demanded that the school reimburse them for legal expenses. After Christian ministers in the community stepped forward with a pledge to replace the money taken from the school budget, the ACLU settled for $80,000.

"The ACLU is this generation's Ku Klux Klan," said Rev. Rob Schenck. "They gallop into small towns with legal hoods over their heads and terrorize good people by threatening to harm children by draining the coffers of local schools if they so much as dare to recognize our nation's true heritage. These ACLU bullies are nothing more than psychological terrorists."

The Reverends Schenck and Mahoney plan to arrive at the offices of the ACLU around 3:00 P.M.

ACLU’s War Against National Security

    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?

cont'd on page two

page two

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.

WOW! - In effect, the ACLU has been and is a terrorist group. How about that?

Ten Commandments display defended

MUSKOGEE (AP) -- Haskell County commissioners, responding to a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union, have defended a Ten Commandments monument outside the local courthouse .

In their response Thursday, commissioners said the display is not a sign of government endorsing a particular religion. They said it is of "outstanding governmental significance" and secular in nature, a part of people's everyday lives.

The lawsuit filed last month on behalf of Jim Green of Stigler, a retired veteran who regularly does business at the courthouse, is the first in Oklahoma since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that displays of the Ten Commandments on government property are not inherently unconstitutional.

"I think it's all nonsense, but we can't back up now, and we don't want to," said Haskell County Commission Chairman Sam Cole, who is being sued individually as well for being part of the panel.

"I think (a Ten Commandments display) ought to be on every courthouse lawn. That's what pretty much everyone here wants except one man. We're for it, and we'll fight. I was raised to fight for what I believe in, and I believe in this."

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Tina Izadi said the group stands behind the lawsuit.

"We're going to allow this to play out in the judicial system," she said.

The group's complaint is that the monument promotes the Christian faith to the exclusion of all other religions.

The suit claims that the "monument's celebration of the Ten Commandments as a religious text suggests that adherence to a particular religious creed is a prerequisite or an advantage to those seeking justice in Haskell County."

The commissioners answered that contention by saying: "It is not the primary purpose of the monument to endorse any religion. ... No reasonable observer would perceive that the government is endorsing religion through the monument."

The commissioners voted in November to erect the 8-by-3-foot granite slab, which features the text of the Mayflower Compact on one side and the Ten Commandments on the other. A Stigler pastor persuaded 17 area churches to raise the $2,500 needed for construction of the display on the courthouse lawn, about 90 miles southeast of Tulsa.

November 21, 2005

20,000 Protest Letters Delivered to ACLU Headquarters
by Josh Montez

It's a strong message that many Americans are tired of ACLU
Action against Christians and their faith.

Reverend Rob Schenck with Faith in Action went to the ACLU headquarters in New York City and hand delivered the letters from the American people. Schenck says the let the ACLU know that people are fed up with the liberal organization's legal aggression.

"They go in, they harass communities, they use up tax payer dollars by filing lawsuits over everything from nativity scenes to displays of the Ten Commandments to crosses, or any other vestige of our Judeo-Christian heritage.”

Schenck says the incident that pushed him over the edge was the ACLU court battle to remove the Ten Commandment displays from a small Ohio school district. After they won, the ACLU sued the school district for legal fees.

“The ACLU doesn’t need any reimbursement. The ACLU took in a hundred and fifty million dollars in contributions last year, and they have now demanded $80,000 from the school district there. We said that’s enough.”

Alan Sears with the Alliance Defense Fund says it’s high time the ACLU heard from Main Street America.

“It’s ridiculous what the ACLU has done to the people of this country and what they’ve done to especially small towns and small school districts officials with their campaign of fear, intimidation and disinformation."

Schenck says he plans to keep delivering letters to the ACLU on behalf of the American people.

The ACLU did not return our call for comment.

ACLU Looking to File Suit Over JHS Graduation "Altar Call"



November 21, 2005 – Posted at 6:03 p.m. CST

JONESBORO, AR – Religious expression in public schools is a hot-button topic that continues to be a frontline subject in culture wars. Extreme views on both sides often push the envelope, leaving the schools caught in the middle. And now, as the ACLU looks to wage a lawsuit against a Region 8 school, it may be an issue that hits close to home.

In May of this year, a Jonesboro student gave a prayer during a high school graduation ceremony at the Arkansas State University Convocation Center. During the prayer, which lasted four minutes, she gave an “altar call” to the community, asking those in the audience to come forward to accept Jesus Christ.

“In the closing moments of this service, if you would like to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, here's your chance,” said senior Jessica Reed in a May 20, 2005 taped video of JHS graduation ceremonies.

“We were contacted sometime after that by the American Civil Liberties Union that they felt like there had been a violation of the First Amendment, separation of church and state with regard to a prayer,” said Jonesboro Public Schools Attorney Donn Mixon.

And now the ACLU is looking for a plaintiff in a case against Jonesboro High School. In a letter written by the Arkansas ACLU executive director Rita Sklar, the event is described as a “blatant display of contempt for the First Amendment.”

“This is a tough area for schools to balance. People have a freedom of religion, but as a school district, we can not recognize a religion, and the balance between those two is where the rub comes,” said Mixon.

The Jonesboro Public School District does have a policy on religious beliefs and school ceremonies.

“Our policy is to not recognize any particular religion and not to recognize religion, period,” said Mixon, “In this case, the student was on the school program as giving a prayer, and that does go against our policies.”

“I'm here to tell you that God is someone, that he is amazing,” said Reed during her speech, “He will love you through everything. He will praise you when you are down. All you have to do is give your heart to Him. And before we leave, I want to give you that opportunity.”

But Mixon says it's a policy that will be enforced and a problem that won't happen again.

“It has occurred from time to time that students speak their mind about religion, or about prayer at graduation. The problem comes when the school recognizes that,” said Mixon, “And we had a lapse where our policy about prayer was apparently not followed that is still being investigated, but we can assure the ACLU and the public that that will not happen again.”

Mixon says he hopes there will not be a law suit regarding this incident, but he couldn't comment on whether or not the student who gave the speech had been punished by the school.


It is my hope and prayer that no "plaintiff" comes forward. The ACLU won't have a case then.

Law firm finds no discrimination in NMSU football
Last Update: 11/22/2005 9:18:04 AM
By: Associated Press

LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) - The New Mexico State University football program did not engage in religious discrimination against three former student-athletes, according to a law firm commissioned by the university to investigate the allegations.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico was seeking a public apology from head coach Hal Mumme and disciplinary action against him.

The investigation found that the players were released based on their performance and attitudes, not because of religion.

Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU, says the findings are disappointing.  He also questions the impartiality of the probe.

Simonson says he will speak with the players to see if they want to pursue legal action.

ACLU Violating Students Free Speech

ACLU plans to sue over Jonesboro graduation speech

A graduation speech created an uproar, when the topic turned to God; the ACLU says it's a violation of the separation between church and state.

Before marching with the Jonesboro High class of 2005, Jessica Reed was president of fellowship of Christian Services.

"I'm here today to tell you that God is someone that he's amazing," said Reed in her May 20 speech.

But it wasn't until her final moments as a senior that Reed's religious convictions caused a legal controversy.

"If you would like to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour here's your chance," she said in that same speech.

Reed's altar call sparked outrage from the American Civil Liberties Union.

"They felt like there had been a violation of the first amendment separation of church and state with regard to a prayer," said Donn Mixon, the school district's attorney.

A letter from the Arkansas ACLU director urges parents to sue the school calling Reed's comments a blatant display of contempt for the first amendment.

Jonesboro's superintendent of schools admits Reed's comments violated separation of church and state guidelines but he also says schools cannot prohibit students from expressing their views solely because they're religious in nature.

"Our policy is not to recognize any particular religion or not to recognize religion period," Mixon said.

"All you have to do is give your heart to him and before we leave I want to give you all that opportunity," Reed said in her speech.

Reed now an ASU freshman says she can't comment on the matter.

Her former school district will have to clear up any confusion on the balance of civil rights in school.

Jonesboro Public School Administrators say there was a lapse in policy that won't happen again.  The district is also putting a review committee together to study current policies related to the first amendment.

The ACLU is now taking on private school in an attempt to control it's policies. The following article taken from ACLU's own web site:

______________________________


NYCLU Defends Pregnant School Teacher Fired By School (11/21/2005)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
 
NEW YORK -- The New York Civil Liberties Union today charged a private Catholic school with discriminating against an unmarried Catholic schoolteacher by firing her because she became pregnant.
 
Michelle McCusker’s employment was terminated even as school officials praised her teaching ability and her “high degree of professionalism.” The NYCLU’s Reproductive Rights Project has filed a complaint on McCusker’s behalf with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
 
“Michelle McCusker was fired because she chose to have a child,” said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU.  “This is blatant pregnancy discrimination, which is both wrong and illegal. The NYCLU believes that all women like Ms. McCusker should have the right to choose to bring their pregnancies to term without being fired for it.”
 
McCusker was hired to teach pre-kindergartners at the St. Rose of Lima School in Queens in September 2005. Her teaching contract was to last for one year.  A month after school began, McCusker, who is single, informed the school’s principal that she was pregnant and planned to have the child.  Two days later, the principal told McCusker that she was being terminated because she violated the school’s religious principles by becoming pregnant while unmarried.  The school principal said she could work only until the end of October.
 
After the NYCLU wrote the school’s principal on McCusker’s behalf, urging her reinstatement, the school moved up the termination by a week and rescinded permission for McCusker to say good-bye to her students.
 
“I have been devastated over this incident,” said Michelle McCusker. “This was my first teaching position and I was excited and looking forward to the school year with my young students.  I don’t understand how a religion that prides itself on being forgiving could terminate me because I am unmarried and choose to have a baby.”
 
The NYCLU complaint charges that the school’s decision to fire McCusker was intentional and unlawful discrimination based on her gender and pregnancy.  The school enforced its policy of prohibiting sex outside of marriage only after learning that McCusker was pregnant.  Because only women can become pregnant, the school enforced the policy in a way that has a disproportionate impact on women and therefore is illegal, the NYCLU said in legal papers.    
 
“The school fired Ms. McCusker ostensibly for engaging in non-marital sex, but neither the school nor the Diocese that runs the school enforces this policy against men,” said Anna Schissel, Acting Director of NYCLU’s Reproductive Rights Project.  “Applying different policies to men and women employees is classic sex discrimination.”
 
McCusker’s case is similar to a complaint filed by the NYCLU in 2003 on behalf of the director of an after-school program employed by a religious charity.  When the unmarried program director became pregnant, the charity demoted her to a position that involved no student contact. The NYCLU's Reproductive Rights Project filed an EEOC complaint against the charity alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination.  The EEOC found that the religious charity violated federal anti-discrimination laws by demoting the teacher because of her pregnancy.  The NYCLU secured a favorable settlement that included the adoption by the charity of an employment policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status or pregnancy.
 
“The federal law against pregnancy discrimination was passed in 1978,” said ACLU Reproductive Rights Project staff attorney Cassandra Stubbs. “Ms. McCusker’s case, unfortunately, demonstrates the gap between the promise of the law and what is happening in the workplace today.  After more than 25 years there is still much work to be done to ensure that women who decide to become pregnant and have children can go to work in an environment free of discrimination.”
   
In addition to losing her job while pregnant, McCusker is facing difficulties finding full-time employment, as the school year has begun and most institutions are no longer hiring, Stubbs noted.

The NYCLU is asking the school to adopt a non-discrimination policy similar to the policy adopted in the 2003 case.
 
 

Barry Lynn

"There is clearly a distinction made between religious speech and activity and any other speech and activity." (Former ACLU's Legislative Director; now President of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Policy Review . September 1988.)

                
Texas-Like Commandments Monument Under Attack in Sooner State

By Allie Martin
November 28, 2005

(AgapePress) - The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against another city over a public display of the Ten Commandments as part of a historical exhibit.

Last November officials in Haskell County, Oklahoma, erected a marble monument depicting the Ten Commandments on one side, with the Mayflower Compact on the other. The monument sits in Stigler, Oklahoma, the seat of Haskell County. Now the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking removal of the monument. The suit, Green v. Haskell County, was filed on behalf of Stigler resident Jim Green, a disabled 68-year-old veteran, who claims the monument constitutes government interference in individuals' religious freedoms.

"[W]hen the government starts dictating what religious ideas are 'right,' it interferes with a person's choice," Green said in a statement released in connection with the lawsuit. He contends that placement of the monument near the courthouse "sends the message that if you don't subscribe to this specific thought, you will have no access to the government."

The Ten Commandments display sits on county grounds along with other memorials dedicated to those who died in the Civil War, World War I, and World War II.

Erik Stanley is with Liberty Counsel, which is representing the county. He says the ACLU is fighting a tough battle in light of last summer's Supreme Court ruling over a similar monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds in Austin.

"The ACLU is going to argue that because the [Haskell County] monument was erected only a year ago that it's different than Texas because Texas's monument has been on the Texas state capitol grounds for about 40 years," the Liberty Counsel attorney says.

According to Stanely, Supreme Court Associate" Justice John Paul Stevens provided the swing vote in the Texas case. "[Stevens said] that basically because the monument had been there for 40 years it was constitutional -- that was really the only ground that he decided the case on," Stanley explains. "So that's going to be the battle."

But the lawyer insists that Haskell County's public display of the Decalogue will be defended.

"We are going to argue that this Ten Commandments is constitutional," he says. "That if Texas is allowed to have on its state capitol grounds a monument that is essentially identical to what Haskell County has, then Haskell County should be able to have the exact same monument on its grounds."

Stanley contends that there should be no "constitutional distinction" between the two monuments. "We're going to take this case up," he adds, "and if we have to, we'll take it to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to clarify this issue."

Liberty Counsel represents more than a dozen governmental displays that include the Ten Commandments.

(My Note: Congress needs to get the Ten Commandments bill passed and fast to squelch the ACLU on this once and for all.)

Hello Pastor Roger,

This one is in my own back yard, and I haven't heard about it yet. I'm glad that they already have some help since most cities and counties all over the country already have unfunded priority items. Of course, the same is true for many other organizations, and this is one reason why the ACLU wins so many cases. It simply takes considerable money to fight the ACLU, and it's sickening when you find out that the money rolling out the pockets of the ACLU came from taxpayers.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 111:3 NASB  Splendid and majestic is His work, And His righteousness endures forever.

It is one of the many ways of fleecing America.

Many liberals complain about taxes being so high yet they still support the ACLU who ends up costing our taxpayers more than any other organization around. It cost one small city over $400,000.00 just to remove a small barely legible cross from their city emblem and this did not include court costs, etc. It bankrupted the city. The ACLU is destroying our economy as well as destroying our history and Christian heritage.

Legislators leery of ruling about prayer; Conservatives, liberals say court decision raises questions

By Kurt Van der Dussen, Hoosier Times
Sunday, December 4, 2005 6:08 AM CST

The federal court ruling ordering the Indiana General Assembly not to allow invocations to be given in the name of Jesus Christ got a leery eye from area lawmakers.

Those who are devout Christians voiced emotions from disappointment to anger.

"This is the first (court ruling) that singles out any particular religion or any religious figure that specifically," said Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford.

He also noted that several patriotic songs, such as "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful" contain religious lyrics.

"This ruling raises the question of whether those songs can even be sung in the House chambers," he said.

The ruling, Koch said, "runs counter to the First Amendment" in the limits it puts on speech.

Legislative liberals concerned about the preponderance of Christian prayer in the Legislature wondered if it went too far.

Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, has observed the Senate's prayer practices for 21 years now.

"I was never disturbed by the process because everyone is welcome to invite anyone to lead the prayer," she said. She thinks "the issue has been overblown" by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and others.

"Honestly, I think this is going a bit too far," she said. "As long as the prayers are varied and represent various faiths, I think it should be allowed."

Simpson said the Senate's practice has been that clergy most often are invited by members, with senators sometimes giving the prayer themselves. A United Methodist who has taught Sunday school and sung in the choir, Simpson said she has not led prayer herself.

An ecumenical soul, Simpson said her hope had been that allowing a variety of religious representatives to pray would introduce senators to other beliefs. "But in practice it has never worked out that way," she said. "It has been almost entirely Christian prayer."

Associated Press reported this week that of 53 opening prayers in the House during the 2005 General Assembly, 41 were given by clergy identified with Christian churches and nine were delivered by representatives themselves. A lay person, a Muslim imam and a Jewish Rabbi each delivered one prayer.

In terms of prayer's benefits, Simpson said, "I've always found it sets the tone, that it helps restore civility." She said she can't recall any non-Christian members being offended by the prayers in the Senate.

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said he hadn't read the ruling yet, but did have a specific question he wants answered.

"I want to know if it rules out Muslims saying the name of Allah," he said. "I'd be interested in seeing if the judge said that. And if it didn't, if it's an example of the secular jihad that's going on."

He said the Legislature has been inclusive with invocations and so have individual invocators. He specifically recalled one who prayed "in the name of Allah and in the name of Jehovah God."

"It's not a one-way street," he said. In his view, "we've had tolerance and now we've had judicial intolerance imposed on us."

Steele wondered what the future holds for invocations.

"A milquetoast prayer where we pray to what? It's just neutered," he charged. "And how is it enforceable?"

Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, predicted partisan politics will enter the issue.

"Speaker Bosma and his caucus realize this is a golden opportunity for them to energize their base" for the 2006 election, he said.

Simpson said Bosma has politicized religious issues more than most. But she said "I really don't" see this becoming a partisan issue.

"I don't see the Republicans and the Democrats differing very much on this issue," she said. "The Republicans don't own faith, and they don't own patriotism."

Rep. Peggy Welch, D-Bloomington, said Welch, an evangelical Christian who has belonged to bipartisan Statehouse Bible study and prayer groups, said what produced the issue was the day Bedford's Clarence Brown led the invocation, then sang.

Welch said sometimes people sing for the House and that this song was more "entertainment" than worship. To her, the adverse reaction "went way overboard.

"Everybody is eligible to invite whoever they want to come," she said of House practice for inviting people to give invocations or sing.

"I'm disappointed because it's restricting the ability to pray in one's own faith," she said. She noted that when she prays in a gathering that includes non-Christians, "I try to be sensitive and I say, 'I pray in the name of Jesus'," instead of 'we.'"

Rep. Matt Pierce was still rolling the ruling around in his mind. "I'm not sure what I think about it," he said. "I kind of have two opinions about it.

"I do think prayers were becoming too denominational," he said, clarifying he meant Christian as opposed to being too many Baptists or Catholics, etc.

He said of non-Christian prayers in the House that "it's a rare occasion but from time to time they do have" a prayer by a Jewish rabbi, Muslim cleric or Native American spiritual leader.

"On the other hand, I can understand how Speaker Bosma feels about asking a clergyman to pray and then giving them a bunch of rules they have to follow," he said, referring to House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Beech Grove, who has fiercely criticized the ruling.

Musclehead Coalition to Flood ACLU With Merry Christmas

n response to war on Christmas being waged by ACLU

NEW YORK, Dec. 2 /Christian Wire Service/ -- In light of the growing "War on Christmas" that the ACLU is continuing to wage against Americans and with no adequate response yet formed to combat the effort, the MuscleHead Revolution is announcing its call for 100,000 people to send "Merry Christmas" cards to the national offices of the ACLU before Christmas 2005.

"From now until December 25th a coalition made up of leading media/talk-radio personalities, bloggers, and journalists are calling on the ninety-six percent of Americans who celebrate Christmas in some fashion to speak up, with a grin on their face, and wish the American Civil Liberties Union a 'Merry Christmas' it won't soon forget," said Kevin McCullough, the organizer of the Merry Christmas ACLU Network. "We want the cards to be in good taste, MuscleHead guidelines apply. They can be witty, and sharp. They must at the very least say 'Merry Christmas', and faith based people are fully encouraged to go for cards that say 'Joy To The World' etc."

Leading Bloggers such as Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters and others have also led the way with extensive promotion throughout the blogosphere.

MERRY CHRISTMAS ACLU - FOX NEWS VIDEO

An interesting side note, after the segment - by which they put the ACLU guy in another studio far away from the host and I - I passed E. Christopher Murray in the hallway, stopped and shook his hand. I told I appreciated him being so good natured on the air and wished him a "Merry Christmas". He responded by saying that he would be on the lookout for my Christmas card...(it made me chuckle out loud.)

As I was walking away I offered, "You can count on it!"

By the way - have you sent yours yet?

ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY. 10004

MuscleHead Revolution staffers will be sending one daily between now and Christmas Day!

Zell Miller’s Spitballs Increasingly Likely
December 05, 2005 10:10 AM EST


As the leftist Democrat leaders continue their drumbeat and mantra of “Pull out the troops—pull out the troops”, they are joined by their mainstream media and ACLU. Unlike the non-covert-CIA-agent Valerie Plame scenario, the mainstream press continues to report on actual covert CIA information—putting American citizens in jeopardy—and they get away with it. The ACLU is, again, using the court system to undermine the country. It has now filed a lawsuit against the CIA for interrogating terrorists out of country—in time of war.

Despite the fact that pulling our troops out of Iraq now would cause chaos in that country and place the United States at greater risk, the Democrats persist in their madness—with increasing help from their above-mentioned leftist friends. Although new schools have been built in Iraq (attended by both boys and girls), trained Iraqi police and military personnel are being turned out as quickly as humanly possible, the Kurdish area of the country is stable and humming economically (to the point that coalition troops often take R&R there), women’s rights are increasing in the country and much—much more, the Left continues to ignore any progress made. It suits their agenda to only report negative news regarding Iraq.

The Left also perseveres in its efforts to weaken the US with any and all ways possible. As the leftist ACLU continues to purport its “human rights” issues, it has become inordinately evident that those rights pertain only to the terrorists and other enemies of our country. If these rights are attempted to be attributed to US Christians or any US citizens who want our country to succeed—or even to remain as a sovereign country—the ACLU is either against or ignores them.

Note: The ACLU recently turned down $1.5M from two of its largest contributors—the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation. The reason? Language added to both of these foundation charters were phrases stating that no organization can receive funding if it either “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state” or “directly or indirectly engages in, promotes, or supports other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.” These are the phraseologies to which the ACLU objected. If the ACLU’s mission was not clear before—there should be no further doubt.

Leftist Democrats who voted for no immediate withdrawal from Iraq are now verbally pounding the American people that we do so. As an example, House Minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi voted against the immediate withdrawal (and encouraged others to do so) but, now says we should immediately withdraw. Even failed presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has chimed in and stepped up his rhetoric, as he said on Sunday’s Face the Nation that if the upcoming elections in Iraq are successful we should immediately withdraw 20,000 troops. Kerry also said that US troops are going door to door terrorizing Iraqi citizens! This is yet another indication of the Democrat Left making insane comments and siding with the enemy. For Mr. Kerry, of course, this is nothing new. He said much the same things about US soldiers in Viet Nam. That’s why the Communists love this guy! Kerry further outlined his cut-and-run policy by reiterating his comment “success begins with withdrawal.” Note: President Bush has already said repeatedly that ‘as the Iraqis step up, US troops will step down.’ But, when it occurs, Kerry wants to ensure that there’s a possibility he may gain some ‘credit for it’.

As the leftist Dems and their comrades continue to work toward emasculating the US military and the USA, in general, we may soon be in the position of having nothing with which to defend ourselves. The enemies from within our country are proving to be as deadly as those from without. The stark and unequivocal fact is that if we don’t vote these people out of power, we won’t have a country left to defend. Then, Senator Zell Miller’s prophetic words, at the 2004 GOP Convention, concerning candidate John Kerry, may come true for all of us: “This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?” This is the promise of and from the Left.

The Jewish grinch
who stole Christmas
Posted: December 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

I never thought I'd live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn't? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear it will offend?

Schools are being forced to replace "Christmas vacation" with "winter break" in their printed schedules. At Macy's, the word is verboten even though they've made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, "Miracle on 34th Street." Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.

How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Pakistan is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn't mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country's population is of one religion, and roughly 90 percent of Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a damn fool would deny the obvious.

Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn't, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn't a threat to anyone – it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world's melting pot was our nickname. It didn't mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.

That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront.

Being Jewish, I should report, Christmas was never celebrated by my family. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two-week break from school. The decorated trees were nice, the lights were beautiful, "It's a Wonderful Life" was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.

But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society – it's been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed toward George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that's just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.

My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26 percent of their vote to Bush, even though he is clearly the most pro-Israel president we've ever had in the Oval Office.

It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase "separation of church and state" actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.

You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a "Merry Christmas" will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver's license.

I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority. I am getting the idea that too many Jews won't be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.

I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They're the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They're the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, "In God we trust" or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital "C." By this time, I'm only surprised that they haven't begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it's only for religious reasons – Christian reasons – that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.

This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.

Merry Christmas.

Decision expected today in Quran controversy

Dec 6, 2005

RALEIGH -- A Superior Court judge today is expected to decide whether people can give a courtroom oath on a non-Christian text, an issue that spurred national debate this summer.

The anticipated decision comes about four months after the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina filed a lawsuit asking a judge to clarify that state law allows people to swear on religious texts other than the Christian Bible.

The lawsuit followed an outcry this summer over the inability of Muslims to be sworn in Guilford County courts using the Quran. The matter surfaced when the county's two top judges turned down a gift of Qurans from a Greensboro Islamic center after deciding that an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath. State law refers to someone laying his hand on the "Holy Scriptures," which they interpret to mean the Christian Bible. The law also allows someone to affirm to tell the truth while holding their hand upraised.

When the state Administrative Office of the Courts declined to intervene, the ACLU took the issue to court, arguing that the term "Holy Scriptures" is broad enough to include many religious texts.

Initially, the state attorney general's office argued in court papers that the ACLU lacked the right to sue because there is no controversy to settle between the parties.

That led the ACLU to add Greensboro Muslim Syidah Mateen as a plaintiff. In 2003, the 41-year-old appeared as a witness in a domestic violence protection order hearing but was not allowed to take an oath on the Quran as she preferred.

Afterward, she decided someone should donate copies of the Quran to the courthouse, an idea that led to the present controversy.

During a brief hearing in Wake County Superior Court on Monday, Assistant Attorney General Grady L. Balentine Jr. didn't argue that the plaintiffs lacked the right to sue. Instead, he argued solely that state oath-taking law is constitutional because it allows people to affirm if they don't wish to swear on the Christian Bible.

"No one is required to do that," he told Superior Court Judge Donald L. Smith. "That's our only position in this case."

During the hearing, ACLU attorney Seth Cohen told the judge that if he doesn't interpret "Holy Scriptures" to includes non-Christian texts, then the law is unconstitutional. The ACLU maintains that the exclusive use of the Christian Bible for courtroom oaths violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution. The clause says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

When asked by the judge, the lawyers confirmed a longstanding legal tradition: When a law is susceptible to multiple interpretations, a judge should always rely on the interpretation that makes the law constitutional.

In this case, that could mean "Holy Scriptures" is broad enough to include non-Christian texts.

The lawyers were each given seven and one-half minutes to make their case Monday. No one testified.

The hearing lasted less than a half hour.

Smith, who serves as an emergency judge, told the lawyers he expected to call them with a decision this morning.

Oaths suit by ACLU dismissed by judge
Rights group seeks use of other texts in courtroom setting

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHARLOTTE

A judge threw out an ACLU lawsuit aimed at allowing the use of non-Christian religious texts in courtroom oaths, saying that the civil-liberties group had no active case to argue.

Judge Donald Smith of Superior Court, who is based in Raleigh, released his decision to lawyers in the case yesterday. A written ruling was to follow.

The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued in Guilford County in July, saying it was acting on behalf of members statewide who prefer to swear courtroom oaths on religious texts other than the Bible.

No specific plaintiff was named in the original filing, and the ACLU added the name of Syidah Mateen, a Muslim from Greensboro, only after the suit had been filed, saying that she was blocked from swearing an oath on the Quran during a 2003 court hearing.

Smith tossed the case because there is no active controversy involving someone prohibited from using a text other than a Bible, Seth Cohen, a lawyer with the ACLU, said yesterday. "Of course, we're very disappointed the judge did not reach the merits," he said. "We do believe there's a case."

Cohen said he would consult with the state ACLU and its board about whether to appeal the decision or await a future opportunity to bring a fresh suit.

Noelle Talley, a spokeswoman for N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper, declined to comment because the department had not received a signed order from Smith.

At issue is a state law that allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath either by laying a hand over a "Holy Scripture," by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book or by using no religious symbols.

Asked to clarify whether Muslims could swear on the Quran, two top Guilford County judges said earlier this year that only the Bible could be used.

The ACLU's suit argued that allowing Christians to swear on a Bible while denying Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others an opportunity to use their religious texts violates the First Amendment.

Did the ACLU Lie to the Federal Courts in the Cobb County Evolution Sticker Case?

Reports out of Georgia about this morning’s arguments in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is really interesting as the three Judge panel jumped all over the ACLU attorney.

First the Atlanta Journal Constitution leads with this:

    Three federal appeals court judges today indicated a lower court judge got key facts wrong in declaring unconstitutional an evolution disclaimer sticker put in Cobb County science books.

    During oral arguments, all members of the federal appeals court panel noted that U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper made incorrect findings as the basis for his decision that the stickers violated the First Amendment by endorsing a religious viewpoint.

And if that isn’t interesting enough for you, here are a few comments from the Judges themselves:

    "The court gives two bases for its findings and they're absolutely wrong," [Judge] Carnes told Atlanta lawyer Jeffrey Bramlett, who argued on behalf of five parents who sued the school board to get the stickers removed.

And:

    Judge Frank Hull also noted that Cooper said the sticker misleads students even though there was no evidence to support that position.

    "The order's problematic, you'd agree with that, in the way that it was written?" Hull asked Bramlett, who had little time to argue his position.

    Judge Bill Pryor also noted that Cooper relied on facts that "are just contradicted by the record."

Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting:

    "I don't think y'all can contest any of the sentences," Carnes said to an attorney for parents who sued challenging the stickers during a hearing on the case. "It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that."

At the end of the session the Judges called the ACLU on the carpet about their legal briefs:

    At the end of the arguments, Carnes took the highly unusual step of calling Bramlett back up to the podium and suggested he may have mislead the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in his legal brief filed with the court.





Appeals judges see errors in evolution sticker ruling

By BILL RANKIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/15/05

Three federal appeals court judges today indicated a lower court judge got key facts wrong in declaring unconstitutional an evolution disclaimer sticker put in Cobb County science books.

During oral arguments, all members of the federal appeals court panel noted that U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper made incorrect findings as the basis for his decision that the stickers violated the First Amendment by endorsing a religious viewpoint.

Judge Ed Carnes dominated much of the 40-minute arguments by tearing apart sections of Cooper's January ruling that ordered the stickers, which declared evolution "a theory, not a fact," removed from almost 35,000 middle- and high-school science textbooks.

"The court gives two bases for its findings and they're absolutely wrong," Carnes told Atlanta lawyer Jeffrey Bramlett, who argued on behalf of five parents who sued the school board to get the stickers removed.

At the end of the arguments, Carnes took the highly unusual step of calling Bramlett back up to the podium and suggested he may have mislead the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in his legal brief filed with the court.

Judge Frank Hull also noted that Cooper said the sticker misleads students even though there was no evidence to support that position.

"The order's problematic, you'd agree with that, in the way that it was written?" Hull asked Bramlett, who had little time to argue his position.

Judge Bill Pryor also noted that Cooper relied on facts that "are just contradicted by the record."

Carnes asserted that Cooper made major mistakes in crafting his order. In one mistake, Carnes said, Cooper indicated that a petition with about 2,300 signatures that called on the board to place a sticker in the textbooks was issued prior to the board's decision in March 2002 to affix the stickers on the textbooks. The petition, Carnes noted, was turned over to the school board six months after it made the decision to place stickers on the schoolbooks.

Even though Carnes said the evidentiary record in the case indicates the petitions were given to the school board in September 2002, the school board knew about the petition before it decided to affix the stickers to science textbooks six months earlier.

On March 29, 2002, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Marjorie Rogers, whose child attended a Cobb middle school, told the school board the previous day that she had collected petitions signed by 2,300 people who were dissatisfied with the science textbooks.

Also, Cooper, when writing his decision last January, said he "did not rely on communications from these individuals" to determine whether the school board sought to advance religion when it voted to place the sticker in science textbooks.

The stickers, placed inside the front pages of Cobb science textbooks in the fall of 2002, read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

In his ruling, Cooper found that the school board adopted a distinction that "religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolutionary movement."

The sticker conveys "an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders," Cooper wrote. This spring, following Cooper's orders, the school board removed the stickers from all science textbooks.

In his argument, Gunn, the school's attorney, asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to look at the stickers in the context of the board's plan to strengthen its teaching of evolution. In the past, Gunn noted, Cobb curtailed evolution instruction. In 2002, the board agreed to use a new textbook with chapters devoted to evolution.

"If they wanted to restrict evolution instruction, they would have done nothing," Gunn said. "They would have maintained the status quo.....All they did was improve evolution instruction."

After the hearing, Gerry Weber, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union office in Atlanta, which represents the plaintiffs, said there is plenty of evidence in the case to support the argument that Cobb's school board placed the stickers inside textbooks to endorse the religious views of some parents.

"There are letters and e-mails from citizens who are asking the school board to protect their faith and discount evolution," Weber said.

A decision is not expected until next year.

udges ask tough questions in evolution sticker case

The Associated Press - ATLANTA

Federal appeals judges lobbed tough questions Thursday about a lower court's decision to order the removal of disclaimer stickers calling evolution "a theory, not a fact" from textbooks in a suburban Atlanta school district.

Judge Ed Carnes, a member of the three-judge 11th Circuit Court of Appels panel, several times questioned the basis of a federal judge's ruling that the three-sentence sticker was unconstitutional because he had determined it represented an endorsement of religion.

"I don't think y'all can contest any of the sentences," Carnes said to an attorney for parents who sued challenging the stickers during a hearing on the case. "It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that."

Cobb County school officials were ordered in January by the lower court to immediately remove the stickers.

The judges also questioned the lower court's finding that the sticker was influenced by a petition that mentioned religion _ saying research showed the petition was filed after the stickers were approved by the Cobb County school board.

The court did not indicate when it will rule in the case.

ACLU to appeal Quran ruling

 By Eric Collins
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO -- Officials with the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina said Thursday that they will appeal last week's ruling regarding courtroom oaths.

The ACLU had filed a lawsuit on behalf of its roughly 8,000 members asking the court to clarify that state law allows people to use non-Christian religious scriptures for oath-taking.

Greensboro Muslim Syidah Mateen, who joined the suit, claimed she was harmed in 2003 when a judge did not allow her to take an oath on the Quran when testifying in a Guilford County courtroom.

However, Superior Court Judge Donald L. Smith tossed out the lawsuit on Dec. 8, deciding that the plaintiffs lacked a legal controversy.

The judge determined that because Mateen testified that day, no legal controversy remained.

She used the part of the state law that allows someone to affirm to tell the truth while holding their hand upraised, rather than swearing on the King James Bible available in the courtrooms.

ACLU lawyer Seth Cohen said Thursday that the organization disagrees with the judge's finding and he is confidant they will win in the N.C. Court of Appeals.

"It's a shame that this matter cannot be resolved sooner," he said. "All we have ever asked is that people of all faiths be able to put their hands on the holy text of their choice. It's that simple. We don't understand why this is such a big deal."

The issue surfaced this summer after Guilford County's top two judges turned down a gift of Qurans from a Greensboro Islamic center after they decided that an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath.

State law refers to someone laying his hand on the "Holy Scriptures," which they interpret to mean the Christian Bible. When the state Administrative Office of the Courts declined to intervene, the ACLU took the issue to court, arguing that the term "Holy Scriptures" is broad enough to include many religious texts. If the courts determine otherwise, the ACLU argues that the law is unconstitutional because it favors one religion over another.

The debate has garnered national attention, and not all Muslims agree that it's a worthwhile cause.

Cohen said Thursday that the issue goes far beyond the Quran. For example, he said, Jews want to be allowed to swear an oath on the Old Testament.

"That's the one thing that's gotten lost in this case," Cohen said.

ndiana to appeal prayer ban

INDIANAPOLIS, Dec. 15 (UPI) -- Indiana plans to appeal a federal judge's ruling that bans any mention of Jesus Christ from legislative invocations.

House Speaker Brian Bosma said he would fight U.S. District Judge David Hamilton's order "by all legal means," the Indianapolis Star reported.

"We will find a way to have prayer within the order in one fashion or another," Bosma said.

Hamilton ruled Nov. 30 in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four Indiana residents. Hamilton agreed with the plaintiffs that the Legislature was advocating a specific religion by allowing Christian prayers.

The judge said anyone invited to pray before the opening of a legislative session should be advised to limit the content.

 BELLINGHAM -- Careful driving aroundthe church parking lots here the next time itsnows -- it could be treacherous.

The town has already taken a spill on it, courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Following a complaint to the agency, the town has ended a longstanding practice of plowing church parking areas, an unsmiling Town Administrator Denis C. Fraine informed the Board of Selectmen on Monday.

"Unfortunately, we will be curtailing that practice as a result of a complaint we received," Fraine said.

The ACLU has a long history of intervening in practices it deems to be an unconstitutional commingling of religion and government, and the town’s wintertime tradition of clearing the snow from the parking lots of local churches appears to be another one of them, Fraine said.

Though he did not provide much elaboration, the town administrator made it clear that the town was reluctant to end the service to the churches, saying he had tried to contact the pastors of at least two of them to inform them of the situation. Fraine mentioned only two -- St. Brendan and St. Blaise parishes.

Members of the Board of Selectmen accepted the briefing from Fraine with stony silence.

After the meeting, Fraine said the town had ceased the plowing on the advice of Legal Counsel Lee Ambler, after the ACLU had

complained to Ambler.

Last month, said Fraine, the town had received a written complaint about the practice from Lake Street resident Ernest Godbout. "Apparently," said Fraine, Godbout "was also in contact with the ACLU."

Fraine briefly showed reporters the two-page letter written by Godbout about the matter, dated Nov. 5, addressed to town officials. The letter indicates that Godbout sent copies of the same letter to four local churches, but the ACLU is not mentioned. Efforts to reach Godbout for comment last night were not successful.

According to Fraine, the town has been plowing the parking lots of the town’s houses of worship for many years. Fraine said he does not know how much the practice costs the town, or how long, exactly, it has been going on.

"I think as long as there have been churches in town, the town has been plowing them," Fraine said.

The administrator said he doesn’t think Bellingham is the only community in the Bay State where churches have benefited from such municipal largesse. For example, he said the practice was also an issue recently in Framingham.

The ACLU’s intervention comes at a time of heightened awareness of the increasing secularization of society, particularly in matters of seasonal etiquette. One of the issues heating up the airwaves of radio talk shows since Thanksgiving, for example, is the debate over the use of the term "holiday tree," a practice religious groups have lambasted as another illustration of how the meaning of Christmas is being purged from public life.

Ironically, there is a seasonal fir on display in the spacious lobby of the new Municipal Center, and the ACLU hasn’t complained about that yet, said Fraine. Asked what kind of a tree it was, Fraine said, "It’s a Christmas tree as far as I’m concerned."

Muslims claim detention was due to faith
ACLU lawsuit backs men held at border after Islamic conference
Posted: December 17, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The New York Civil Liberties Union is in court to stop the Department of Homeland Security from detaining interrogating, fingerprinting and photographing American citizens at the border because they attended an Islamic conference.

The NYCLU and the American Civil Liberties Union brought the case to Judge William W. Skretny in Buffalo, N.Y., on behalf of five Muslim American citizens who attended the Reviving the Islamic Spirit conference in Toronto in December 2004.

Federal officials argue such conferences have been used to provide cover for pro-terrorist operatives.

The men were stopped at the U.S-Canada border, where agents detained, frisked, photographed and fingerprinted them.

The NYCLU, noting the border agents were acting under orders from the Department of Homeland Security, wants to ensure it doesn't happen after this year's conference, which opens Dec. 23.

"The government continues to insist that it's essential to national security to detain, frisk, photograph and fingerprint law-abiding American citizens simply because they are Muslim exercising their right to participate in a religious conference," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU. "Our Constitution does not permit religious or ethnic profiling – but that's precisely what the government has done in this case."

The NYCLU said some of the Muslims detained last year were held overnight for as long as six and a half hours and were prevented from contacting attorneys or family members.

"I was treated like a criminal for no other reason than because I was Muslim," said Dr. Sawsan Tabbaa, a Buffalo orthodontist.

Catherine Kim, ACLU staff attorney, argued the government "cannot criminalize American citizens for their religious beliefs."

"Americans need to know that they can practice their religion and attend religious conferences without fear of government reprisals," she said.

Held annually in Toronto since 2003, the conference is billed as promoting a strong message of building friendships with and alliances between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. This year, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin is expected to give a speech.

But as WorldNetDaily reported, while media stories have depicted the conference as a harmless "religious" event for "mainstream" Islamic groups, it has featured controversial Muslim speakers and attendees, and U.S. officials say such events have been used in the past to provide cover for pro-terrorist operatives.

The two-day conference in January 2003 advertised Sheik Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais as the main speaker. The previous year, al-Sudais, the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, reportedly prayed to Allah to "terminate" the Jews whom he called "the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, prophet killers ... pigs and monkeys." The sheik also has characterized Jews as "evil," "evil forefathers," a "continuum of deceit," and full of "tyranny" and "treachery." Due to logistical problems, the sheik, the headliner of the event, missed the conference. Jeewan Chanicka, media relations director for the Toronto conference, called the sheik's absence "unfortunate."

The same conference featured Zulfiqar Ali Shah, the former president of the Islamic Circle of North America, an organization linked to Jama'at-I-Islami, a fundamentalist Pakistani group that calls bin Laden the "hero" of the Islamic world and raises millions of dollars for global jihad.

Mokhtar Maghroui, who spoke at an event featuring suicide-bombing supporters, also was a speaker at the last two RIS conferences.

The 2003 RIS conference featured William W. Baker, who was outed as a neo-Nazi by the Orange County Weekly.

Some writers and commentators, such as Daniel Pipes, a specialist on Islam, have supported the U.S. government policy, arguing it's a matter of national security. Controlling the border flow, he said, is absolutely necessary and of "paramount importance."

Pipes argues, "Were the plaintiffs to prevail in this case, attending religious conferences would instantly become the favored method for terrorists and other Islamists to cross the American border without hindrance."

1st Amendment 'doesn't create church-state wall of separation'
Court whacks civil-liberties group, OKs Ten Commandments display
Posted: December 20, 2005
4:32 p.m. Eastern

A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice successfully argued the case on behalf of Mercer County, Ky., and a display of historical documents placed in the county courthouse. The panel voted 3-0 to reject the ACLU's contention the display violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

The county display the ACLU sued over included the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Star Spangled Banner, the national motto, the preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution and a picture of Lady Justice.

Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."

The court said a reasonable observer of Mercer County's display appreciates "the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American traditions."

Francis J. Manion, counsel for the ACLJ, argued the case before both the 6th Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

"This is a big victory for the people of Mercer County and Kentucky generally," Manion said. "For too long they have been lectured like children by those in the ACLU and elsewhere who claim to know what the people's Constitution really means. What the 6th Circuit has said is that the people have a better grasp on the real meaning of the Constitution; the court recognizes that the Constitution does not require that we strip the public square of all vestiges of our religious heritage and traditions."

OUCH! Sounds like someone's finally woken up! Good read there, Pastor Roger.

Actually, BEP, it does exist... But not in the form which ACLU claims it does. :) In fact, it exists not to protect the government from religion, but to protect religion from the government. Like everything else, ACLU has it backwards. XD

I must agree with that to a very small extent. The separation prevents government from controlling how people worship but it does not and was not meant to prevent people, even those in politics, from openly expressing their views and their manner of worship even in government buildings and on any government property.

This nation was founded on Christian principles and those principles state that people have the right to freedom to worship even in public.

Precisely, Pastor Roger. It's a bit of double-speak from ACLU. They claim they want to keep the government from interfering with religion while at the same time speaking to eliminate religion using governmental power... At least Christian religion.

But I'll be silent for now. I know I'm preachin' to the choir. :P

Hello LittlePilgrim,

You are quite right, and I stand corrected. I should have prefaced my statement with something like "in the modern concept being tried over the last 50 years." The ACLU does have things backwards and inside-out twisted, so there's nothing new about the ACLU.

I was just laughing about what the founding fathers might do if they witnessed one of the stunts of the ACLU.  ;D  Does the name of a place called "Salem" ring a bell? Yes, I think that the founders would need lots of wood.  ;D

If I was a member of the ACLU, I would fear a lightning bolt coming out of the sky at any moment. All kidding aside, folks like the ACLU have dishonored GOD. Slowly but surely over a 50 year period of time, folks like the ACLU turned our nation away from GOD, and we let them do it without NEARLY enough of a fight. The founders would be ready to fight another revolutionary war and form another new country. I'm asking myself a question right now: As a nation, do we really deserve the blessings of GOD with what we have allowed?

Love In Christ,
Tom

Ephesians 2:8-10 NASB  For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

As a nation? No. As individuals? No. But we have it anyway. :) Isn't that what Christ's gospel is really all about? It is not through our own merit we are blessed, but through God's grace and His mercy.

Hello LittlePilgrim,

I understand your line of thinking. As individuals or as a nation, it would be horrible if we got what we actually deserved. By comparison, I would have to say that the Christians of this part of the world have it very easy, take the things of God for granted, and might not admit they were Christians in parts of the world where Christians are hunted, beaten, put in prison, and killed.

I must also make an observation that I know is made by many outside and looking in on our part of the world. Many of them would not be able to get beyond the thoughts of drugs, alcohol, pornography, violence, and crime to even consider values and morals related to religious beliefs. If they did, they would probably be thinking:  if that's how a Christian nation acts, I wouldn't want anything to do with Christianity. That why many countries of the world call America the great satan.

Now, consider the masses who are starving to death or otherwise dying or being killed around the world. If you don't wonder why we deserve any blessings from God, don't you think that they do? I know they do because there are many missionaries in my family who have served around the world. It's an interesting thought, and I do give thanks that God hasn't given us His wrath that we seem to so richly deserve.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 1:16-17 NASB  For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

AMEN, as it's time to send CAIR packing as well!

I know of a better place, China. ;D

I'm all for that but make sure it is a very remote portion of China far away from civilization. The poor Christians in China already have enough problems.

How about, Idu Mishmi tribe in the remote town of Anini, India, near the border with China. There are no Christians there. ;D

That will work as long as there are restricted to that area.

Best of 2005: Interview With A Former ACLU Lawyer
by Jay on 12-26-05 @ 12:47 am Filed under ACLU, War On Terror, 1st Amendment, News
“For God And Country Forever
Surrender To The ACLU Never”

I had the benefit of getting an interview with Mr. Reese Lloyd, a former ACLU lawyer affiliated with the largest Veterans Organization in America, the American Legion. When I called the media relations department there and inquired about their support for Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 , this is the man they referred me to. I soon found out why. This was a very passionate, wise, and well spoken man.

I first inquired of his history with the ACLU, how he became employed with them, and why he eventually disassociated himself with them. He informed me that he had worked two janitor jobs while attending law school. One day the ACLU did some kind of fellowship interview, and he was given an internship with them. He eventually went on to be on their staff. He focused in the area of worker’s rights with special attention to the deprivation of speech in the workplace…such as whistleblowers.

So why did he leave them? He said, “it was in part because around that time they established a separation of Church and State Staff Position.” He informed me that, “This was funded by Norman Lear and several other Hollywood millionaires.” It seems even back then that Hollywood sided with the secular left. He went on to say that, “the very purpose of this staff position was to push “establishment clause” lawsuits against the government.”

At this point he got pretty fired up, and dominated the conversation for a while. I didn’t mind…what he had to say was passionate and cut right to the truth of things.

    “I think it is important that we shouldn’t forget that we had a civil rights movement that was needed in our history at the time. I was around to see segregated bathrooms. There were black and white water fountains. You could sit at a lunch counter next to someone like Charles Manson because he was white, but not someone like Martin Luther King Jr. because he was black. 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.”

I don’t think I could have come up with a better more colorful description myself. I think I will be sending him a Stop The ACLU T-Shirt. But wait…he was just getting warmed up! He went on to say….

    “I have done more cases for minorities and civil rights violations myself than the whole bunch of them put together. I was in the trenches of the Civil Rights movement. They can’t tell me anything about civil rights. We did that 40 years ago, and we accomplished that goal. There are now laws protecting people from those things we fought against. The Civil Rights movement has now taken some crazed “Jesse Jackson” turn to the point that often it is now the white people that are being discriminated against.”

I must say that in this world of political correctness this guy was bold, blunt, and to the point. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who fought the battle of Civil Rights, a soldier who fought for them, and an esteemed former Commander of an American Legions post in Banning, California. He continued…

    The ACLU is an elitist organization bent on the social engineering of our Country in defiance of both the legislative and executive branches. What they are involved in is secular cleansing of American History.”

He asked if I were familiar with how Stalin airbrushed people like Trotsky out of photos in order to rewrite history. He went on to compare that to how what the ACLU is trying to do with Christianity in American history. He pointed out many similarities.

Then he got to the good stuff! He repeated….

    “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.”

    “For example, the Ten Commandments in Court Houses. I don’t think this is an “endorsement” of religion. It is an acknowledgment of our history. I don’t care if it causes discomfort to Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist sympathizers, or Hindus and their holy cows.”

At this point I felt like saying, ….Bwhahahahah! However I restrained myself like the nice guy that I am. I’m glad I did, cause this is when he got the really good stuff.

    “This is a Christian Nation! And we ought to be proud it is! Because it is only in Christian Nations where you will find freedom of religion. We are a Christian Nation, and the U.S. Supreme Court said so. The Supreme Court in HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S. that this is a Christian Nation. That is our history. The history the ACLU wants to erase.”

    “Secular Humanism is a religion. Again, the Supreme Court ruled this in Torcaso vs. Watkins. If this is true, then it is being given precedence over other religions in our nation today.”

I finally asked the question that I primarily called for. Knowing that the American Legion is supporting The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 would it affect the ability of a poor person to defend their religious liberty by having to pay attorney fees out of pocket? To this question he answered….

    “Absolutely not! This legislation would only apply to “Establishment Clause” cases. This would help to keep organizations from being paid attorney’s fees in cases such as the ones where the ACLU is fighting to take down our Veterans’ Memorials. It would only affect these kinds of suits. The “Free Exercise” is not affected at all. So someone defending their right to express religion could still collect attorney’s fees.”

    “The ACLU crossed the line when they denied the Boyscouts charter on U.S. Military Bases. People need to stand up on this. The American Legion has a creed we say now…“For God and Country Forever! Surrender To The ACLU, Never!” We have 2.7 million members and we are stepping up. And when we step, we march, we don’t mince.”

What a great man, and a great organization! We all need to stand up, and demand of our representative to “represent” us! Mr. Lloyd is going to keep in touch with me, and I’m sure we will hear more from him in the future. I hope so.

____________________________

(edited for content)

Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 2679 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2679
To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 26, 2005
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SODREL, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. PITTS, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. OTTER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. POE, and Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.

(a) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights- Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a)' before the first sentence; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.'.

(b) Attorneys Fees- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.'

More about this located at the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.02679:

Here is one to file under ridiculous. Only an organization like the ACLU could sit down with officials and help them draft a law, and then sue them when they enforce it.

Kansas City Star

    David Quinly doesn’t like the war in Iraq.

    He also doesn’t like the $300 ticket that Prairie Village gave him for homemade yard signs that publicly express his displeasure.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri is helping Quinly appeal his citation to Johnson County District Court.

    “It’s clearly a First Amendment issue,” said Quinly’s attorney, John Simpson. “We think … that the Prairie Village sign ordinance is too restrictive.”

    Quinly enlisted the organization’s help in November, after he lost the appeal of his citation in municipal court. The ACLU asked the district to dismiss the case, and Quinly’s trial date is Jan. 3.

    Prairie Village prohibits temporary political signs larger than 5 square feet. The total area of temporary signs displayed on any one property may not exceed 10 square feet, according to city code.
    Signs can’t be up longer than 60 days.

    Quinly has been making signs since he first heard the United States might enter Iraq. His messages change with the news.

    He said he was ticketed Sept. 20, after being warned that two signs in his yard at the time exceeded the allowed size.

Though it wasn’t necessary, I think it was rather polite that the City gave the guy a few warnings. Of course, he didn’t listen to the warnings, and knowingly continued to violate the law.

    Quinly left his signs up despite warnings, figuring he could endure a $20 or $30 citation for his cause. He was shocked when the ticket was for $300.

    Quinly said he found the amount excessive, and unaffordable, so he asked the ACLU for help.

So, in come the ACLU to save the day. No doubt, if they win it will be at the taxpayer’s expense. The real irony is that the law the ACLU are sueing over, is a law they helped write.

    Charles Wetzler, Prairie Village city attorney, said issues surrounding temporary signs don’t usually apply to commercial signs.

    Sign placement and size must be restricted to prevent them from creating traffic hazards, according to the ordinance. The sign ordinance also seeks to prevent “visual clutter” in neighborhoods.

    Wetzler said Prairie Village has revisited its ordinance many times, and the current version was drafted with input from the ACLU.

    “The law changes all the time in this area,” Wetzler said. “There have been new cases that come out, and if we need to look at it, we will.”

    But for now, Wetzler said, Quinly owes the city $300.

Before being fined for knowingly ignoring two warnings, and defying the law, he had hoped to contribute to the community dialouge about the war with other wonderful messages such as one with “Merry Christmas” above a folded flag and the number of troops killed to date.

Ex-ACLU attorney: Group [ACLU] 'terrorizing' U.S.

Activist praises bill that would keep taxpayer funds from organization

Posted: December 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

An attorney who once worked for the American Civil Liberties Union has slammed the organization for "perverting" federal law by successfully threatening government officials into getting rid of public expressions of religion.

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.

In the podcast, Hostettler explains that the 1976 statute was meant to help "the little guy" who is going up against a governmental entity so he won't be impoverished when working to guarantee the liberty to express or practice his faith. But, says the lawmaker, the ACLU has used the law to enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers and as a means to silence public officials who don't want to be sued personally.

MORE......... (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48098)

Here is the Petition (http://www.cfra.info/33/petition.asp?PID=9854380&NID=1)

I've already signed it, brother and I am working on getting others to sign it also. Great post, thanks.

Judge: Ban on prayer stands
Indiana's House speaker sought clarification and vows appeal to 7th Circuit Court

By Richard D. Walton

A federal court judge on Wednesday denied a request to amend his ruling banning sectarian prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives, clearing the way for an appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
   
U.S. District Judge David Hamilton rejected arguments by House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, that Hamilton's ruling was too vague to enforce.
And Hamilton issued a warning:
"If the speaker or those offering prayers seek to evade the injunction through indirect but well understood expressions of specifically Christian beliefs, the audience, the public, and the court will be able to see what is happening. In that unlikely event, the court will be able to take appropriate measures to enforce" the injunction.
Hamilton earlier this month found that the House practice of offering a prayer at the start of each day's session breached the clause of the U.S. Constitution that bars the government establishment of religion. The House prayers, he ruled, were overwhelmingly Christian in content and amounted to the advancement of one religion over others. The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.
The judge ordered that anyone chosen to give the invocation must not advance any one faith. He forbade the person saying the prayer from "using Christ's name or title" or making any other denominational appeal.
Despite Hamilton's intent to also prevent the promotion of non-Christian religions, Bosma had asked for clarification on whether the prohibition "refers to Christendom as a whole, or is more limited and means only that there should be no appeals on behalf of Methodism, Presbyterianism, or Roman Catholicism, for example."
Responded Hamilton in Wednesday's ruling: "This later question seems to reflect almost a willful obtuseness. As is evident through the opinions of this court and other courts . . . official prayers that endorse Christianity in general violate the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is not limited to preferences for particular Christian denominations."
Bosma has said that, if necessary, he will take his fight against Hamilton's ban on sectarian prayer to the Supreme Court.

I signed the petition too.

Hello Pastor Roger,

AMEN! - The success of this petition is something that I am praying about and trying to get others to do the same. My wife have already signed it and several others that are related to it. It's far past time to send the ACLU and other groups like it packing.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 12:2-3 NASB  "Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For the LORD GOD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation." Therefore you will joyously draw water From the springs of salvation.

I totally agree with you Brother. Christians must make their voices heard. We have been given authority, and that by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

ACLU condemns
Justice leak probe
Asserts Bush should be investigated
for lying to Americans, breaking law
Posted: December 30, 2005
5:00 p.m. Eastern

Accusing President Bush of breaking the law and lying to the American people, the American Civil Liberties Union today condemned a Justice Department investigation into the leak of the National Security Agency's operation to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

The Justice Department announced the investigation today of disclosures to The New York Times about surveillance conducted without warrants on calls between U.S. citizens and terrorists in foreign countries since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Administration officials argue the president had the power to conduct the wiretaps under the Constitution's war powers provision and contend Congress also gave permission when it authorized the use of military force against terrorism in a resolution adopted days after 9-11.

The ACLU, however, called on the administration to drop the newly announced probe of the leakers and, instead, to order an investigation of Bush's program.

"President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

The ACLU wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and took out two full-page advertisements in the New York Times calling for appointment of a special counsel to determine whether Bush violated federal wiretapping laws.

Romero said that "rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss."

"Our nation is strengthened, not weakened, by those whistleblowers who are courageous enough to speak out on violations of the law," Romero said.

The controversy began two weeks ago with a Times story, one day after the Iraqi elections, revealing the existence of the program. The paper said it withheld the story for a year because it needed more time for reporting, but its publishing came on the eve of the release of a book by reporter James Risen on the same subject.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the Justice Department made the decision to investigate the leak on its own.

"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue," he said, according to the Associated Press. "The fact is that al-Qaida's playbook is not printed on Page One and when America's is, it has serious ramifications."

The administration made a legal interpretation of the president's powers that enabled it to avoid requirements under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a new survey found nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the NSA should monitor communications between terrorist suspects overseas and contacts inside the U.S.

___________________________

Yeah, right. Lets go for the man trying to keep us safe and leave those alone that illegally release classified information.
The ACLU does not have even a semblage of logic in fact if given a logic test I would surmise that it would register to the negative.

The ACLU Loses Commandments Cases

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The ACLU lost several cases at the end of the year that were not reported by the main stream media. The main stream media is for the ACLU and I guess they don't want to acknowledge any of these ACLU loses.

The plain and simple truth is the ACLU LOST several important cases which were not reported by the main stream media in late 2005.

One of the most important ACLU loses came on December 20, 2005 and involved a Ten Commandments display in Mercer County Kentucky. This case involved the same exact display from the McCreary County Kentucky case that was recently ruled against by the US Supreme Court.

However, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals handed the ACLU a significant defeat when they ruled that this same exact display is CONSTITUTIONAL. The difference between the two cases seems to be that Mercer County always included other historical documents in their display and therefore it was more easily determined to have a secular purpose.

The Court said, "Our concern is that of the reasonable person. And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is to ensure that…the government (is kept) out of the religion business, does not embody the reasonable person." The Courts opinion also rejected the ACLU's "repeated reference to the 'separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state," the Court said.

"This case represents a huge victory and may signal the beginning of the end of dangerous, ridiculous rulings in favor of the ACLU. Whether the ACLU likes it or not this nation was founded upon the principles of Christianity. We are better off because of the principles taught in the Ten Commandments," said Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America's Values, aka CRAVE. "The problem with the ACLU is that they do not offer anything concrete for us to pattern our lives after. The Ten Commandments are a pretty simple pattern for us to follow," Swarthout said.

Just as important was a case in the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled that the same exact display as the one in the Mercer County Case was CONSTITUTIONAL in Elkhart County, Indiana. After the loss the ACLU has indicated that they will not appeal this case.

On December 2, 2005 the ACLU also lost its case against New York City where they were trying to stop random searches of passenger's bags who were boarding the subway system.

The ACLU had sued the City of New York after they instituted random bag searches on July 22, 2005 following the bombing of London's transit system. The ACLU's contention was that random searches of passenger's bags were an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

The ACLU seems to favor protecting the rights of terrorists who want to kill law abiding citizens. "The truth is obvious. Terrorists and all others who do not respect the American way of life must be stopped in order to protect the life styles of law abiding American citizens," said Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America's Values.

"The ACLU wants to protect the rights of criminals and terrorists. Why doesn't the ACLU want to protect the rights of law abiding citizens," Swarthout asked?

"The main stream media never talks about these cases where the ACLU loses! They seem to be quick enough to tell us about the cases where they have won, but they will not even mention the many cases where the ACLU loses," Swarthout added.

"We represent a large number of average people from all across America and we are fed up with the unfair treatment we receive from the media and from the ACLU who is a real danger to our nation's well being. Therefore, we have now written to every US Senator asking for an investigation into the activities and agenda of the ACLU. The ACLU was investigated by Congress in 1931 and it is time for that to happen again," Swarthout stated.

Darwinism: An Endangered Way of Thinking?

by Barney Brenner
Posted Jan , 2006

Darwinists must be an endangered species. How else does one explain their eighty-year need for court protection to ensure their survival?

In 1925, an ACLU-driven defense team in the Scopes-Monkey Trial wanted a court to declare that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional. In recent weeks, in a courtroom in Dover Pennsylvania, the same organization applauded a judge’s ruling that the teaching of ideas contrary to evolution, in this case Intelligent Design, were unconstitutional.

The same ACLU that once advocated for free and open discussion in schools is working to see it stifled today.

Their website boasts, “Intelligent Design is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is inappropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education.”

Science involves observing nature and producing hypotheses which explain the data – and of discrediting theories which don’t fit new observations. Having judges decide what constitutes science is as nonsensical as scientists issuing judicial decisions.

And the irreligious left, perpetually misusing the First Amendment, can’t identify which religion is being established. Is it that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or of Catholicism? Perhaps Mormonism or Orthodox Judaism? Among many others, these disparate faiths all claim as canon the book of Genesis, where the religious version of creation is found.

But ironically, while no particular religion is being promoted by the teaching of Intelligent Design, there’s a belief system, which has established “churches” in several states, that is being favored by ACLU- and court-imposed censorship: atheism – a worldview that promotes moral relativism and secular humanism.

The left maintains that Intelligent Design is merely creationism – a literal reading of the Bible’s account of creation – camouflaged in scientific language.  But even a casual perusal of ID demonstrates there is no dependence on Genesis for any of its arguments, nor does it teach any biblical doctrine. It merely demands an examination of the evidence – or lack thereof – that uncountable species arose from primordial soup, or that they evolved over time from one to another.

To support Darwin’s theory, the earth should be teeming with myriad transitional specimens, but they are noteworthy, despite incessant extrapolation, only by their absence.

Other modern observations are daunting for Darwinists: digital information – universally a mark of design – in the genetic code and irreducibly complex structures such as miniature molecular machines within the cell that Darwin could hardly begin to imagine. Using the eye as an example, he coined the phrase, “organs of extreme perfection and complication” and recognized his theory’s inability to explain them. New discoveries only exacerbate these shortcomings.

And despite frequent references to “organic chemicals” present on the formative earth, neither Darwin nor modern scientists can demonstrate how to get from these compounds to just a single-cell living organism, or even a virus – let alone the complex life forms. The search for that initial “spark” of life, or an explanation of why it is no longer in evidence, has been forever elusive.

Ironically, the scientific community, which anxiously tries to find evidence of other intelligent life in the universe, blatantly turns its back on the one intelligence we have the most indication of: a creator; a master chemist for whom the DNA code – a puzzle which even our terrestrial species is just starting to grasp – is a simple blueprint.

Even though ID relies not at all on the Bible, it does leave open the conclusion that the designer is the biblical God and this implication of God is what Darwinists seem to fear.

Yet there may still be hope for these folks. The Psalmist says, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” Let’s hope they eventually wise up.

ACLU Formally Opposes Alito
January 10, 2006 05:35 PM EST


By Sher Zieve – For the first time since Supreme Court candidate Robert Bork, the ACLU has come out formally against the nomination of Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The left-leaning ACLU’s President Anthony D. Romero issued the statement: “Unfortunately, Judge Alito’s record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms.”

Some Democrat Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee have made statements, during the Alito confirmation process, that are similar to Romero’s charge. However, they have been proved false by other members of the committee. Romero also said: “A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.”

During his confirmation hearings, Judge Alito said that no one is above the law. The ABA (American Bar Association) has given Judge Alito its highest rating.


My Note:  All the more reason for me to support Alito.

ACLU: State inflating DUI statistics to push tougher laws
The Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has issued a report arguing that state officials have “inflated” drunk driving statistics in order to promote passage of legislation to crack down on suspected intoxicated drivers.

Both Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch and Gov. Donald L. Carcieri have cited reports saying Rhode Island has the highest percentage of alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the nation as evidence of the need for tougher laws.

But the ACLU report cites National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data showing that between 2000 and 2002, Rhode Island’s alcohol-related traffic fatality rate was actually lower than the nation’s – from 0.49 to 0.56 per 100,000 miles driven, compared with a range of 0.59 to 0.63 for the nation. Only in 2003 was the state’s rate above average, 0.71 versus 0.59.

The reason such a high percentage of Rhode Island traffic deaths are alcohol-related, the ACLU notes, is because the state’s overall fatality rate in those years was, on average, the sixth-lowest in the nation – second-lowest when measured by fatalities per 100,000 residents.

“In fact, for over twenty years, the state’s alcohol fatality rate has been routinely lower than the national average,” the report says. It also questions the efficacy of proposed anti-drunk driving measures and suggests a greater effort to enforce current laws would work best.

“Our goal in issuing this report is not to suggest that state officials should become complacent about the problem of drunk driving,” said Rhode Island ACLU executive director Steven Brown in a news release. “But our research does call into question many of the arguments being used to demand prompt and harsh legislative responses to the issue, as there are serious doubts about both their efficacy and need.”


My Note:  Tougher DUI laws are a problem? Where is the logic in this?

ACLU filing challenges Hamas-case evidence

By Michael Higgins
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 11, 2006

Two civil liberties groups filed legal briefs this week in support of a Virginia man accused of helping to fund Mideast terrorists, arguing that federal agents had no right to search his home without a warrant in 1993.

The prosecution of Abdelhaleem Ashqar in federal court in Chicago is the first case to test whether national security concerns can justify searching a person's home without a warrant, the two groups said.

"We've always been opposed to warrantless physical searches," said Harvey Grossman, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. "You physically break into the home when people aren't there. It's like burglary."

The Center for National Security Studies, based in Washington, D.C., joined with the ACLU in the friend-of-the-court brief, which supports Ashqar's attempt to prevent evidence from the search from being used against him.

Federal prosecutors allege that Ashqar and two other men, Muhammed Salah of Bridgeview and Mousa Abu Marzook, participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. Marzook is a fugitive believed to be living in Syria.

The ACLU files only two or three amicus briefs a year in the federal trial courts in Chicago and rarely gets involved in a motion to suppress evidence, Grossman said Tuesday. "But this is a very important case," he said. "There are no decisions in this area whatsoever."

A spokesman for U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald declined to comment Tuesday. But in a court filing in August, prosecutors argued that the search of Ashqar's home in Oxford, Miss., was unlike a normal search of a suspect's residence.

"The 4th Amendment does not require the government to obtain court approval for a foreign intelligence search of an agent of a foreign power," prosecutors wrote.

Ashqar was a graduate student at the University of Mississippi when federal agents conducted the search, photographing his papers and other personal property, Ashqar's attorney, Thomas A. Durkin, said in court filings.

The search was conducted under the administration of Bill Clinton and approved by his attorney general, Janet Reno, according to court records.

ACLU Questions Donation To Church Rebuild Effort

(CBS) CHICAGO The American Civil Liberties Union is now questioning the spending of a million dollars in state funds to help rebuild part of Pilgrim Baptist Church's campus.

WBBM Newsradio 780's Debra Dale reports that the ACLU has sent a letter to Governor Rod Blagojevich asking how he expects the money to be used and how the donation will stay within constititutional boundaries.

The letter says the state grant raises religious liberty issues. Blagojevich has said the money will only be used to rebuild school and administrative buildings, not the church itself.

ACLU Pushes for Access to Emergency Contraception
Matt Tettelbach
Action News 36
Jan 13, 07:27 AM EST
   

The American Civil Liberties Union and a group of Kentucky lawmakers are pushing for improved access to emergency contraception.

The ACLU says studies show nearly half of the state's pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception.

Now several lawmakers and doctors are joining the ACLU to back a bill requiring increased access to the pill.

"I hope lawmakers have enough ovaries to go out and pass this legislation," says Dr. Connie White, a Frankfort OB-GYN.

Those at yesterday’s rally claim the issue is about health care - not abortion.

ACLU Again Bans Jesus
January 12, 2006 09:17 AM EST


By Sher Zieve – In July 2004, the ACLU threatened to sue the City of Fredericksburg, VA if the city council did not drop the name of Jesus in all of its prayers. In another 2005 case the ACLU supported a Wiccan priestess. Fearing an ACLU lawsuit, in November the Fredericksburg city council voted 5-1 to drop any reference to Jesus.

Fredericksburg Mayor Tom Tomza said: “I did not want to unleash a 1,000-pound gorilla, the ACLU, on the City Council.” Tomza also added that he believes Turner’s rights are being violated.

Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner, Pastor of the Fredericksburg First Baptist church, has now decided to file suit against the other council members and fight the ACLU. Turner is being represented by the non-profit Rutherford Institute. President of Rutherford Institute John Whitehead said of the Turner suit: “All he wants is to say Jesus Christ at the end of the prayer. He’s not asking for any money. It’s a very simple suit.”

Utah ACLU wants ID law repealed
Driver licenses: Officials say a federal law aimed at decreasing fakes lays out unrealistic demands

 An anti-terrorism law creating a national standard for all driver licenses by 2008 isn't upsetting just civil libertarians and immigration rights activists.
   State motor vehicle officials nationwide who will have to carry out the Real ID Act say its authors grossly underestimated its logistical, technological and financial demands.
   In a comprehensive survey obtained by The Associated Press and in follow-up interviews, officials cast doubt on the states' ability to comply with the law on time and fretted that it will be a budget buster.
   ''It is just flat-out impossible and unrealistic to meet the prescriptive provisions of this law by 2008,'' said Betty Serian, a deputy secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
   Nebraska's motor vehicles director, responding to the survey by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, said that to comply with Real ID her state ''may have to consider extreme measures and possibly a complete reorganization.''
   And a new record-sharing provision of Real ID was described by an Illinois official as ''a nightmare for all states.''
   ''Can we go home now??'' the official wrote.
   States use a hodgepodge of systems and standards in granting driver licenses and identification cards. In some places, a high school yearbook may be enough to prove identity.
   A major goal of Real ID - which was motivated by the Sept. 11 attacks, whose perpetrators had legitimate driver licenses - is to unify the disparate licensing rules and make it harder to fraudulently obtain a card.
   The law also demands that states link their record-keeping systems to national databases so duplicate applications can be detected, illegal immigrants caught and driving histories shared.
   State licenses that fail to meet Real ID's standards will not be able to be used to board an airplane or enter a federal building.
   The law, which was attached to a funding measure for the Iraq war in May, has been criticized by civil libertarians who contend it will create a de facto national ID card and new centralized databases, inhibiting privacy.
   State organizations such as the National Governors Association have blasted the law as well. Many states will have to amend laws to comply.

 The AAMVA report detailed demands in Utah for new computer software and server space, for employees to meet the requirements of the Real ID Act and for additional security personnel for driver license facilities.
   The Utah Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union responded by sending letters to Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., and leaders of the Utah House and Senate, urging them to press for the repeal of the act due to the burden of implementing the legislation.
   Last month, the New York City Council passed a resolution urging the state to opt out of the Real ID Act mandates.
   “We ask that you take a similar step at the state level and encourage the Utah State Legislature to pass a resolution describing the problems with Real ID and asking Congress to amend the act,” wrote Dani Eyer, executive director of the Utah ACLU chapter in a letter to Huntsman and leaders of the Utah House and Senate.
   The AAMVA surveyed states on what would be required to comply with the Real ID Act.
   According to Utah's response to the survey, the state will have to:
   l overhaul its system so more letters can be entered into the driver license system. North Dakota said making the change in that state would cost $4 million;
   l develop a system to check the validity of birth certificates or other documents submitted for identification to obtain a license. The records have to be checked manually, requiring additional personnel;
   l equip each office with the ability to scan the source documents;
   l hire additional staff and to scan and retain copies of the source documents for a license application for 10 years.

ACLU Obtain Army Documents Revealing Terrorist Sympathy

    In one Army file, an investigator states that he is unable to continue an investigation into claims that a detainee captured by Task Force 6-26 in Tikrit, Iraq, was stripped, humiliated and physically abused until he passed out, because the unit accused of the abuse is part of the Special Access Program (SAP). A memorandum included in the report states that “fake names were used by the 6-26 members” and that the unit claimed to have a computer malfunction which resulted in the loss of 70 percent of their files. The memorandum concludes, “Hell, even if we reopened [the investigation] we wouldn’t get any more information than we already have.”

    Also included in the documents released today is a heavily redacted memo referring to a December 10, 2002 “SERE INTERROGATION SOP” (Standard Operating Procedure) for Guantánamo. SERE, which stands for “Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape,” is a secret military program under which detainees held in U.S. custody abroad are subjected to harsh interrogation techniques. According to the ACLU, this document shows that such techniques may have been formally authorized in a memo to military personnel at Guantánamo. The ACLU said it is unclear how this document relates to abusive interrogation techniques authorized for use in Guantánamo by Secretary Rumsfeld in a separate memo on December 2, 2002.

I don’t know where they got confused, but Anti Idiotarian Rottweiller calls them on it.

    Granted, we’ll be the first to admit that S.E.R.E. and similar programs with which we’re more intimately familiar aren’t exactly a lot of fun (unless you happen to be an instructor), but the facts remain that A) it’s hardly a “secret program” and B) the only ones being “subjected to harsh interrogation techniques” are the trainees, none of whom are enemy combatants. In fact, they tend to wear the same uniform as the instructors. Funny how education works, isn’t it?

Want to know what S.E.R.E really is? Start Here. Not very secret at all.

But lets go on with the ACLU’s discoveries.

    A February 16, 2004 memorandum recording an interview of an American interrogator stationed in “Orgun-E Military Intelligence Detention Facility” in Afghanistan reveals that its “Standard Operating Procedure” included keeping detainees awake, standing and blindfolded without food for the first 24 hours. The interrogator also refers to standard practices of “OGA” (a common military reference to the CIA) that include the use of drugs and prolonged sensory deprivation. A February 12, 2004 memorandum records the use of a “Fear Up approach” involving “disrespect for the Koran,” insulting the detainee, having a room upstairs with spotlights and turning the music on very loud.

Further reading reveals even more evil means of torture…such as cleaning out open wounds to prevent infection:

    The documents further reveal gruesome accounts of torture and abuse by U.S. military personnel in Iraq. In one 2004 document, a civil contractor recounts in a sworn statement that he witnessed Marines pouring peroxide and water over the open wounds of an Iraqi prisoner.

Holy Allah on a pogo stick! Peroxide and water on a wound! My mother put the same thing on my wounds growing up! Perhaps I can make a case for the ACLU?

    In another document, following the release of images of abuse at Abu Ghraib, one officer wrote on May 6, 2004, that abusive interrogation techniques, such as the application of cold or ice, loud music, sleep deprivation and confining detainees to a metal box, will “continue to cause us problems, as some interrogation techniques aren’t real defensible given the Abu Ghraib fallout.”

Heaven forbid! Loud music, and sleep deprivation??? We are savage brutes! Before you know it we may end up using excessive tickling, and making them take baths! There is a lot of other unsubstantiated things in their article, but its just that, unsubstantiated.

ACLU Helping Hamas

How is this not treason?

    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.”

Why would they do something like that? Well, so they can support individuals who engage in and promote terrorist activity!

    Two civil liberties groups filed legal briefs this week in support of a Virginia man accused of helping to fund Mideast terrorists, arguing that federal agents had no right to search his home without a warrant in 1993.

    The prosecution of Abdelhaleem Ashqar in federal court in Chicago is the first case to test whether national security concerns can justify searching a person’s home without a warrant, the two groups said.

    “We’ve always been opposed to warrantless physical searches,” said Harvey Grossman, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. “You physically break into the home when people aren’t there. It’s like burglary.”

    The Center for National Security Studies, based in Washington, D.C., joined with the ACLU in the friend-of-the-court brief, which supports Ashqar’s attempt to prevent evidence from the search from being used against him.

    Federal prosecutors allege that Ashqar and two other men, Muhammed Salah of Bridgeview and Mousa Abu Marzook, participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. Marzook is a fugitive believed to be living in Syria.

By the way, Ashqar is not a U.S. citizen. He is being represented by Stanley Cohen, a radical lawyer who is also the U.S. attorney for Hamas, and who has appeared on Fox Television from Gaza expressing his unabashed support for Hamas activities.

    A spokesman for U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald declined to comment Tuesday. But in a court filing in August, prosecutors argued that the search of Ashqar’s home in Oxford, Miss., was unlike a normal search of a suspect’s residence.

    “The 4th Amendment does not require the government to obtain court approval for a foreign intelligence search of an agent of a foreign power,” prosecutors wrote.

When it comes to protecting the rights of terrorist, and their supporters, you can always count on the ACLU.

Evolution can’t explain origin of ‘eternal rules of order and right’
Friday, January 13, 2006

The American Civil Liberties Union’s contemporary agenda to secularize America falters from its inception because it disregards what George Washington called “the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.”

These rules are not vague, and their influence ebbs and flows in every community, country and culture. These laws, embraced at high tide, result in freedom’s flooding the land.

These eternal rules, whether obeyed or not, reside in the core of every human being with few, if any, exceptions.

These standards of conduct can best be called the laws of nature; even the worst of men are mysteriously nudged by them.

These rules of right and wrong were written in stone, 10 in number.

The ACLU and its atheist allies shall fail because they refuse to recognize, as history’s parade of tyrants has done, that a creator has stamped something indelible in the soul of man that cannot be expunged and cannot be explained except by creative design.

So now, in the midst of a secular onslaught and the pseudoscience that postulates the Darwinian monkey man, some so-called scientists desperately cleave to something called a “life force,” and that, too, becomes untenable without an eternal mind.

Empirical evidence, reason, the absence of transitional fossil forms and sheer mathematical probability deny them a solid stage, yet the secularists continue a relentless assault against our tradition, the laws of nature and the one who gave life breath and a mysterious sense of conscience.

If the ACLU and the secularists succeed, forget your inalienable rights. They would decide when and whether you live or die, but in their insanity, the same monster they would magnify will one day turn on them.

This would be the best news.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/aclu1.jpg)

You got my vote on that PR. Hey can I vote more than once?

In this case your vote counts multiple times.

ACLU fights Commandments again
But legal defender sees 'tide turning' in battle over issue
Posted: January 14, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


In the wake of major decisions on public display of the Ten Commandments, the American Civil Liberties Union is asking a federal court to order removal of a Tennessee courthouse exhibit.

"The posting of the Ten Commandments sends the message that only certain believers can receive justice at the courthouse," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of ACLU of Tennessee.

The ACLU filed the motion yesterday in U.S. District Court.

Weinberg said "residents should not be made to feel like second class citizens because they do not hold the prevailing religious beliefs promoted by the county government."

The display in Rutherford County was approved by a 16-5 vote of the county commission in April 2002, but two months later, federal court Judge Robert Echols issued a preliminary injunction removing it.

The decision was stayed, however, pending a decision on similar cases in two Kentucky counties, McCreary and Mercer.

In each of the counties, the Ten Commandments is displayed among historical documents. The Rutherford County display includes copies of the preamble to the Tennessee Constitution, the National Motto, the National Anthem, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the United States Constitution and the Mayflower Compact.

Last June, the Supreme Court in a split 5-4 decision upheld a preliminary injunction against McCreary County because the court said the prior history of the county's evolving display suggested a religious purpose. However, the court permitted the case to return to the trial court for a final ruling.

In the meantime, Dec. 20, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court to which the Rutherford County case will be appealed, upheld Mercer County's identical display.

That court scolded the ACLU, rejecting its "repeated reference to 'the separation of church and state.'"

"This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome," the court said. "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which represents all three counties, notes it also defeated the ACLU in defense of a similar display in Elkhart County, Indiana, before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel believes the "tide is turning against the ACLU's war on the Ten Commandments."

"Every federal court of appeals that has ruled on the Ten Commandments since the Supreme Court's ruling has upheld such displays," he said. "The courts, and history, are working against the ACLU."

Staver believes that with Judge Samuel Alito's expected confirmation to the Supreme Court, "the ACLU can no longer count on the High Court to further their agenda."

It appears that the courts no longer are just handing out decisions based on what the ACLU wants. The ACLU's wins are on a downhill slide. There are many ACLU losses being reported in recent months. I say,  "IT'S ABOUT TIME!"




Appeals court rejects ACLU of Michigan's lawsuit against judge
1/13/2006, 2:26 p.m. ET
The Associated Press       

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Court of Appeals has tossed out a lawsuit that accused a judge of defying a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the appointment of attorneys for poor defendants who want to appeal their guilty pleas.

The suit was dismissed Thursday, one day after the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed it with the court.

"The appeals court didn't find the grand defiance that the ACLU did," Kent County Circuit Judge Dennis C. Kolenda told The Grand Rapids Press.

On June 23, the federal Supreme Court struck down a Michigan law that prohibited judges from appointing appellate attorneys for defendants who enter guilty or no-contest pleas in their cases.

The state's constitution was amended in 1994 to say a defendant who pleads guilty or no contest no longer has an automatic right to appeal, except under narrow circumstances.

The ACLU of Michigan said the Supreme Court ruling requires judges to appoint appellate counsel for indigent defendants, but Kolenda said they could waive that right in their plea deals. Regardless, the cases of the four poor defendants named in the class-action suit filed against him were decided before the Supreme Court's decision, he said.

In a Sept. 27 ruling, Kolenda refused to grant appellate attorneys to those four defendants as well as several others.

In dismissing the ACLU of Michigan's suit — a document called a complaint for superintending control — the appeals court said the four defendants could individually appeal the Sept. 27 ruling. One already has such an appeal pending.

The Detroit-based group said defendants lose rights under Kolenda's reasoning and have little chance of successful appeals on their own. It also said the Supreme Court rejected the argument that destitute defendants could waive their right to appointed appellate counsel.

"This is not over because this is a very serious issue," said Wendy Wagenheim, a spokeswoman for the ACLU of Michigan. "The Supreme Court ruled that poor people deserve legal counsel because there is no way they can navigate the complex judicial system on their own."

ACLU seeks permanent stop to biblical display
By BYRON HENSLEY
hensley@dnj.com

Murfreesboro residents D.A. Willoughby and Jim Veale illustrate the rift over the vote in April 2002 to post the Ten Commandments in the Rutherford County Courthouse.

Willoughby supports the decision; Veale does not.

"When most of us people who are over 60 were growing up, we had prayer and Bible reading in public schools," Willoughby said. "What part of the Constitution has changed since then?"

(Smart Judge in my book.)

Veale, though, said the County Commission should occupy itself with other matters.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee sides with Veale, and asked a federal court Friday to grant a permanent injunction against the display.

ACLU officials cited last year's court decision striking down a similar posting in McCreary County, Ky.

"The posting of the Ten Commandments sends the message that only certain believers can receive justice at the courthouse," said Hedy Weinberg, ACLU-TN's executive director. "Rutherford County residents should not be made to feel like second-class citizens because they do not hold the prevailing religious beliefs promoted by the county government,"

Matthew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, the legal firm defending Rutherford County's posting, counters that the Kentucky case won't end the fight to keep the display.

"The tide is turning against the ACLU's war on the Ten Commandments," Staver said Friday. "Within the past few months we defeated them when two separate federal Courts of Appeal upheld displays of the Ten Commandments identical to that displayed in Rutherford County, Tennessee.

"Every federal Court of Appeals that has ruled on the Ten Commandments since the Supreme Court's ruling has upheld such displays. The courts, and history, are working against the ACLU. With Judge Samuel Alito's impending confirmation to the Supreme Court, the ACLU can no longer count on the High Court to further their agenda."

(Way past time for this to happen.)

The brouhaha arose when in April 2002 when the Rutherford County Commission voted to display the Ten Commandments as part of a "Foundations of American Law" exhibit, which included such documents as the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution.

In June of that year, U.S. District Judge Robert Echols issued a preliminary injunction to remove the Ten Commandments from the exhibit, but staying the case pending the Supreme Court's decision in similar cases from McCreary and Mercer counties in Kentucky.

In December, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Mercer County's display, which is identical to Rutherford's, Staver said.

"The McCreary County case started off with a single display of the Ten Commandments, and the ACLU sued," he said. "The county modified the display so a second display included other documents that were excerpted, so only the religious portion was posted. That was ruled against and the county then changed to the current display.

"Based on the long history in that case, the court determined the display had a religious motivation," he said. "Rutherford County's display doesn't have the same long history that McCreary County had."

Weinberg said the ACLU is not conducting a war against the Ten Commandments.

"ACLU-TN brought the lawsuit to ensure that individuals have the right to decide for themselves whether to practice a particular religious faith or to post the Ten Commandments in their homes, businesses or places of worship," Weinberg said.

"Were government to prohibit these postings, ACLU-TN would fight to protect citizens' right to promote their religious beliefs and practice their religious faiths. That is what we are here for," she said.

Veale indicated religion may not have anything to do with it.

"When politicians get onto something like that, it's because they have other issues they don't want to talk about," he said. "They do it because it's popular and easy, rather than solving any real problems."

ACLU Sues White House For Spying on Terrorists
Written by Jeremy Robb
Monday, December 19, 2005

WASHINGTON, DC --- The ACLU announced today that they are representing more than 200 Al Qaeda members in the United States in a lawsuit against the White House after it was discovered that they were being monitored without a warrant.

"We're outraged!" said ACLU representative, Commie Greenstien.  "I can't believe the nerve of these people spying on terror.. um, immigrants without getting a warrant.  They'll pay for it.  Trust me.  Some day these people will get the respect they deserve from our government.  Maybe once this lawsuit is filed we'll step in the right direction."

The ACLU was unable to disclose the names of any terrorists they represent for fear of having their heads cut off.  The New York Times offered to assist in any way possible with the case.

My note; Who are they kidding, they want a sociailist system. That way they can rule, the way they want.

DW, please tell me this isn't for real.
I can't believe this !!!!

Yes it's real. Also it was just on TV, that the ACLU is Sueing the White House For Spying on Americans.

I say they need to be shot out of the space shuttle, on a one way trip to the moon. For they are a menace, to all Americans.

They are a rabid rat. (http://bestsmileys.com/animals/9.gif) or a snake in the grass. (http://bestsmileys.com/animals/10.gif)

Yes, it is true Sister. The ACLU considers terrorists that are in our country as "citizens", then of course they consider all illegal aliens as citizens also. They want all of them to have the same rights as all legal citizens do so they are suing the governemnt over "spying" on these criminals.

ACLU fights Commandments again
But legal defender sees 'tide turning' in battle over issue
Posted: January 14, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

In the wake of major decisions on public display of the Ten Commandments, the American Civil Liberties Union is asking a federal court to order removal of a Tennessee courthouse exhibit.

"The posting of the Ten Commandments sends the message that only certain believers can receive justice at the courthouse," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of ACLU of Tennessee.

The ACLU filed the motion yesterday in U.S. District Court.

Weinberg said "residents should not be made to feel like second class citizens because they do not hold the prevailing religious beliefs promoted by the county government."

The display in Rutherford County was approved by a 16-5 vote of the county commission in April 2002, but two months later, federal court Judge Robert Echols issued a preliminary injunction removing it.

The decision was stayed, however, pending a decision on similar cases in two Kentucky counties, McCreary and Mercer.

In each of the counties, the Ten Commandments is displayed among historical documents. The Rutherford County display includes copies of the preamble to the Tennessee Constitution, the National Motto, the National Anthem, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the United States Constitution and the Mayflower Compact.

Last June, the Supreme Court in a split 5-4 decision upheld a preliminary injunction against McCreary County because the court said the prior history of the county's evolving display suggested a religious purpose. However, the court permitted the case to return to the trial court for a final ruling.

In the meantime, Dec. 20, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court to which the Rutherford County case will be appealed, upheld Mercer County's identical display.

That court scolded the ACLU, rejecting its "repeated reference to 'the separation of church and state.'" *SNICKER*

"This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome," the court said. "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which represents all three counties, notes it also defeated the ACLU in defense of a similar display in Elkhart County, Indiana, before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel believes the "tide is turning against the ACLU's war on the Ten Commandments."  :D

"Every federal court of appeals that has ruled on the Ten Commandments since the Supreme Court's ruling has upheld such displays," he said. "The courts, and history, are working against the ACLU."

Staver believes that with Judge Samuel Alito's expected confirmation to the Supreme Court, "the ACLU can no longer count on the High Court to further their agenda."

Post #105 in this thread, brother.

 ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D

(http://www.techhelpers.net/e4u/comp/comp11.gif)

(http://bestsmileys.com/fainting/1.gif)

It happens to the best of us.  ;) ;)

I know, you have done it to me. (http://bestsmileys.com/mouthzippedshut/1.gif)

Pro-Family Attorney Sees Tide Turning Against ACLU's Anti-Religion Efforts

By Allie Martin
January 25, 2006

(AgapePress) - A Tennessee County is fighting to keep its Ten Commandments display in public. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit requesting a permanent injunction against a display of the biblical laws at the Rutherford County Courthouse in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Four years ago, Rutherford County commissioners voted to display historical documents relating to the founding of the United States, including the Ten Commandments. The other documents in the "Foundations of American Law and Government" tableau include copies of the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the Tennessee Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, lyrics to The Star-Spangled Banner, and a drawing of "Lady Justice."

Despite the County's use of the Ten Commandments in a historical context, a lawsuit was filed claiming the display violated the United States Constitution. Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, is defending the display in the legal proceedings.

On the plus side for his clients, Staver contends, is a recent federal appeals court ruling that upheld an identical display in Kentucky. "This case in Rutherford County, Tennessee, will now move forward," he explains. "But to the chagrin of the ACLU, which has now filed its motion to permanently prohibit the Ten Commandments, the case law is no longer in their favor."

The attorney contends that the courts and history both are working against the civil liberties group. "I think in fact what has happened," he says, "is the landscape and the court rulings have changed over the last six months." Notably, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.

But despite the changing legal climate, Staver says ACLU litigators simply "can't restrain themselves" and will keep pressing to remove representations of religious faith from the public square, "even though they see the handwriting on the wall."

The Liberty Counsel spokesman says the civil liberties group's attorneys "still have an anti-religious agenda," although he believes they will probably be more careful in selecting their future cases. "They clearly realize that the landscape has changed," he says. "They no longer can count on the U.S. Supreme Court to be their friend in their anti-God campaign."

"The tide is turning against the ACLU's war on the Ten Commandments," Staver observes. "Within the past few months we defeated them when two separate federal courts of appeal upheld displays of the Ten Commandments identical to that displayed in Rutherford County, Tennessee."

In fact, Staver adds, "Every federal court of appeals that has ruled on the Ten Commandments since the Supreme Court's ruling has upheld such displays." He believes it is clear, particularly with the impending confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, that the ACLU can no longer count on the high court's help in the liberal group's efforts to get rid of public representations of God's laws.

ACLU: Don't Bar Terrorist Sympathizers

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down a provision of the Patriot Act that prevents foreigners who endorse terrorism from entering the U.S.

The suit was filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan on behalf of a prominent Muslim scholar, Tariq Ramadan, and three national organizations of academics or writers who have invited him to speak to their members.

Ramadan, a Swiss citizen, has been denied a United States visa since July 2004, when he was about to move with his family to Indiana to take up a tenured professor's position at the University of Notre Dame, the New York Times reports.

At the time, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, Russ Knocke, cited the Patriot Act clause as the reason Ramadan's visa was canceled.

 The provision bans foreigners who "endorse or espouse terrorist activity or persuade others" to support terrorism.

The ACLU suit seeks a declaration that the Patriot Act provision at issue is unconstitutional. It also seeks a court order preventing the government from relying on the provision to exclude Ramadan or any other foreign national.

Ramadan, the author of some 20 books on Islamic theology, filed a new visa application on September 16 after receiving invitations for speaking engagements in the U.S. When interviewed in December in Switzerland by agents of the Homeland Security and State Departments, Ramadan said, he was questioned about his views of the war in Iraq.

"I told them what I have said many times publicly, that I think the war was a mistake and illegal," he told the Times. "I think the resistance is legitimate but the means they are using are not."

Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan al-Banna, a founder in 1928 of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian group that has carried out violent attacks in recent decades.

He claims "there is nothing in my record supporting terrorism.”

But some critics say he espouses moderate views in Europe while embracing more militant views when addressing Muslims in the Arab world, according to the Times.

Homeland Security’s Knocke declined to comment on the lawsuit, but noted that the criteria for revoking visas included "public safety and national security risks.”

ACLU watching Utah origins bill

January 25, 2006

On Monday (January 23), the Senate in the state of Utah (USA) voted to give its approval to an amended version of a bill that dictates what state science teachers can discuss about the origins of human life. The bill now goes to the State House of Representatives for its vote.

The Senate initially approved the bill sponsored by State Senator Chris Buttars, but concern over a possible lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) caused Buttars to amend the bill.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune (January 21), Buttars amended his bill on the Senate floor to explicitly say students should “consider opposing scientific viewpoints” and teachers should “stress that not all scientists agree on which scientific theory is correct.”

Buttars said in Utah’s Deseret Morning News (January 21) that the changes should satisfy the state chapter of the ACLU and other opponents that his motives are not primarily religious in nature.

Buttars said that he decided to sponsor the bill after parents called him to complain about teachers who were telling their children that they evolved from “some lower species.”

The amendment, however, didn’t satisfy the ACLU, reported the Salt Lake Tribune. The paper said that two ACLU attorneys who attended last Friday’s debate said the bill is “obviously fueled by a religious, not scientific, revulsion to Charles Darwin’s theory.” They contend that courts look not only at the letter of the law but the intent of lawmakers when determining if legislation is constitutional.

According to the Deseret Morning News, the ACLU compared the language used in this bill to the disclaimer stickers about evolution used in Cobb County, Georgia, textbooks which were found to contain an implicit religious message.

If the bill receives the approval of the House of Representatives, it then needs the signature of Gov. John Huntsman, Jr. However, some news reports have indicated that recent comments made on the Senate floor that commended God’s creation of man and condemned atheists for pushing their “religion” could potentially end up as evidence in court should the bill become law and be contested by the ACLU and others.

Don't take this wrong but, I hope the ACLU regrets this lawsuit.


Least then, we won't have to send them to Iran. ;D

US Detains Iraqi Women for ‘Leveraging’
Barbara Ferguson, Arab News
 

WASHINGTON, 30 January 2006 — Since the war in Iraq began, there have been questions about US troops’ sensitivities to Islamic culture, especially when dealing with women.

The US detention of female prisoners is a sensitive issue for Iraqis, who consider the mistreatment of a woman a dishonor to her family. Iraqis find it particularly offensive that foreign male officers are holding female prisoners, as many Iraqis fear that US soldiers will treat them disrespectfully.

Now specific questions are emerging over a tactic the military calls “leveraging,” after news that the US Army detained Iraqi women to help track down husbands or fathers who are suspected insurgents.

Hundred of documents were obtained in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday from the government under court order through the Freedom of Information Act, including a series of e-mails written by US soldiers and an internal army memo.

“If they’re being taken solely for the purpose of drawing their men out of hiding, it can even appear to look like hostage-taking,” Jumana Musa of Amnesty International told reporters.

“This is not an acceptable tactic,” ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said Friday, referring to seizing a wife to try to catch a husband, “nor are any of the other abusive techniques acceptable. We know that abusive techniques were employed in a systemic manner across Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.”

In response, Paul Boyce, an army spokesman at the Pentagon, told reporters: “It’s very hard, obviously, from some of these documents to determine what, if anything, actually happened… When you see an individual e-mail note, it’s often very confusing to figure out how that particular case fits into an overall, larger puzzle.”

Boyce also said the military has thoroughly looked at “any allegation against soldiers of misconduct or abuse of detainees.”

The ACLU has made public a June 10, 2004 memo written by a Defense Intelligence Agency employee, labeled as “secret,” that referred to “violations of the Geneva Convention” relating to detainee abuse and illegal detention of noncombatants.

The memo describes the actions of Task Force 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets, and stated that on May 9, 2004, a Task Force personnel detained the wife of “a suspected terrorist” in Tarmiya, Iraq.

“During the pre-operational brief, it was recommended by TF (task force) personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target’s surrender,” the memo said.

“I determined that the wife could provide no actionable intelligence leading to the arrest of her husband. I objected to the detainment of the young mother to the raid team leader” and “believed it was a dead issue,” wrote the 14-year veteran DIA officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

“The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing,” the intelligence officer wrote. “Her husband was the primary target of the raid, with other suspect personnel subject to detainment as well.”

Like most names in the released documents, the officer’s signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint.

The memo said the wife was released two days later to the custody of a tribal sheikh.

In the other case, a US lieutenant colonel e-mailed, “What are you guys doing to try to get the husband — have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?”

Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, an army spokesman in Baghdad, told reporters Friday that the US military held only people who were considered threats. “We recognize insurgents don’t work alone. They work in groups. Questioning certainly focuses on who they are associated with,” Johnson said.


My Note: Take note of the ACLU lawyers name in bold above. A terrorists supporter. The ACLU has blown this way out of proportion. These women were detained as material witnesses and possible co-conspirators. Of course the Muslim ACLU lawyer wouldn't consider that acceptable either. After all they want all terrorists to have complete freedom to do as they want and for the U.S. to leave them completely alone.

 

 Judge rejects lawsuit by ACLU on behalf of punished student
Thursday, February 2, 2006

The judge isn't convinced that the boy is being irreparably harmed by the punishment.

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A school district doesn't have to immediately take back a Hermitage high school senior who was transferred to an alternative school for parodying his principal on the Internet, a judge ruled Tuesday.

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order that would allow Justin Layshock, 17, back into Hickory High School. Layshock had used his grandmother's computer and the Web site MySpace.com to create a phony profile under the principal's name and photo.

The ACLU, which has sued the district on Layshock's behalf, had asked a judge Friday to issue an order that would prevent the Mercer County school district from doling out its punishment.

But U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry said he wasn't convinced that Layshock was being irreparably harmed by the school's punishment. The district suspended Justin for 10 days and transferred him to an alternative program typically reserved for students with behavior or attendance problems.

Parents' reaction

Justin's parents said they think the punishment is too harsh, especially because the parents said they already disciplined their son for his posting on the site.

"It seems to us that the school district is trying to crucify our son just to set an example. We regret that they have chosen this path," Justin's parents said in a statement.

Witold Walczak, Pennsylvania Legal Director of the ACLU, said he was disappointed with the decision. He said the ACLU was considering further legal action.

John R. Gotaskie Jr., an attorney with Fox Rothschild who represented the Hermitage School District, said the district was pleased Judge McVerry saw a connection between Layshock's conduct in and out of school.

Justin admitted setting up the site, in which he posted questions and answers purportedly from his principal that were peppered with vulgarities, fat jokes and, to the question "what did you do on your last birthday?" the response: "too drunk to remember."

School officials questioned the teenager about the site Dec. 21, and he apologized to the principal, the ACLU said. Justin was suspended Jan. 6.

ACLU of Indiana Urges Rejection of Anti-Immigrant Bill (1/27/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
 
INDIANAPOLIS - The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana today urged state legislators and Governor Mitch Daniels to reject House Bill 1383, which would cut off many immigrants from public services, including health care, and would require law enforcement agencies to verify the status of suspected "illegal" aliens.
 
The bill passed the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee by a 7-3 vote on January 24. The ACLU of Indiana has joined a coalition of immigrant rights and health care advocates who oppose the bill.
 
"If House Bill 1383 were to become law, it would create an atmosphere of exclusion and hate for immigrant communities who contribute to the enrichment of our culture and lives, and are essential workers in an economy that demands their labor," said Fran Quigley, Executive Director of the ACLU of Indiana. "Hoosier lawmakers, from legislators to Governor Daniels, need to make it clear that this ill-informed and mean-spirited proposal has no place in Indiana law."
 
The ACLU outlined five reasons why the bill should be rejected:
 
First, contrary to assumptions, undocumented immigrants are already excluded from all but a few government programs that related to public health and safety.
 
HB 1383 is responding to a public perception -- that undocumented immigrants drain government budgets by reaping public benefits -- which is simply not accurate.
 
The few public benefits that undocumented immigrants may receive include emergency Medicaid, nutritional assistance to women, infants and children under the WIC program and school lunches and breakfasts.  Undocumented children are entitled to attend public schools under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision.  Eligibility for these few programs and services is designed to provide emergency medical care, to reduce the risk that innocent children will be punished or hurt as a result of their parents' immigration status, and to serve the fiscal and long-term interests of all Americans.
 
Even legal permanent resident immigrants are functionally ineligible for most government programs.  They are prohibited from receiving most cash assistance during their first three years in the country and are subject to deportation if they become a public charge within five years of entry.
 
Second, HB 1383 will undermine public health in Indiana.
 
Under this bill, immigrants would be denied essential preventive services, like vaccinations, that are designed to keep us ALL safe.  During potentially dangerous outbreaks, it is in the interest of the general public to make sure that prevention and treatment are available to everyone.  By excluding undocumented immigrants from this type of care, HB 1383 seriously endangers the public health.
 
Third, HB 1383 will undermine public safety in Indiana.
 
This bill would require already overburdened law enforcement personnel to check the immigration documents of people they come in contact with.  Many local police departments and police chiefs object to these kinds of policies because they discourage immigrant communities from having contact with police, fire departments, and other civic authorities.  When immigrants fear reporting crimes, acting as witnesses, or reporting domestic violence, the safety of the larger community is jeopardized.
 
Fourth, asking public agencies and law enforcement to detect and report the immigration status of individuals is not workable, is an inefficient use of resources, and not in the public interest.
 
This bill would force public health employees, like doctors, nurses, and emergency personnel, and law enforcement personnel to become immigration enforcers, requiring them to spend valuable time and resources checking documents rather than providing services.  Most Americans don't carry documents showing that they belong to their own country, and are likely to face delays when seeking medical care.  Similarly, legal immigrants have a variety of statuses under dozens of different visa categories.  Also, for example, some immigrants enter the country unlawfully and apply for refugee status; they receive temporary status from USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) while their status is being reviewed. It is unwise and unfair to expect essential medical and law enforcement personnel to implement this complex area of law.
 
Fifth, HB 1383 will result in increased discrimination and litigation.
 
It is inevitable that HB 1383 will encourage law enforcement to treat persons who "look" Hispanic or otherwise "immigrant" differently from others. Undoubtedly, mistakes will be made and the end result would be a perpetuation of the problem of racial profiling, and an increased amount of costly litigation filed against government officials on behalf of the victims.

The ACLU is now claiming to be security experts.

Tougher Security Equals Long Lines At Pro Bowl


HONOLULU -- There were longer lines and wait periods to get into the Pro Bowl at Aloha Stadium on Sunday because of a new policy put into effect this year by the NFL.

The football league now requires a pat-down of all adults before they're allowed in the gate.

Male security guards patted men down, while female security agents were on hand to pat down the women.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the security policy is unnecessary and intrusive. It is currently reviewing the policy.

The only thing the ACLU is an expert on is creating upheavals, for citizens of the United States.

Amen Brother.

"How To Destroy A Country" by the ACLU.

ACLU wants TPS to bar creationism, intelligent design

By JENNI LAIDMAN
BLADE SCIENCE WRITER

The Ohio ACLU yesterday demanded that Toledo Public Schools cease any instruction of intelligent design or creationism.

The request came in response to an article in The Blade Monday in which some public school teachers acknowledged they included creationism or intelligent design when discussing evolution in the classroom.

The letter from Jeffrey Gamso, the legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, states that the teaching of creationism "is unconstitutional, as it violates the First Amendment principle of separation of church and state. We urge you to instruct the teachers of the Toledo Public Schools at once to cease teaching what is nothing but a veiled attempt to introduce religion into the classroom, under the guise of 'scientific theory.'●"

It appears the ACLU will get no fight from the school district.

"We intend to inform our teachers that they need to stick with the state standards," said John Foley, the district's chief of staff.

"We have sanctioned the state standards, which includes evolution as the scientifically proven theory" of how life developed, Mr. Foley said.

Superintendent Eugene Sanders was out of town yesterday and could not be reached for comment.

Darlene Fisher, president of the Toledo Board of Education, said the district will send a reminder to those in charge of curriculum that all must adhere to the state standards.

"We've always followed state guidelines," Ms. Fisher said. Teachers who took up creationism arguments in the classroom were acting without school sanction.

But she said that a second notice probably will be circulated to cover the state Board of Education's decision yesterday to drop all mention of alternative theories to evolution from state science standards.

"Once we get the ruling of the new state change, we will send another letter to our teachers and curriculum chairs,'' she said.

Although the ACLU's Mr. Gamso declined to say what the organization would do if the teachers continued to include creationism in their science instruction, his letter to the schools suggested a lawsuit wouldn't be out of the question.

"The ACLU has successfully litigated a number of cases involving violations of the First Amendment by public school administrators, including the Dover School Board case," the letter stated.

The ACLU successfully challenged the Dover, Pa., school board's decision to make intelligent design part of the science curriculum.

My 2 cents:  The ACLU is the American Chuck the Law Union.

Yes, they have many names and none of them are what they portend them to be.

CALLING FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE ACLU

    WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 –/MNA PRESS/ — Today CRAVE announced it is calling for immediate Congressional hearings to expose the anti—religious agenda of the ACLU. The ACLU was last investigated by a Special Committee of Congress in 1931.

    Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, once said, “The courts are the vehicles we use to assert our interpretation of the Constitution.” Going to court has been the ACLU’s method of operation for several years. In fact, the ACLU has been involved in far more Supreme Court cases than any other law firm in America.

    Many people know the ACLU as the group which attacked the public displays of the Ten Commandments all over America. While the ACLU describes itself as a defender of “freedom” its actions indicate they want to stamp out freedom and our religious liberty all over America.

    “These hearings are important to restore our American history and protect the traditional values of America,” said Don Swarthout, President, Christians Reviving America’s Values, AKA CRAVE. “We wish these Congressional Hearings were not necessary, but average people are unaware of the ACLU’s efforts to change our American principles. Our intent is to expose the ACLU and the very real threat they pose to our true freedom.”

    According to news accounts, the ACLU supports giving 12 year old girls sexual consent rights, legalized prostitution, polygamy, child pornography, same sex marriage and abortion. Meanwhile, the ACLU defends NAMBLA. The North American Man Boy Love Association is an organization which advocates the seduction of young boys by grown men. The ACLU has defended them in court.

    “The ACLU defends some extremely radical positions which are against the principles of most Americans. This investigation is all about exposing the ACLU and making their real agenda known to the American public,” said Swarthout.

    “CRAVE has written to every Senator in America. It is time to find out where they stand and what action they will actually take,” said Don Swarthout.
    Bill O’Reilly of Fox News has said numerous times, “The ACLU is the most dangerous group in America.” Swarthout added, “I agree with Bill O’Reilly and believe it is time to expose the ACLU’s true agenda. We represent hundreds of thousands of people and they are very tired of the way these things are going.”

While CRAVE is concerned over the ACLU’s hostility towards religious liberty, which is most definitely a major concern to many Americans, there are plenty of other reasons that an investigation into the ACLU should be done. My pet peeve is their attacks on National Security.

There are many things that would be wise to investigate about the ACLU. Does there money go to any terrorist organizations directly or indirectly?

    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.”

They fought this provision tooth and nail until they got the rule scrapped. They are now defending an individual that participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. They are also defending an admitted agent of Al Qaeda that has confessed to attending jihad camps in Afghanistan, and is being charged with lying to the FBI about his terror ties and activities.

They fighting every government effort at National Defense such as the NSA Surveillance program, TSA Security measures, Subway searches, and the Patriot Act.

There is division within the ACLU over dissent concerns. There have been heated boardroom exchanges and an unusual number of resignations from the board. Dissidents say Mr. Romero is ignoring the A.C.L.U.’s traditions, of encouraging dissent; threatening its core principles, like free speech, and too often acting without the full knowledge and support of the board, which is supposed to guide him.

The hypocrisy of the ACLU over privacy issues is amazing. They are fighting the NSA efforts to wiretap conversations with suspected terrorists in international phone calls, all the while they are spying on their own members. So who is really spying on innocent Americans.

    The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders’ commitment to privacy rights.

    Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization’s frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Indeed, quite unethical and very hypocritical for such an esteemed organization. The FBI have their concerns over the ACLU. Between the shady business of their funding issues, helping America’s enemies, spying on their own members, and FBI concerns; there is no wonder why had their document shredding going on.

    The American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding some documents over the repeated objections of its records manager and in conflict with its longstanding policies on the preservation and disposal of records.

    The matter has fueled a dispute at the organization over internal operations, one of several such debates over the last couple of years, and has reignited questions over whether the A.C.L.U.’s own practices are consistent with its public positions.

    The organization has generally advocated for strong policies on record retention and benefited from them, most recently obtaining and publicizing documents from the government about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    The debate over the use of shredders is reminiscent of one late last year over the organization’s efforts to collect a wide variety of data on its donors, even as it criticizes corporations and government agencies for accumulating personal data as a violation of privacy rights.

There is more than enough shady business going on with at the ACLU to call for an investigation.

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.

Brother, I posted that some where else. ;D   But I have forgotten where, I posted it.... ??? :'(

As I said  before, it's about time!

High school bible classes attract ACLU attention

By SAM SCOTT

WILMINGTON, N.C. - Gary Harris isn't seeking converts.

Still, the Bible is his business as he spends his days leading classes on its history at Laney and Hoggard high schools. The more students learn, the more complete an experience the Bible becomes, Harris said.

He's teaching, not preaching, however. The classes are academic courses open to the students who choose them, he said. His 8:30 a.m. New Testament class at Laney has barely an empty seat.

But recent inquiries from the American Civil Liberties Union have raised questions about whether the classes and others like it at Ashley and New Hanover high schools violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

Is a class as secular as courts require if it says, for example, that the Bible's fulfilled prophecies give testimony to the fact of God's existence? What if local churches pay the teachers' salaries? And what if only believers teach?

The civil rights group says only that it is gathering information. But its interest alone may bring significant changes as educators examine what the classes teach and, perhaps more importantly, who teaches them.

The classes will continue this semester, but beyond that will be a school board decision, said Rick Holliday, the district's executive director of instructional services.

Losing the classes would be worse than canceling calculus, said Don Vigus, the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Bible, the church-supported group that hires and pays the teachers.

The book is at the roots of this country, inspiring people from the creation of the Bill of Rights to the unfolding of the civil rights movement, he said. For most kids who don't go to church, the classes are their one chance to learn the Bible, he said.

The Executive Committee has been paying for classes in New Hanover County for more than 50 years. And left to a vote, it might easily do so for 50 more. Just a whiff of the ACLU's involvement brought out a long line of speakers to last month's school board meeting, all opposed to removing lessons about the "anvil on which our Constitution was formed."

Superintendent John Morris said he couldn't recall any complaints about the classes in his years atop the school system.

"You get to know the history of the Bible and the background of where it came from," said Ashley Hebert, a junior in one of Harris' classes. "He's not trying to cram Christianity down your throat or any religion."

The school board supports the classes as well. Even the area's senior rabbi finds them inoffensive.

"The students are learning the Bible and reading it a little closer and understanding it better, which is good," said Rabbi Robert Waxman of B'Nai Israel Synagogue, who observed one of the classes two decades ago.

But the Supreme Court has repeatedly put aside community opinion and ruled that religious study is appropriate in public schools only as part of a secular, objective program that seeks to neither advance nor inhibit religion. And in that regard, New Hanover's Bible classes may be suspect.

At Harris's class last week there was nothing close to preaching. He asked students questions about aspects of the Bible, like which events in world history explained why the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. At another, he talked about the tensions leading to the Protestant Reformation.

But other moments arguably reinforced a traditional brand of Christian thinking. Harris referred to creation and made statements such as the Bible is one book, which has 66 smaller books, 40 authors and one central theme: "The redemption of man through Jesus Christ."

Those simple claims might be plain as day for some Christians. But they're not true if you're a scholar who may see many hands behind books such as Psalms, or if you're Jewish and unlikely to find Christian redemption in the Old Testament.

"In my view, teaching the Bible as one book with the unifying theme of 'the redemption of man through Jesus Christ' crosses the line from an academic study to a specifically Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible," said Thomas Schmid, chairman of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington's religion and philosophy department.

Holliday, the school district's instructional services executive director, said the classes did a good job of being academic, but he said some aspects, such as declaring one theme to the Bible, are problematic. He, committee members and the Bible teachers met recently to change the curriculum.

Over the years, the classes have taken a traditional view of the Bible as a historical account of God working through his people, said Vigus, a youth minister at First Baptist Church in Wilmington.

The teaching of the Old Testament story of Jonah, for example, was told as if the prophet was indeed swallowed by a great fish, spending three days in its belly before the animal vomited him onto dry land after he prayed to God, he said. Some groups see the story as myth or metaphor, others as just a story.

"We don't add something to the Bible, and we don't take something away," said Vigus, who said the classes tried to give an accurate teaching of the Bible. He considers the book to have no mistakes.

But the Bible is an account of faith experiences, not a history book, said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, a nonprofit based in Tennessee and Virginia. To portray accounts that are built on faith as historic occurrences is unconstitutional, he said.

"The school is on very thin ice in allowing this to happen," he said.

Holliday said the classes have been renamed to reflect a more historical bent, recasting "In the Beginning" as "Old Testament I" and "The Life of Christ" as "New Testament I."

They also are ensuring faith events like miracles are not treated as history, making clear that the "Bible says" something, not that it was. The goal is to give the community what it wants and to follow the constitution, Holliday said.

"That's a tough balancing act," he said.

If those issues can be worked out, constitutionality may be less of a problem for supporters of the Bible classes than a change in who may teach them.

The Bible committee hires and pays its own teachers, the only outside group that does so in the schools. A similar arrangement exists in Pender County Schools, costing the school districts nothing. But Morris intends to use county teachers next fall. The ACLU's inquiries have caused the school system to look at a practice that had become second nature over the years.

"We cannot have somebody else hiring teachers for us," Morris said.

Such a move is recommended by some pro-Bible groups such as the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a North Carolina group that supplies Bible curriculum to hundreds of school districts nationwide.

Using outside teachers is a flag to certain courts, said Steve Crampton, who serves on the National Council's board and who is a lawyer for the American Family Association.

A 1996 decision by a federal court in Mississippi found that contracting out a Bible class indicated an attempt to avoid constitutional issues that wouldn't have been necessary if the class were truly secular.

The district "cannot accomplish through others what it is forbidden to establish itself," the court ruled.

The problem for backers of the Bible classes is that none of the current Bible teachers are certified teachers, or in the process of being certified, a requirement for hire by the state.

The schools may find a way to hire some of them, but unlike the committee, the schools won't be able to make faith part of getting the job, Morris said.

For proponents of the status quo, the danger of that would be someone teaching the book as fiction, said Vigus, who said the Executive Committee would not hire an atheist to teach the classes.

"They might teach the Bible as Adam and Eve didn't really happen, Noah didn't really happen, Jesus was just a man who people made stories up about to make him seem important," he said.

Jeannette Nichols, the vice chairwoman of the school board, said educators were looking for a way to temporarily license the teachers or take another route.

"We just have to figure out a way that teachers are certified and the classes are taught in a nonreligious format," said board member Ed Higgins.

But that might still mean a big change. After meeting with school district officials, Vigus said there was a real chance the committee and its teachers could dissolve if the board doesn't find a way to certify the teachers.

"We just have to see what happens, but I'm not very optimistic right now," he said.

Like usual the ACLU is doing just what they claim they are against. They have alsways claimed for equality now they want to set up voting districts based on peoples race.


ACLU Says African-Americans Can't Get Elected In Somerset County

African-Americans can't become elected officials in Somerset County. That's what the American Civil Liberties Union believes and now they're trying to figure out why.

The ACLU is investigating if the voting districting in Somerset County discriminates against African-American voters. The county is 43 percent African-American, but has zero African-American county officials.

Voting officials redrew district lines 20 years ago to make the vote more reflective of the population.

Meredith Curtis with the ACLU says her organization doesn't think it's working.

State Library cancels ACLU film amid criticism


HELENA The Montana State Library has canceled a showing of a movie critical of the U-S Patriot Act, after people complained about the American Civil Liberties Union being involved.
The State Library says it originally thought the film, "The A-C-L-U Freedom Files," would be a good pick for its monthly seminar series.

But the library decided today that the presentation might be too one-sided, and canceled a viewing scheduled for Friday.

State Library spokeswoman Sara J. Groves says complaints came from people who didn't like the idea of the A-C-L-U getting a forum at a state agency.

Scott Crichton is executive director of the A-C-L-U Montana. He says his organization is disappointed in the decision.

Crichton says the government has a bully pulpit when it comes to privacy intrusions, and the video simply counters some of the government's assertions.

ACLU Panel Urges Impeachment Over NSA Spying
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer


(CNSNews.com) -- While White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asserting Monday that the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program was a vital tool in the war against terrorism, a panel assembled by the American Civil Liberties Union was arguing that President Bush should be impeached over the spying program.

"If the political alignment in the country were otherwise, impeachment would be a no-brainer," said Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard University.

In December, the New York Times disclosed that President Bush had authorized the NSA to tap international telephone calls that included one party suspected of terrorist activity.

Since that time the program's legality has been debated, especially over whether the president violated the law when he authorized the interception of electronic communications without first obtaining permission from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

Tribe added that wiretapping is not an inherent power of the presidency. "That free flowing inherent power is the very thing we fought a revolution against."

"It violates the basic rules of the road of how you operate," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "No judge, at any level has signed a warrant for this."

John Dean, a former White House counsel during the Nixon administration, compared the Bush administration's wiretapping to the Watergate scandal. "[Bush] has made such a radical reading of his powers, not unlike Nixon. And those who have operated under his behalf have pursued that policy, so it could well end up where we were at the Nixon White House.

"There is no question in my mind that this president has already committed one or more impeachable offenses. This is pretty serious stuff. It's worse than Watergate."

But the Bush administration has aggressively defended the surveillance program.

"The terrorist surveillance program helps us to connect the dots and save lives and prevent attacks," said McClellan.

"I think most leaders understand that this is not only a necessary tool, but a vital tool in our efforts to disrupt plots and prevent attacks here at home. We will continue to listen to ideas from members of Congress and we will continue to work with them on legislation that would protect this vital program and address some of the issues that have been raised."

ACLU dismisses Sodrel prayer legislation as political ploy


INDIANAPOLIS - A proposal that would bar federal judges from ruling on the content of prayer in state legislatures is a political ploy and an attempt to end-run the Constitution, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana said Tuesday.

U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel, a Republican, has introduced legislation he said would prevent federal courts from ruling on the content of speech in legislatures.

The proposal is a response to a November ruling by U.S. District Judge David Hamilton, who said the official Indiana House proceedings could not begin with prayers that mention Jesus Christ or endorse any particular religion.

Sodrel, joined at a Statehouse news conference Tuesday by U.S. Rep. Dan Burton, called Hamilton's ruling "a clear example of judicial activism."

"It threatens to spread across the nation," Sodrel said.

Sodrel said his bill would provide immunity for content of speech for lawmakers or their guests during a legislative session, excluding witnesses and excluding speech that constitutes treason, an admission of a crime or a breach of the peace. The bill would also prohibit the use of federal funds to enforce a decision like Hamilton's.

Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, said many court decisions have been unpopular at the time they are issued, including the Brown v. Board of Education 1954 court decision that banned "separate but equal" schools.

He said Congress should not restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts just because some people disagree with Hamilton's ruling.

"If you disagree with a court decision, you appeal the case," Falk said. "I've lost lots of cases, but I've never yet questioned the validity of the American system of justice."

House Speaker Brian Bosma has already begun to fight Hamilton's ruling. He has filed a request for a stay with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said he will be filing a full appeals brief before the April 10 deadline.

Sodrel said he didn't want to wait to file his bill until the appeals court makes a decision on the matter.

"We can spend a lot of time waiting, and that's, in my mind, wasting time," he said.

But Falk said Sodrel's proposal was a political ploy. Sodrel and Burton are both up for re-election this year.

"It's a transparent political move," Falk said. "I have nothing against a transparent political move. What bothers me, as someone who has spent my lifetime being a lawyer, is the immense disrespect that is shown to the judicial branch."

While Bosma awaits an appeals court decision on a possible stay, House members have been complying with Hamilton's order by meeting for informal prayers in the back of their chambers before official business begins.

"It's just unseemly," Burton said of the practice. "It looks like we're putting the things that gave us our moral foundation in this country on the back of the bus."

State library cancels ACLU film amid criticism
By MATT GOURAS - Associated Press Writer - 02/22/06

HELENA — The Montana State Library has canceled a showing of a movie critical of the U.S. Patriot Act after people complained about the American Civil Liberties Union being involved.

The State Library said it originally thought the film, ‘‘The ACLU Freedom Files,’’ would be a good pick for its monthly seminar series because parts of the Patriot Act affects libraries.

But the library decided Tuesday the presentation might be one-sided in its criticism of the Patriot Act and canceled a viewing scheduled for Friday.

A State Library spokeswoman said complaints came from residents and state employees who didn’t like the idea of the ACLU getting a forum.

‘‘They weren’t really protesting the video; they were protesting the ACLU being at a state agency,’’ said Sara J. Groves. ‘‘That was the majority of the complaints.’’

The library considered finding someone to counter the ACLU’s position on the Patriot Act but couldn’t on short notice. They might try such an event at a later date, Groves said.

‘‘It’s very possible we will do something that will present all sides of this issue,’’ she said.

The ACLU of Montana, which was scheduled to moderate Friday’s forum, said it was disappointed in the State Library’s decision.

The ACLU has been a staunch critic of the Patriot Act.

‘‘I think the government has a bully pulpit day in and day out about why intrusions into our privacy are warranted,’’ said Scott Crichton, executive director of the ACLU Montana. ‘‘All the video does is counter some of the assertions the government continues to make, and helps people to understand why the Patriot Act is a threat to people’s privacy.’’

Crichton said it is hard to find someone in Montana who supports the Patriot Act and doesn’t work for the federal government.

‘‘As we have made clear, since its passage, any time, any place the government wants to make their case, we are happy to engage in principled debate with them,’’ Crichton said.

Crichton said the film on the Patriot Act is one segment in a series produced by the ACLU on people whose civil liberties have been threatened. The Patriot Act piece was mailed to about 150 Montana libraries.

Part of the film centers on an Arab American ACLU client who Crichton says was illegally pulled off a train while passing through Montana.

The State Library said it usually has a small crowd at its monthly seminars and was hoping the ACLU film would draw a bigger audience. The agency didn’t anticipate the level of criticism against the ACLU, though.

‘‘It was something that really got people’s attention,’’ said Groves. ‘‘I just think it’s been an interesting experience. We just thought we were going to host an interesting event that would generate a lot of discussion.’’

ACLU, People for the American Way Join Forces to Oppose Rutherford Institute Lawsuit Over City Council Member’s Right to Pray ‘in Jesus’ Name’

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. — The Fredericksburg (VA) City Council has announced its decision to accept an offer from the Richmond-based law firm Hunton & Williams and the People for the American Way Foundation to defend the city against a Rutherford Institute lawsuit that challenges the city council’s ban on sectarian prayer at meetings. The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has also announced its intention to weigh in on the matter with a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the ban on sectarian prayers. The announcements came in response to a lawsuit filed in January 2006 by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute against the City Council of Fredericksburg, Va., for adopting a prayer policy that discriminates against city council member Hashmel Turner because of his Christian beliefs and prevents him from praying at council meetings according to his conscience and religious beliefs. The Fredericksburg City Council’s policy prohibiting sectarian prayers was adopted after the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia threatened them with a lawsuit if they did not take steps to pressure or force Turner to stop praying in Jesus Christ’s name. In their complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Institute attorneys charge that the Fredericksburg City Council’s policy regarding prayers at the start of council meetings violates Turner’s constitutional rights to free speech, to freely exercise his religious beliefs and to equal protection of the law.

There has been increasing confusion over the issue of prayer and/or invocations at City Council meetings since the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2004 decision in Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, South Carolina, in which the court held that City Council members in Great Falls violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by engaging in prayers that contained explicit references to a deity of one specific faith. A subsequent ruling in Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors added to the confusion when the court rejected a challenge to a county board’s practice of opening board public meetings with a prayer. For years, the Fredericksburg City Council has allowed its council members on a rotating basis to open meetings with a prayer without placing any restrictions on the nature of that prayer. On those occasions when it has been his turn to offer a prayer, city councilman Hashmel Turner, in keeping with his Christian beliefs, has ended his prayers by briefly invoking the name of Jesus Christ. However, on two separate occasions over the past several years, the Virginia ACLU has raised objections to Turner’s prayers and has threatened to sue the City for allowing the sectarian prayers. In its most recent letter, the ACLU demanded that the Fredericksburg City Council take official action to prevent Turner from offering a prayer according to his religious beliefs and conscience. Turner, who also serves as acting pastor for First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, has refused to compromise his religious beliefs by allowing others to dictate how he prays. On November 8, 2005, the Fredericksburg City Council acceded to the ACLU’s demands and adopted a prayer policy that could make Turner’s sectarian prayers “disorderly conduct,” subjecting him to punishment and fines. In filing suit against the City of Fredericksburg’s City Council for its discriminatory policy, Institute attorneys are asking the court to declare that the Council’s prayer policy is an unconstitutional violation of Turner’s free speech rights and allow Turner to pray in accordance with his conscience and his religious beliefs.

KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Commandments marker may return
Panel approves bill putting monument on Capitol grounds

By Peter Smith
psmith@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal

A Ten Commandments monument would return to the Capitol grounds in Frankfort under a bill passed by a Senate committee yesterday -- six years after a federal judge barred a previous display.

The measure was approved unanimously as part of the latest expansion of a bill that passed the Kentucky House of Representatives 91-3 earlier this month.

The bill now heads for a full Senate vote with the endorsement of Senate Republican leaders and of its Democratic sponsor in the House, where the revised bill would also need to be approved.

Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher supports the bill, including the marker provision, and "would sign it if the bill came to his desk," spokesman Brett Hall said.

The original House bill allowed for religious documents to be posted as part of historical displays on public property -- it didn't mention any text by name, but supporters said it could include the Ten Commandments.

The House then amended the bill to add a requirement that the national motto, "In God We Trust," be displayed above the speaker's dais in the House.

Yesterday, the Senate Committee on State and Local Government added language stating that a Ten Commandments monument would be restored to the Capitol -- accompanied by a marker "detailing aspects of the legislative and judicial history" of the monument.

Senate President David Williams believes that would meet the latest U.S. Supreme Court criteria on such displays, and he doesn't fear a court challenge.

"I can't think of anything else I'd rather be sued about than having the Ten Commandments on the Capitol grounds," Williams said. He added that he is among those who believe "it's important to note in a historical context the importance of the Ten Commandments and other Judeo-Christian documents in the formation of this country."

But Beth Wilson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which successfully sued to prevent the monument's installation in 2000, said that if the bill passes, the group would be watching how a new display is handled.

"The Supreme Court has been very clear that governments cannot promote religion," she said. "What's going to matter in this case is purpose and context."

Hall said Fletcher wasn't worried about an ACLU lawsuit. "There'll be court challenges if you do the right thing," he said. "Let 'em come on."

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that commandments displays in two Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they had a clear religious purpose, as evidenced by county officials' statements and actions.

But in the same ruling, the court allowed a commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol, where it sits among historical markers.

Kentucky Rep. Rick Nelson, D-Middlesboro, who sponsored the original bill, said he believes the revised bill is constitutional. "I don't see that it will be any problem," he said.

At issue is a 6-foot-2-inch granite monument of the commandments that had been donated to the state by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971 and displayed on the Capitol grounds. It was put in storage during a construction project, but in 2000, the General Assembly passed a resolution calling for its return to the Capitol grounds.

A federal judge later barred the display, and the commonwealth had to pay $121,524 to the ACLU for its legal expenses in challenging it.

"It's frustrating that legislators are spending their time on this sort of stuff when there are so many important issues that need to be dealt with," Wilson said.

 Bush to Rebuild Mosque in Iraq. Where Is the ACLU?


When President Bush announced that U.S. funds would be used to help rebuild a mosque damaged in Iraq this week, one would have expected an immediate firestorm of outrage from the ACLU and other liberal extremists.
 
A "Violation of separation of church and state!" they would have been expected to argue in typical knee-jerk reaction.  But, oddly enough, not a peep out of the ACLU, or the other usual suspects on the loony left.
 
How to explain this indifference?  After all, Bush's proposal involves an assault on the constitutionally-required separation of church and state, which, although it does not actually exist, is nevertheless revered as holy by liberals.
 
Then I remembered.  Liberals pursue church-state arguments only when it concerns Christian symbols and values.  And they do so to advance their "Tear America Down" agenda.
 
In other words, its perfectly fine to spend scores of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to rebuild a Mosque in Iraq, but not OK to display a cross or nativity scene in a public park at Christmas, or to delineate the Ten Commandments in a court house or other government building in America.
 
Once again, liberal hypocrisy proves very vexing.  One is at a loss to explain how such misguided and harmful thinking is able to survive in a sophisticated, modern society like America.
 

ACLU Settles Abstinence Education Suit


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has reached a settlement with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding the abstinence education program known as the Silver Ring Thing, which was receiving government funding despite the religious content of its materials. As part of the settlement, HHS will not fund the current version of the Silver Ring Thing, all possible future grants will require the program become fully compliant with federal law prohibiting the use of federal funds for religious activities, and HHS will closely monitor any future grants to the Silver Ring Thing.

Last August, as a result of the ACLU lawsuit, HHS withheld a $75,000 grant to the program because it “includes both secular and religious components that are not adequately safeguarded,” and the group was told submit a “corrective action plan” before receiving funds. The ACLU considers these actions and the recent settlement to be positive steps toward reevaluating government support of abstinence-only education programs. Daniel Mach, attorney with the ACLU on this case, said, “Today’s settlement should serve as a wake-up call for HHS to better monitor the abstinence-only-until-marriage organizations they fund… We will continue to fight any violations we may find.”

ACLU seeks end to Bible distribution in school
JIM SALTER


ST. LOUIS - A southeast Missouri school district should be barred from allowing a Bible giveaway program to fifth-graders, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in St. Louis seeks an injunction prohibiting South Iron Elementary School in Annapolis, Mo., from allowing Gideons International into the classroom to distribute the Bibles. ACLU of Eastern Missouri Legal Director Tony Rothert said the suit was filed on behalf of two sets of parents from the district.

"The primary objection here is the Bibles are presented during class time in a public school," Rothert said. "It was presented as part of class, which makes it appear the school is endorsing it."

School board president Jim Scaggs said he was unaware of the lawsuit and declined comment. Superintendent Homer Lewis did not return phone calls. A spokesman for Gideons International declined comment.

For years, the school in the town of 300 residents quietly allowed the Gideons to hand out Bibles to children in the fifth grade. A year ago, concerns were raised about the practice, leading to months of discussion among school board members.

Last fall, the school board voted 4-3 to allow the Bible distribution practice to continue. Minutes from the board meeting indicated Lewis and an attorney for the district had urged the board to discontinue the practice, Rothert said.

"Unfortunately, by one vote, the board has decided to thumb its nose at the Bill of Rights," Rothert said.

The small district in Iron County, about 120 miles southwest of St. Louis, has fewer than 500 students and just two schools - the grade school and South Iron High School, which includes grades seven through 12. The rural county sits in the heart of the nation's so-called Bible Belt and includes dozens of churches.

Gideons International, based in Nashville, Tenn., distributes more than 63 million Bibles worldwide each year, according to the organization's Web site.

ACLU sues Indiana scholarship program
State group says rules exclude students because of their parents

The ACLU of Indiana filed a lawsuit Thursday against a popular Indiana scholarship program, claiming it rejects children whose parents are not U.S. citizens or legal residents.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana contends the 21st Century Scholars program is unconstitutional because its eligibility requirements exclude American-born students based on the status of their parents.
The eligibility requirements violate federal immigration law and the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause, turning the students into "second-class citizens," said Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director.
"People are being discriminated against who are U.S. citizens," he said Thursday night.
Dennis Obergfell, acting executive director of the State Student Assistance Commission of Indiana, which administers the program, declined to comment Thursday.
The suit brings rare criticism to a program that has helped 25,000 students attend college since it was proposed by then-Gov. Evan Bayh in 1990. He has been touting the program's success as he considers running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
Megan Keck, a spokeswoman for Bayh, said Thursday night she could not comment on the lawsuit because she had not seen it. She said Bayh was not available for comment.
The ACLU filed the case in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis on behalf of a girl identified as "E.C.," a senior at a high school in Northern Indiana's Elkhart County, Falk said. He said the girl is a U.S. citizen, but her parents are not legal residents. She is in the process of graduating and being accepted to colleges but will be denied the scholarship because of her parents' status, he said.
The girl applied for the program as a seventh-grader and was not asked about her parents' legal status at the time, Falk said. He said she was able to prove her parents' low-income eligibility because they have federal tax identification numbers.
The girl and her family have declined to be identified or talk with the media, Falk said. He declined to say who contacted the ACLU about the girl's case.
Falk is requesting class-action status for the suit because he said he has estimated that 10,000 American-born, lower-income students in Indiana have parents who are not citizens or legal residents, keeping them from being eligible for the scholarship funds. He said he had heard of students who could not attend college because of the restrictions.
The 21st Century Scholars program is open to seventh- and eighth-graders who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches and pledge to stay drug-free and maintain a high school grade-point average of at least 2.0. In exchange, the students will receive four years of tuition at a participating Indiana public college or university. Students also can attend private school and receive a scholarship equal to tuition at a public school.
Indiana spends about $19 million a year on the program.
Josh Bernstein, director of federal policy for the National Immigration Law Center in Washington, said he was not familiar with any other state whose low-income scholarship programs included restrictions based on parents' legal status.
"Under our Constitution, we treat all citizens the same -- we don't look at ancestry," he said. "This policy doesn't do that."
Falk said he does not know when the case will be heard in court, but he said the ACLU of Indiana is prepared to file an injunction to get the case heard in time for the girl to go to college in the fall.
The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to allow American-born students who did not apply for scholarships or were denied to have a chance to reapply.

School district blames ACLU for student's defamation claim

© 2006 Student Press Law Center

March 3, 2006

PENNSYLVANIA — In a move that legal experts say “turns libel law on its head,” a school district has sought permission to sue the attorneys representing a high school student who sued the district after he was disciplined for posting an online parody profile of his principal on MySpace.com.

Attorneys for the Hermitage School District in Hermitage, Pa., filed a motion last week to lodge a third party complaint against the American Civil Liberties Union attorneys who are representing 18-year-old Justin Layshock in his lawsuit against the school district.

Layshock was disciplined in December by administrators at Hickory High School for creating a MySpace profile of principal Eric Trosch on his grandmother’s computer. Among other comments, under “birthday” the profile said, “too drunk to remember.” In response to the question, “in the past month have you smoked?” the profile said, “big blunt.”

MySpace.com is a social networking site that allows people to post personal profiles, share music and videos and maintain online journals.

When administrators discovered the online profile, they suspended Layshock for 10 days, placed him in an alternative learning program at school, barred him from participating in school events or activities and said he could not attend his graduation.

Layshock has since been allowed to return to his regular classes and can attend his June graduation, according to Donald Layshock, his father.

Karen Ionta, superintendent for the Heritage School District, declined to comment.

The motion filed by the school district Feb. 23 against Layshock’s attorneys said the ACLU contributed to Layshock’s damaged reputation because of the publicity the lawsuit elicited.

A draft of the complaint asks that if the school district loses the case, attorneys for the school district have the opportunity to sue the ACLU and order the organization to pay a percentage of the monetary damages awarded to the defendant.

In other words, if Layshock wins his case, his own attorneys may have to pay a portion of his damages, said Adam Goldstein, a legal fellow at the Student Press Law Center.

“In theory, the third party complaint creates financial pressure for the ACLU attorneys to lose the case,” he said.

Goldstein said the filing of the third party complaint “turns libel law on its head” by holding Layshock and his attorneys responsible for the publicity that followed their filing of the lawsuit against the school district.

“It’s like the school is saying, ‘Why should we pay for the damages — you’re the one who made it a news item,’” Goldstein said.

If the motion is granted, it “creates a conflict between the Layshocks and their attorneys,” said Vic Walczak, one of the ACLU attorneys representing the family.

At the end of January, a district court judge denied Layshock’s request for a temporary restraining order against the school district. The decision was preliminary, according to Walczak, and the trial is moving forward in the discovery process.

The lawsuit was originally filed against the school district because Layshock’s free speech rights were violated, Walczak said.

Layshock did not use school computers to post the content, and created the profile during non-school hours, he said.

The Jan. 31 decision that denied the restraining order said that after the MySpace profile was posted, the student body at Hickory High School was “abuzz about the profiles, who created them and how they could be accessed,” and that Layshock’s actions apparently “substantially disrupted school operations.”

But Walczak said the school district “greatly exaggerated” its claims of disruption.

“School officials need to understand there are limits on their authority,” Walczak said. “They may not like something students say on their home computers and post on the Internet, but it’s for the parents to decide what, if any, discipline is appropriate.”

Goldstein said a decision on the school district’s motion to file a third party complaint may not be decided for another month.

Legion campaign backs anti-ACLU bill
Opposes lawyers taking taxpayer funds in church-state cases


The American Legion, with 2.7-million members the largest veterans organization in the world, has launched a nationwide grass-roots campaign to support a bill in Congress that would stop the ACLU from receiving taxpayer-paid attorney fees in the many religious-establishment cases against the Boy Scouts, the public display of the Ten Commandments and other symbols of America's religious history and heritage.

The Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA, would amend the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Act to withdraw the authority of courts to award attorney fees, or damages, to the American Civil Liberties Union, or anyone else, in lawsuits brought under the Establishment of Religion clause in the First Amendment.

Generally unknown to the public, the ACLU has received enormous attorney fee awards from judges in Establishment Clause cases.

The American Legion argues that not a single judge, as far as is known, has exercised the court's discretion to deny the ACLU's motions for attorney fees – usually at $350 an hour – to be paid by taxpayers.

This has been done in spite of the fact that the ACLU has incurred no actual attorney expenses, because its lawsuits are handled by staff or volunteer lawyers.

The Legion says the ACLU has used the threat of attorney fees to intimidate cities, counties, school boards and other locally elected bodies into surrendering to its demands to remove religion from the public square.

The ACLU recently has engaged in many lawsuits against the Boy Scouts' usage of public property, arguing the organization is religious because its Scout Oath includes a pledge of duty to God.

The American Legion, whose creed has been "For God And Country" since its founding by GIs during World War I, stepped up its campaign of support for the congressional bill with the release of "In The Footsteps Of The Founders – A Guide To Defending American Values " at its conference last week in the nation's capitol.

Legionnaires distributed copies of the guide, available by request at this e-mail address to every member of the House and Senate during the conference. Members reported that many legislators expressed surprise at the size of attorney fees sought and gained by the ACLU and indicated support for the bill.

"There simply is no reasonable basis to support the profiteering in attorney fee awards ordered by judges in these cases," the Legion's grassroots guide states. "The very threat of such fees has made elected bodies, large and small, surrender to the ACLU's demands to secularly cleanse the public square."

American Legion National Commander Thomas Bock vowed the Legion "will stand with the Boy Scouts all the way to the Supreme Court, as long as it takes, and whatever it takes."

The bill's sponsor, Rep, John Hostettler, R-Ind., said PERA is "gaining recognition as an important piece of legislation both among members of Congress and constituents."

"It is encouraging that the American Legion has voiced strong support for this legislation and it is critical that we pass PERA in the 109th Congress so that freedom of religious expression under the First Amendment can be restored and protected," he said.

________________________________

My membership dues pays off again. 

Company-paid chaplains face challenge in some state legislatures

By Stephen Singer, AP Business Writer  |  March 5, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. --For more than two years, company-paid chaplains have comforted a grieving Kris Woltz during their visits to the western New York lumber company where she works.

Woltz's husband, Michael, died in 2003 after being diagnosed with a brain tumor, leaving her to raise their two young children.

"It was a hard time going through everything and wondering what the outcome would be," said Woltz, of Angola, N.Y. "The chaplains were wonderful. They just went out of their way."

Baillie Lumber Co. of Hamburg, N.Y., is one of hundreds of U.S. companies that pay chaplains to work with their employees. But lawmakers in several states, concerned that chaplains will evangelize on the factory floor or open the door to political and anti-union campaigns, are considering legislation banning the practice.

Connecticut is the first battleground between labor unions who support the proposals, and business and industry groups that are lining up in opposition. Legislation in Hawaii has been deferred in a legislative committee and a bill in Colorado has yet to find a Senate sponsor.

Naomi Walker, director of state legislative programs at the AFL-CIO in Washington D.C., said the national labor federation has drafted a model bill based on Connecticut's legislation.

Backers of so-called "captive audience" laws are seeking states where there's a good chance legislation will be enacted, said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J..

The law is needed to rein in employers that impose their religious beliefs at the workplace, including the use of corporate chaplains, he said. "Their job is to convert the unconverted," Maltby said.

Gil Stricklin, founder and president of Marketplace Ministries Inc. in Dallas, said his company does not evangelize. Marketplace Ministries has been hired by 300 companies in 38 states, but by none in Connecticut.

"We're not there to proselytize," he said. "I don't take my faith to harass you or hurt you or make you feel inferior."

Connecticut lawmakers said they've not seen a sudden burst of religious zeal at the workplace, but are taking action before problems arise.

"I guess it can happen, especially if you have people who are very passionate about their beliefs," said Connecticut state Rep. Kevin Ryan, D-Montville, who is shepherding the bill through the state House of Representatives.

The proposed legislation, which is backed by the state and national AFL-CIO, also would bar union-bashing at meetings that workers are compelled to attend.

Workers who believe they are disciplined for refusing to attend meetings intended as a platform for management's views could sue to overturn the discipline.

Lori Pelletier, secretary-treasurer of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, said Connecticut's legislation would give workers "freedom in the workplace."

Business groups have promised a fight.

"It's an extremely broad bill," said Bonnie Stewart, lobbyist for the Connecticut Business and Industry Association. "When talking about political activity, it would prohibit us from talking to employees about government contracts and actions at the state, federal and local levels."

Roger Vann, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said the group "understands the spirit" of the proposed legislation, but would prefer a different approach.

If an employer requires a worker to attend a meeting where the boss speaks against the union, management should be required to provide equal time, he said.

"We believe strongly that the answer to objectionable speech is not less speech but more speech," Vann said.

In New York, Baillie Lumber spokeswoman Jill Meyer said the company's chaplain program, operated through Marketplace Ministries, is voluntary.

"Each chaplain comes in once a week, makes the rounds to people and says hi to them," she said. "If people want to talk to them, that's fine. If not, that's fine, too."

Woltz said she doesn't understand the fuss.

"The whole process is totally voluntary," she said. "There has never been a meeting that we had to go through."

Church group surveys whether legislators are Christians

GLASGOW, Ky. A Glasgow church has received more than 30 responses to a survey of Kentucky legislators and legislative candidates asking them if they are Christians.
Barren County Attorney Jeff Sharp is conducting the survey with members of his youth group at Gethsemane Baptist Church in Glasgow. Sharp says he sent 161 surveys and has received 35 responses.

The survey consisted of a single question: "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?" Along with the boxes for checking "yes" or "no," the survey also included a space for personal testimony.

But Representative Kathy Stein of Lexington has filed a resolution asking her House colleagues to disregard the survey and all "theocratic tendencies." Stein is Jewish and calls the survey an "intimidating, bullying letter."

Beth Wilson of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky says the survey is constitutional as long as it's not done with public time or funds.

Those of us that are old enough I am sure remember who the Weathermen were. For those of you who aren't, no I am not talking about the people that report the weather on TV, it was a home-grown terrorist of the late 60's to early 70's. An article That I find to be very interesting. I also find it interesting that other supporters of the ACLU and anti-American groups were also members of similar groups in that time era, people like John Kerry.

Myself and a group of other sailors had a run-in with this terrorists group at my very first duty station, Naval Communications Station, Stockton, CA. I remember them quite well. They crossed a river and broke into our armory, stealing quite a few weapons. We managed to capture some of them and regain about half of the stolen arsenal.

_________________________________


Terrorist Employed By ACLU?
by Jay on 03-06-06 @ 1:29 pm Filed under ACLU, War On Terror, News

Something..and Half of Something inform us of this story about a radical organization called the Weathermen, and how thirty six years ago today three of their members killed themselves in attempt to blow up a dance at Fort Dix. The Weathermen’s hatred of the United States manifested itself in the bombings of the U.S. Capitol building, New York City Police Headquarters, the Pentagon, and the National Guard offices in Washington, D.C.

    The Weathermen were radicals. They wanted their people to get involved, demonstrate, get arrested and force change down the throat of the “establishment.” They fought at the Democratic Presidential Convention in 1968 and converged in Chicago in 1969 for an event that came to be known as “Days of Rage.” The more violent extremists during that era were responsible for a score of bombings in places like Harvard University, various corporate headquarters and a number of government institutions. They praised Charles Manson and freed Dr. Timothy Leary from prison. Wherever there was violence and chaos in the name of dissent, the Weathermen were there.

    At a “War Council” in Flint, Michigan in 1969, their leader Bernardine Dohrn praised the serial murderer Charles Manson: “Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild.” She then proclaimed that the time had come to launch the war against “Amerikkka” (the Weathermen always spelled America this way) and to form a Weather Underground to carry out terrorist activities.

Oh, did we mention?

    For those of you who might be wondering where the rest of the Weathermen are, you need only look to our Universities, Bar Associations, and, the ACLU. That’s right. The ACLU. The unrepentant Dohrn is currently a law professor at Northwestern University. She also serves on the Board of the American Civil Liberties Union and committees of the American Bar Association. Her husband, and co-leader of the Weathermen Bill Ayers, is now Professor of Education at the University of Illinois.

    Dohrn, Ayers and other members of the Weather Underground are currently under investigation in connection with a police officer killed by a bomb in 1970.

Is it really suprising that an organization that is always first in line to defend terrorists would employ one?

Christ-o-Fascism, and How The Left Think Missouri Is Going To Establish A Theocracy

The Missouri House is looking at legislation to preserve and respect the Christian heritage of the State.

The media have not been honest in their reporting of this legislation, and…The left are freaking out!

    The fascists who bring down America will not be wearing brownshirts and displaying swastikas, but rather they will be carrying Bibles and displaying the cross. Radical Russ.

    There is no doubt that the Religious Right, a.k.a. Christ-o-Fascists want to eliminate most, if not all of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

    They want to establish America as a Christian Theocracy, in which they can kick-out the non-Christians and revert to some Dark Ages type society. It is long past time for the Christians in America who don’t wish to see their religion perverted into some sort of Fascist theocracy to stand up and be counted. The Supreme Irony

Luckily bloggers like Adam’s Blog, Gateway Pundit, Another Rovian Conspiracy, and Christians Who Think know how to do research before copy and pasting freak outs!

First of all, it is a resoultion, not a bill. It will not affect legislation.

Second: It’s obvious that the purpose of the resolution is not to establish Christianity as an official religion of the State of Missouri, rather, its purpose is to express the sentiment of the Missouri House that things like voluntary prayer in schools and religious displays on public property should be allowed.

Here is the resolution (What the lefties should have sourced)

    Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

    Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

    Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

    Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

    Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

    Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

There is the truth of the legislation, and you can like it, or not, but at least be honest about it. Freaking out calling the right a bunch of brown shirts, and acting like a chicken little screaming that the sky is falling, and Missouri is going to haul off all the non-Christians to gas chambers, only makes the left look even more like idiots than they already do.

Religious instruction measure stirs debate in state House

OKLAHOMA CITY Legislation to allow public school students to leave school for one hour each week for religious instruction passes the state House after impassioned debate.
The measure passed 70-to-25 in spite of opponents who said public schools students need to remain in classes the entire school day to learn the core curriculum that's required for them to graduate from an Oklahoma high school.

Marlow state Representative Ray McCarter noted that many public schools have clubs in which students can pray and receive religious instruction.

But Del City state Representative Kevin Calvey says the issue is about what he said was discrimination against Christians. During debate, Calvey accused the American Civil Liberties Union and the Supreme Court of forcing prayer out of public schools.

The measure now goes to the Senate, where similar measures have been killed in recent years.

Intelligent design sparks school-reform controversy
Thursday, March 09, 2006
By Judy Putnam
Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and a Michigan science group promoting the teaching of evolution say proposed high school graduation requirements open the public school door to intelligent design and creationism.

The graduation requirements were in a bill passed last week by the House.

The sponsor, Rep. Brian Palmer, R-Romeo, says there is no hidden agenda to promote intelligent design.

"No way, no how, not anywhere,'' Palmer said Wednesday.

Intelligent design is a modern creationist theory that holds that the universe is so complex that an intelligent being had to play a role in evolution. Strict creationists reject Darwin's theory of evolution because it conflicts with their religious belief that God created the world.

Opponents say both ideas confuse religion with science.

The ACLU issued an alert to its members Wednesday warning them to lobby against the legislation.

"Don't let legislators who support the teaching of religious views as science sneak one by their colleagues,'' the ACLU said in the alert.

Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan, said the bill is "the religious right trying to impose their religious belief on the general population when it belongs in church.''

Michigan Citizens for Science, a grass-roots group led by a Michigan State University philosophy professor, also issued warnings on its Web site.

Stirring the pot is language in the bill directing the Department of Education to develop science content standards that include the teaching of scientific method. That method should evaluate theories and use data to "formulate arguments for and against those theories," the legislation reads.

Opponents of the language say it would be impossible to formulate an argument against evolution without talking about intelligent design.

Palmer said the language is summarized from a decade-old Michigan model curriculum regarding how scientific theories are tested.

Richard Thompson, chief counsel of the Thomas More Center of Ann Arbor, which supports the theory of intelligent design, said the ACLU is "theo-phobic." He defended a school board in Dover, Pa., last year that had mandated that intelligent design be taught in schools. A federal judge ruled against the Dover board, whose members were subsequently voted out of office.

Thompson said in Michigan, school districts are free to include intelligent design, although no boards have done that. Moss said that would be unconstitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the teaching of creationism in public schools.

"Intelligent design is another form of creationism. That has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be an unconstitutional imposition of one religious doctrine and religious idea on people of other faiths,'' she said.

In Gull Lake near Kalamazoo, two middle school teachers were told not to teach intelligent design, and Thompson said his group is considering a lawsuit on behalf of parents who support the teaching.

Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, the chairman of the Senate Education Committee, said the flap over the House bill is much ado about nothing.

"They're all drinking Kool-Aid,'' he said.

His own version of the graduation requirements, in a bill introduced today, does not include the language in question. Kuipers said he doesn't oppose teaching intelligent design and would like a debate on it in the Legislature, but he doesn't favor adding it to the graduation requirements.

Tennessee Senate votes to remove abortion right from state constitution

Tenn. Senate backs anti-abortion step
NASHVILLE (AP) — The state Senate on Thursday passed a proposal to amend the Tennessee Constitution so that it doesn't guarantee a woman's right to an abortion.

The 24-9 vote was the first step of many toward officially amending the state constitution. The measure would go before voters if the General Assembly approves it twice over the next two years.

The state Supreme Court has ruled that the Tennessee Constitution grants women a greater right to abortion than the U.S. Constitution.

Abortion rights supporters are attacking the measure as a stepping stone to prohibiting all abortions in Tennessee if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the landmark abortion decision in Roe v. Wade.

"The resolution is an all-out attack on the women of Tennessee and seeks to rob women of their right to make choices about their own health, safety and personal welfare," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee.

Sen. David Fowler, a Republican sponsor of the bill, proposed a similar resolution last year that cleared the Senate but stalled in a House committee.

"I regret this will cast me as being hardhearted, unsympathetic and unkind but that's not who I am," Fowler said.

Tennessee has a long process for amending its constitution, requiring approval by both chambers in session of the General Assembly, two-thirds approval by both chambers in the next session, and then approval by voters.

Several states are considering restrictions on abortion that eventually could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. South Dakota's governor signed a law Monday that would prohibit all abortions except those necessary to save a mother's life.

Some opponents of abortion rights hope the additions of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito will make the court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, although a majority of the court still appears to support the 1973 ruling.

ACLU targets drug dogs at Marin City school
Don Speich

The American Civil Liberties Union has called on the Sausalito Marin City School District to stop using drug-sniffing dogs at a Marin City middle school because the district "lacks a legitimate basis" for the practice.

In a March 2 letter to the district, the ACLU does not say what it will do if the district fails to comply with its request. Stella Richardson, media director for the civil rights organization in San Francisco, would only say, "We are still waiting for a response and we continue to monitor the situation carefully."

School board president George Stratigos said Wednesday the district has no plans to halt the use of dogs at the 38-student Martin Luther King Jr. Academy, even though he and other board members concede there is no evidence of a drug problem at the school.

In the letter to interim district superintendent Mary Buttler, ACLU Legal Director Alan L. Schlosser wrote: "Considering the fact that MLK Academy's small student body is primarily African American, the district's decision to apply the dog sniff policy to all students, in the absence of a drug problem, raises serious questions about whether the policy is, in part, racially motivated."

The district contracted with Interquest Detection Canines of Houston earlier this year to perform monthly inspections at the school. During the inspections, which will continue to the end of the school year at a cost of $2,500, students go outside, leaving behind backpacks and other personal items, and the dogs are taken into classrooms to sniff for drugs.

The first inspection occurred on Jan. 23, a Monday. Parent said that the previous Friday, they received a letter from the district notifying them of the inspections for the first time.

Parents and students protested at a February board meeting about both the drug-sniffing program and the late notice, saying there was no time to prepare their children - some of whom are frightened of dogs.

Trustees stood firm behind their decision made in November, reiterating, however, that no drug problem was suspected.

"The act of requiring the entire MLK Academy student body to part with their belongings and leave them in classrooms for dogs to sniff constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and must therefore be justified by individualized suspicion," said the ACLU letter.

It noted legal precedents and cited a federal case that upholds the ACLU's position that the searches are illegal.

"Under California and United States Supreme Court precedent, searches or seizures of student possessions 'must be based on a reasonable suspicion that the student or students to be searched have engaged, or are engaging, in a proscribed activity."

In Marin, drug-sniffing dogs are used in the Novato Unified School District and Marin Catholic High School. Both programs are conducted by Houston's Interquest.

Sharon Turner, a Marin City activist, charged at a community meeting Wednesday that the rationale behind the drug searches is to find a scapegoat.

"If they could find even one incident of drugs, they could say the district's (test) scores are because of drug problems," said Turner, speaking a meeting of the ISOJI community group at the Manzanita Recreation Center in Marin City.

"The board said they are trying to prove there is no drug problem, which is not rational," she said.

Stratigos, who attended the meeting, told the group a guarantee of a drug-free school district would give a new superintendent - expected to be hired by July - evidence that drug use will not impede a mandate from the board to make Sausalito Marin City "the best district in the county."

Ricardo Montcrief, ISOJI executive director, said Marin City parents and students, as well as civil rights activists from throughout the county, plan to protest the drug-sniffing dog program and other matters at a district board meeting tonight.

Turner and Terri Harris Green, a school district parent and a member of the Marin City Community Services District, said they had met with Buttler and board member Shirley Thornton last month to voice their continuing concern about the drug dog policy. They said they were assured the subject would be on tonight's board agenda, but it was not.

Buttler denied their charge, saying, "There was no promise." The only thing agreed to, she said, is that at a future meeting the issue would be included on a board agenda.

"I think there is a lot of drama and I'm taking one step at a time to work with the community," she said. "I'm trying to build that."

But at Wednesday's ISOJI meeting, several people voiced anger about the board's isolation from the Marin City community.

Jude Thilman, coalition director for the Marin Human Rights Commission's Roundtable on Hate Violence, said board discussion of the matter at a later date "gives us a lot of time to put them up against the wall."

Anti-Game Study Approved by Senate Panel

By Kris Graft
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions has approved a broad study of the impact of electronic media, which was pushed by known anti-game Democrats Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Clinton.

CNET speculates that if the findings of the report indicate a link between violent games and aggression or other types of unfavorable behavior in minors, they could be used in court hearings pertaining to anti-game laws. One of the prime reasons that many game laws have fallen is because there is no hard proof of such a link.

The report, dubbed the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, is being organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A dollar amount hasn't been attached to the study yet, although CNET reports that the original version of the bill was allotted $90 million.

Marv Johnson, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union fears that if a link between violent games and aggression is found, findings could provide sufficient groundwork for restrictions on other types of media.

"Down the road when -- if there is some sort of finding that there is harm in this -- then we're going to see calls to regulate speech because of the potential harm," Johnson said. "That's where there's going to be a problem."

The bill would not only investigate videogames, but "electronic media" as a whole, which could include movies, TV, DVD, the Internet, cell phones, and so forth. The study will cover a variety of categories, including electronic media's effect on children's diets, aggression, social behavior and cognitive health, to name a few.

The bill is co-sponsored by the controversial Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas, also a Republican. The National Institute on Media and the Family, the Center for Media and Child Health at Harvard University Medical School and the American Psychological Association have all offered their support for the bill.

Lieberman's bill has yet to receive a full Senate vote.

Lawmakers look to recognize Christianity

Critic: Religious declaration political ploy
By Sadie Gurman

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. —

A lawmaker who signed on to a resolution affirming Christianity as the state’s majority religion said he isn’t trying to turn Missouri into a theocracy, but he just wants Christians to feel free to publicly express their faith.

Rep. Barney Fisher, R-Richards, said the recently filed resolution was met with backlash from critics who, he said, have distorted the resolution’s intent.

“They feel minority rights have been threatened, which they haven’t,” Fisher said. “They feel we’re trying to create a state religion, which would be impossible to do. Some people feel threatened by this.”

The House resolution, recently approved by the House Rules Committee, champions prayer in schools and public venues, and recognizes a “Christian God.”

It states that the majority of Missourians are Christians, and that elected officials should “protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object.”

It also calls upon the Legislature to “exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state.”

In a recent e-mail to one of his constituents, Fisher wrote that he fully understood that controversy would surround the resolution because, “Today, uttering the words Christianity or Christ in public draws all manner of scorn and labels.

“I have truly enjoyed watching the liberal element of our state and nation come out squalling like scalded dogs in protest, being forced to unmask their watered-down Christian views, wrap themselves in the Constitution, and try to justify the view that the will of the minority should trump the will of the majority.”

Critics of the resolution charge that it is the first in a string of attempts to make Christianity a dominating force in Missouri politics and schools.

“This is a cynical attempt by a certain faction of politicians to utilize religion to divide the people of Missouri along religious lines during an election year,” said Brett Shirk, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri. “It essentially asks legislators to vote on whether they believe in God and whether they think that the Christian version of God should be ratified as the state religion of Missouri.”

Shirk said the ACLU supports a student’s right to voluntarily pray in schools, and that it would defend students if their right to pray was being hindered.

“It’s one more attempt to create a theocracy,” Shirk said.

A House resolution is not a bill, and therefore cannot become a law.

Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, said House resolutions are largely symbolic, simply reflecting the opinion of lawmakers who sign on to them. She said they usually don’t carry much consequence.

CAIR Chairman Elected to Board of ACLU-Florida


In a not so suprising development, CAIR National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed has been elected to the board of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

    “American Muslims view the protection of civil liberties as one of the most important issues facing our nation today,” said Ahmed. “By working with the ACLU in Florida, I hope to strengthen constitutional rights and help balance those rights with legitimate national security concerns.” Ahmed is a resident of Jacksonville, Fla.

    The ACLU of Florida, with headquarters in Miami, is the local affiliate of the national organization. It has 16 staff members, 16 chapters and more than 22,000 members and supporters across Florida.

CAIR and the ACLU have cooperated on a number of issues at the national level to defile America like defending people with admitted terror ties, destroying National Security, and a number of other anti-American activities.

It really isn’t a suprising move for the ACLU to accept a member to the board from an organization with known terror ties. Its not like its the first time.

If you don’t know about CAIR’s ties to terrorist, you need to read this.

    Perhaps the most obvious problem with CAIR is the fact that at least five of its employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities.

    Randall (”Ismail”) Royer, an American convert to Islam, served as CAIR’s communications specialist and civil rights coordinator; today he sits in jail on terrorism-related charges. In June 2003, Royer and ten other young men, ages 23 to 35, known as the “Virginia jihad group,” were indicted on forty-one counts of “conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas.” The defendants, nine of them U.S. citizens, were accused of association with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a radical Islamic group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of State in 2001. They were also accused of meeting covertly in private homes and at the Islamic Center in Falls Church to prepare themselves for battle by listening to lectures and watching videotapes. As the prosecutor noted, “Ten miles from Capitol Hill in the streets of northern Virginia, American citizens allegedly met, plotted, and recruited for violent jihad.” According to Matthew Epstein of the Investigative Project, Royer helped recruit the others to the jihad effort while he was working for CAIR. The group trained at firing ranges in Virginia and Pennsylvania; in addition, it practiced “small-unit military tactics” at a paintball war-games facility in Virginia, earning it the moniker, the “paintball jihadis.” Eventually members of the group traveled to Pakistan.

    Five of the men indicted, including CAIR’s Royer, were found to have had in their possession, according to the indictment, “AK-47-style rifles, telescopic lenses, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and tracer rounds, documents on undertaking jihad and martyrdom, [and] a copy of the terrorist handbook containing instructions on how to manufacture and use explosives and chemicals as weapons.”

    After four of the eleven defendants pleaded guilty, the remaining seven, including Royer, were accused in a new, 32-count indictment of yet more serious charges: conspiring to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan. Royer admitted in his grand jury testimony that he had already waged jihad in Bosnia under a commander acting on orders from Osama bin Laden. Prosecutors also presented evidence that his father, Ramon Royer, had rented a room in his St. Louis-area home in 2000 to Ziyad Khaleel, the student who purchased the satellite phone used by Al-Qaeda in planning the two U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa in August 1998. Royer eventually pleaded guilty to lesser firearms-related charges, and the former CAIR staffer was sentenced to twenty years in prison.

Or how about this?

    Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter, has a long history of funding terrorism. First, he was convicted in July 2004, with his four brothers, of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to two designated state-sponsors of terrorism, Libya and Syria. Second, he and two brothers were convicted in April 2005 of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader, whom the U.S. State Department had in 1995 declared a “specially designated terrorist.” Elashi was convicted of all twenty-one counts with which he was charged, including conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist. Third, he was charged in July 2004 with providing more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, America’s largest Islamic charity. When the U.S. government shuttered Holy Land Foundation in late 2001, CAIR characterized this move as “unjust” and “disturbing.”

There’s lots more where that came from. Read it all.

I am sure that Mr. Ahmed will fit in perfectly with the terrorist defending ACLU. After all, when confronted with the facts about his organization he was very crafty in his response, something the ACLU will find very handy.

    Dr. Parvez Ahmed, went a step farther, implying that statements against CAIR are subject to SLAPP lawsuits or other legal action:

    People who make statements connecting CAIR to terrorism should understand the legal consequences of their attempted slander and defamation. The First Amendment does not protect defamation.

Congratulations ACLU, you’ve picked another winner. It is sure to improve your relations with mainstream America.

ACLU to Represent Suspended NYC Prison Imam

By Sher Zieve – The former Director of the ACLU’s New York division (NYCLU), Norman Siegel, has announced that he will represent Imam Umar Abdul-Jalil. Abdul-Jalil was suspended from his position as the Head Chaplain of New York City’s jails for making incendiary anti-American and anti-Semitic comments.

Abdul-Jalil was caught on tape speaking before an Arizona Muslim Students Organization in April 2005 saying: "We have terrorists defining who the terrorist is. We know that the greatest terrorists in the world are inside the White House, without a doubt. We found this in our facility in the Metropolitan Correctional facility, in Manhattan. But they literally are torturing people." The imam also said that Muslims are being detained in the US and "not charged with anything other than the fact that they come from Eastern descent."



Abdul-Jalil is also reported as having said: "We have to stop allowing the Zionists of the media to dictate what Islam is to us."



Abdul-Jalil is said to have converted to Islam, during the time he was incarcerated at Attica prison.

ACLU Calls on U.N. Human Rights Committee to Hold U.S. Government Accountable
 

NEW YORK - March 13 - The American Civil Liberties Union today criticized the United States for violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a major human rights treaty the U.S. ratified in 1992.  In remarks to the 86th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the ACLU called for a rigorous investigation into violations of the treaty. 

“In the name of national security, the Bush administration has eroded the rule of law and the system of checks and balances in the United States, both fundamental principles in any democracy,” said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU, who presented today’s testimony. “In our America, we will not tolerate illegal spying or torture. The ACLU calls on the Human Rights committee to join us in our effort to hold the U.S. government accountable.”   

In a statement read today at the opening session of the Human Rights Committee, the ACLU said: “In the last four years we have witnessed serious setbacks in the protection of civil and political rights within the United States.  The U.S. government has instituted a number of unbalanced and unchecked policies that clearly undermine fundamental rights and liberties long recognized and honored in our country.  These policies affect a broad range of issues, including women’s rights, immigrants’ rights, racial justice, national security and the freedom of religion and belief.”

The ACLU also provided details in its testimony about remaining flaws in the recently reauthorized Patriot Act and on the illegal National Security Agency spying program.
 
“America cannot hold itself as a moral beacon to the world if it violates the rule of law by engaging in illegal spying, torture and secrecy,” said Jamil Dakwar, an attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Working Group. “The ACLU is committed to making sure that our government complies with universally recognized human rights principles and upholds our Constitution.” 

Last October, the United States submitted its second and third periodic reports to the U.N. Human Rights Committee which oversees the implementation of the Covenant by the 152 signatory member states. The U.S. report was seven years overdue and did not include information on U.S. conformity with the Covenant overseas, claiming the treaty does not apply beyond U.S. soil and therefore is not applicable to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The full review session of the U.S. report by the 18 members of the Human Rights Committee will take place next July in Geneva. Meanwhile, at the end of its New York session the Committee will publish a list of questions and issues to be considered at the meeting in Geneva with representatives of the U.S. government.

The U.N. Human Rights Committee was established to monitor the implementation of the ICCPR. It is composed of 18 independent experts with recognized competence in the field of human rights. The Committee meets three times a year for sessions of three weeks' duration, normally in March at United Nations headquarters in New York and in July and November at the United Nations Office in Geneva.

The ACLU's new Human Rights Working Group is dedicated to holding the U.S. government accountable to universally recognized human rights principles. The Human Rights Working Group is charged with incorporating international human rights strategies into ACLU advocacy on issues relating to national security, immigrants' rights, women's rights and racial justice.

ACLU’s statement to the Human Rights Committee is available online at: www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/24498leg20060313.html

In September 2005, the ACLU submitted a full list of issues of concern to the Human Rights Committee regarding counter-terrorism measures adopted by the United States.


_____________________

Yet thery could care less about the rest of the countries that violate human rights.

ACLU Blasts Bush at UN for Spying on Terrorists

By Sher Zieve – On Monday, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU Ann Beeson blasted President Bush for spying on terrorists, via the NSA terrorist communiqué intercept program. This latest ACLU criticism against the US president advises that spying on terrorists is illegal.

Beeson delivered her statements to the UN, which included: "In the name of national security, the Bush administration has eroded the rule of law and the system of checks and balances in the United States, both fundamental principles in any democracy. In our America, we will not tolerate illegal spying or torture. The ACLU calls on the Human Rights committee to join us in our effort to hold the U.S. government accountable."



The ACLU is now claiming that the US has violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the US was a signatory in 1992.

ACLU upset over talk of single-sex
classes at Arrowhead
Boy-only or girl-only classes considered

TOWN OF MERTON - The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin is challenging recent discussions by Arrowhead High School officials over offering single-sex classes for the 2006-07 school year.

In a letter to Arrowhead Superintendent Dave Lodes on Thursday, ACLU Wisconsin Executive Director Chris Ahmuty asked for an explanation of the legal basis and educational rationale for the school’s consideration of single-sex classes and wrote that he found the plans "troubling."

"If they do go ahead with plans to offer single-sex classes, they would pretty clearly be in violation of the current rules regarding discrimination," Ahmuty said. "It would obviously be discriminating on basis of gender."

At a school board meeting Wednesday evening, Lodes said he had talked to a lawyer about the idea of offering same-sex classes and that the lawyer told him that as long as the school offered the same curriculum to boys and girls, he felt there was no problem.

"I don’t see any way that this would hurt students," Lodes said.

Ahmuty claims that the school is using "outdated, unsupported stereotypes" to support its idea to offer an experimental series of same-sex classes.

"Sure there are differences in the ways young men and young women learn," Ahmuty said. "But individual differences might be greater than gender differences."

Wisconsin statute provides the school district a reasonable amount of time to reply to the ACLU’s letter.

"They may get this letter and just turn it over to their attorneys," Ahmuty said. "Which is fine, we can handle it through our attorneys as well. But I would hope we could just talk about what’s best for the students."


No girls allowed
Official: All-boys scenario has worked for St. John’s

DELAFIELD - Though not nearly as prevalent in public schools, single-sex classroom environments are more common among private institutions.

Locally, St. John’s Northwestern Military Academy has had an all-male student body for more than 120 years - which has put its boys ahead of the learning curve, former director of enrollment and current Director of Marketing and Communications Charles Moore said.

"The single-sex classroom is an environment that’s ideal for boys," Moore said. "A lot of boys that find success at St. John’s Northwestern were struggling in co-educational environments before."

Boys attending St. John’s typically raise their grade point average a full point in their first year at the school, Moore said.

"Boys are much better off academically in a same-sex environment," Moore, a former teacher, said. "There are far less distractions, and they are able to concentrate better."

Part of the reason boys are more distracted nowadays is the fact that "kids are much more in tune with their sexuality than they were 30 years ago," Moore said.

"Look at the girl in your average school," Moore said. "Is she wearing what your grandmother wore to school?"

Arrowhead Superintendent Dave Lodes agrees.

"With all this Britney Spears-type clothing girls wear nowadays, it’s no wonder the young boys can’t concentrate," he said.

Which is why same-sex classroom environments are most effective in middle school and high school, said Moore.

"Both sexes are trying to figure out who they are," Moore said. "It makes the classroom environment more difficult to manage."

Brother I think the ACLU should be held accountable, for stealing our rights. All the ACLU, want to do is to destroy us (Christians,) from within the system they are setting up.

That's a well known fact unfortunately they still have a lot of supporters that are blind to that.

Foreign-language ballots could lose legal underpinning

When King County began offering ballots and voter pamphlets in Chinese four years ago, it was as though someone switched a light on for Qiu Feng Pang.

Suddenly, confusing ballot initiatives made sense to the 74-year-old retiree, who emigrated from China in 1989 and became a U.S. citizen seven years later.

She no longer needed to copy the "answers" of friends or family onto the mail-in ballot she received at her home in Seattle's Chinatown International District.

Now, she said, she can understand the context of ballot measures and the political positions of candidates: "I vote what I want after deep consideration."

But the section of the federal Voting Rights Act that required King County to provide ballots in Chinese, and three other Washington counties to offer them in Spanish, will expire next year.

Unless Congress votes to reauthorize it, in a bill now being drafted, some worry that many like Pang will be left without a voice in one the most basic guarantees of U.S. citizenship.

"A lot of immigrants are intimidated by the voting process," said George Cheung, of the statewide advocacy group Raising Our Asian Pacific American Representation — ROAR.

"A lot of them get very confused, particularly around our hard-to-understand ballot initiatives, which are sometimes hard enough for English speakers to understand. So they either make uninformed decisions or they skip questions altogether."

Federal requirement

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 removed barriers to voting, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, faced by blacks and other minorities in the Jim Crow South.

The law required monitors to be stationed at polling places, and for states with a history of voting abuses to get federal approval before changing their election procedures. To appease states'-rights advocates, federal officials at the time placed an expiration date on those provisions.

In 1975, Congress added Section 203, also with an expiration date. That section required local jurisdictions to offer language assistance to American Indians, Alaskan Natives and Asian and Latino Americans.

The law applies when eligible voters in those groups number 10,000, or more than 5 percent, of a county's voting pool.

In 2002, based on newly released census data, the Department of Justice notified King County it would need to provide such assistance in Chinese, while Yakima, Adams and Franklin counties in Eastern Washington were required to offer it in Spanish. They are among 466 local governments in 31 states required to provide language assistance.

The three Eastern Washington counties use mail-in ballots exclusively, almost all of them printed in both Spanish and English, officials there say.

In King County, about 1,500 Chinese-language ballots were either mailed to voters or used at polling sites last November, spokeswoman Bobbie Egan said. The county has access to a pool of 168 Chinese poll workers it can assign to 107 polling places where voters need assistance, she said.

Need questioned

But here in Washington as well as in Congress, some lawmakers question the continued need for such assistance.

Some have said citizens should be fluent enough in English to function, including to vote, and that language assistance removes any incentive for them to master English.

And county officials say that sentiment is shared by many angry voters who call to complain about the bilingual or foreign-language voting material they sometimes receive in the mail.

"We let them know that we are bound by law to provide this assistance," said Heidi Hunt, elections administrator in Adams County. "I believe it's important that all our citizens be able to cast ballots based on a true understanding of the issues."

At the Sunshine Garden Chinese Senior Day Care Center in the Chinatown International District where Pang spends some of her days, participants struggled with the English-only pamphlets and ballots before King County began offering them in Chinese.

"They wanted to vote but didn't understand well enough to make an informed decision," lead worker Andes Kong said.

For Chinese immigrants, especially older ones, voting based on their personal choice and their own opinion is still a difficult concept. "Here in America they can vote according to their preference." Kong said.

Renewal favored

The American Civil Liberties Union recently launched a nationwide campaign calling on Congress to renew key sections of the voting act.

Otherwise, "I see no reason why counties would continue to offer this assistance — out of the goodness of their hearts?" said Jennifer Shaw, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington. "I don't see other counties that aren't required to do it, doing it."

In the legislative session that ended last week, ACLU Washington, Cheung's group and other advocates pushed for legislation to enshrine the federal provision in state law. The measure did not make it out of the Legislature.

Next, Cheung said his group may begin collecting signatures for an initiative to the Legislature next year. Even some people born in this country don't speak English as a first language, he said.

"But they play by the rules and pay their taxes. In a representative democracy they have a right to be participating and doing so in an informed way."

Armed transit cops slammed

Civil liberties group says measure goes too far

 An Alberta civil liberties group says arming special constables isn't the best way to make public transit safer, even though it's a growing trend across Canada.

"There's always a simple but wrong answer to every problem. This seems to be one of those instances," says Stephen Jenuth, president of the Alberta Civil Liberties Association.

He says the province's pending approval of a plan to arm local transit constables with pepper spray and batons goes too far.

City council approved the idea January 17. On March 2, Stefan Conley was beaten to death on a south-side night bus.

"That was random," Jenuth said. "Are there really that many incidents when armed officers are needed on buses?"

 According to police and city officials in Edmonton and many other major Canadian cities, the answer is yes.

Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg have all designated special transit constables.

Vancouver Transit has its own gun-toting police force.

Toronto transit constables carry pepper spray and batons, and have powers of arrest. "They're trained by the Toronto and Ontario police, and they're good at what they do," said Marilyn Bolton of the Toronto Traffic Commission.

Ottawa's currently hiring transit constables, and Robert Simpson, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union in that city, expects "they'll be similarly armed in coming years."

He said Conley's killing was one anomaly too many for Edmonton transit users.

"This escalated from little things like rowdy behaviour and foul language. Special constables put a stop to that kind of thing quickly and prevent violence."

Staff Sgt. Darren Eastcott, head of the Edmonton Police traffic section, said armed transit guards are a "great idea."

"Police just don't have enough eyes and ears to patrol the entire transit system alone."

Police Commission chair Brian Gibson said constable training will be supervised by EPS Insp. Mike Derbyshire, who'll also help designate the ETS special constables.

City councillor Mike Nickel, who initially proposed arming transit constables with handguns, said armed officers are needed as Edmonton grows and experiences more big-city crime.

"The good, the bad and the ugly are coming to our city. If you think crime doesn't happen on public transit, you haven't met Jane and Joe Average User."

Nickel said an increased security presence generally makes people more comfortable, especially the seniors and students who are among the most frequent transit users.

"Just look at New York City. (Former mayor) Rudy Giuliani placed police and transit security everywhere, and that city is much safer for it."

Legislation Passed To Help Make Ten Commandment Monuments Legal


OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ A bill to help counties wanting to have Ten Commandment monuments at their courthouses passes the Oklahoma Senate Monday.

Tulsa state Senator James Williamson's amendment to a bill on county construction projects was approved on a 45-to-1 vote.

Williamson says his measure was spurred by a lawsuit filed last summer by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Haskell County Courthouse in Stigler.

His proposal would require that a county commission could approve such a monument only after an opinion from the district attorney that the display meets U.S. Supreme Court guidelines.

It also appropriates $3-million to help district attorneys defend such a monument and makes it clear that the attorney general has the authority to defend a Ten Commandments display on behalf of a county.

The state House will now take up the measure.

USC residents sue to save International Baccalaureate Programme

A group of 19 Upper St. Clair residents filed suit in federal court today, charging that five school board members violated the Constitution, state laws and its own polices when it abruptly eliminated its International Baccalaureate Programme.

The suits seeks to reinstate the program immediately and to order the board to follow the district's own policies in the future evaluation of the program. The suit does not seek monetary damages.

The suit alleges that board members William Sulkowski, Mark Trombetta, David Bluey, Carol Coliane and Daniel Iracki violated parents' and students' rights of free speech, political participation, religious freedom and due process.

The Upper St. Clair School Board voted 5-4 before a packed meeting on Feb. 20 to axe the International Baccalaureate Programme, a rigorous, academic curriculum that teaches students to think from a world perspective. The program also gives students a chance to earn college credit in high school.

About 30 people attended a news conference this morning outside the Upper St. Clair administration offices. One resident spoke against the program.

The American Civil Liberties Union and two private law firms are representing the plaintiffs for free. A parents group formed to support the program, USC WAVES, has collected more than $12,000 to pay for filing fees.

Ban on picketing at funerals draws ACLU opposition

Louisiana State Rep. Francis Thompson, D-Delhi, has authored a bill that would make it a crime to demonstrate at funerals.

We find it sad that such a law is needed to ensure that people with pickets do not disrupt solemn ceremonies for the dead.

Is Thompson's law appropriate?
Try to imagine this scenario:

The setting is a church. An American soldier has died in battle and is being mourned by friends and loved ones. It is a time of tribute and a time of grief.

Then come people with pickets.

They come to protest and to deliver the message that the deaths of Americans killed in the Iraq war result from U.S. tolerance of gays and lesbians.

As farfetched as the scenario sounds, it is played out regularly at military funerals by followers of the Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan.

The preacher and his people have a right to their beliefs concerning homosexuality. We do not by any means, however, accept the premise that they have the right to demean funeral services of any citizen, particularly one who has died in battle.

That is only one scenario. There are many others. In fact, laws similar to Thompson's have been passed in Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wisconsin. According to the National Council of State Legislatures, such laws have been presented to 17 other states.

To us, respect for the dead and for grieving loved ones mandates that protest groups be barred from demonstrating at funerals or during funeral processions. Who would oppose a law designed to achieve that?

That's a no-brainer, of course. The American Civil Liberties Union would.

The ACLU will argue against Thompson's bill, claiming it would violate the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech.

The ACLU does many worthwhile things; this is not one of them. We believe the framers of the Constitution would have been horrified by the argument that, in approving the First Amendment, they had guaranteed the right to disrupt funerals, disturb mourners and destroy the dignity of the most solemn of observances.

This argument by the ACLU is as absurd as its claim that, when former Gov. Mike Foster asked people to pray for rain during a severe drought a few years ago, he violated the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion and tried to turn Louisiana into an Iran-like theocracy.

Thompson's bill is reasonable. It would make it unlawful for anyone to picket or protest within 1,000 feet "of any church, cemetery or funeral establishment" from one hour before the services until one hour after their conclusion.

Maximum penalties would be six months in jail, a fine of $100, or both.

We urge our legislative delegation to support the Thompson bill and work toward its final passage.

In Oklahoma: Senate passes measure allowing Ten Commandments


OKLAHOMA CITY - State senators on Monday supported having Ten Commandments monuments at courthouses in Oklahoma if they get the legal approval of district attorneys.

The vote was 45-1 for Sen. James Williamson's amendment to a bill on county construction projects.

Williamson, R-Tulsa, said his measure was spurred by a lawsuit filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Haskell County Courthouse in Stigler.

His proposal requires that a county commission get a legal opinion from the district attorney that a proposed Ten Commandments monument meets U.S. Supreme Court guidelines. It also appropriates $3 million to help district attorneys defend such monuments.


$125 million for bridges receives legislative OK

OKLAHOMA CITY - A plan to spend $125 million to fix the worst bridges on state highways and county roads won final passage without opposition Monday in the Oklahoma Senate.

The measure goes to Gov. Brad Henry, who is expected to sign it.

Under the plan, $100 million will go to repair or replace the most dilapidated bridges in the state highway system. Counties would get $25 million to fix their worst bridges.

The vote was 45-0 for the measure, the biggest appropriations bill yet to pass during the 2006 session.

Under an agreement between the governor and legislative leaders, $100 million of the $125 million is being taken from the EDGE program enacted a year ago at Henry's urging to create high-tech jobs. As part of the agreement, the EDGE program later will get $150 million that is expected to accrue in that fund.

ACLU wants lists of terrorism "threats"

Civil libertarians believe Middletown and eight other New Jersey towns may have given the federal government secret lists naming individuals deemed to be risks for committing acts of terrorism.

To the American Civil Liberties Union, that scenario is reminiscent of domestic security activities during the McCarthy era or at the height of Vietnam War protests. ACLU leaders in New Jersey say they have indications of why they think such lists exist.

To find out, the ACLU within the next few weeks will ask that the nine municipalities — the others are Edison, Linden, Mount Laurel, Newark, Parsippany, Trenton, Wayne and West New York — disclose the lists and the criteria used to compile them.

"We want to make sure that individuals or organizations haven't received, or are subject to, additional surveillance or labeling for engaging in protected free-speech activities," said Edward Barocas, legal director of the state's ACLU chapter.

Making such information public, however, could hamper the surveillance and investigation of groups or people that may pose legitimate threats, government officials have argued.

When the ACLU asked the state Attorney General's Office to provide its list in 2004, Bruce Solomon, the office's records custodian at the time, said disclosure could "substantially interfere with the state's ability to protect and defend the state and its citizens against acts of sabotage or terrorism."

ACLU leaders maintain that citizens should be able to find out whether resources and funds established to fight terrorism are being misused to target government critics.

Robert Moir, a member of the Central Jersey Coalition of Peace and Justice, an activist group opposed to the war in Iraq, said he was not surprised to hear about the possibility of secret lists of government foes. Federal agencies have throughout history kept tabs on government critics, even those without intent to inflict harm, he said.

Moir, of Fair Haven, said he and other anti-war activists could end up on a secret government list if public opinion on the war polarizes further.

The peace coalition, comprising about 25 members, mostly from Monmouth and Ocean counties, meets Thursday nights in Middletown.

"It's always in the back of someone's mind in cutting-edge politics: That there are people who are going to attempt to use government authority against you at some point," he said.

Denials gave clues

ACLU leaders will cite the Open Public Records Act, New Jersey's right-to-know law, when asking the municipalities for the lists and the criteria behind them.

Barocas said he believes officials in the nine towns may have the lists based on hints provided in responses to identical OPRA requests by the ACLU in 2004.

The nine municipalities indirectly acknowledged the existence of such lists by either denying the 2004 request or by referring the ACLU to the state Attorney General's Office for the information, Barocas said.

Officials in 41 other municipalities that received the same request in 2004 told the ACLU that they had never heard of "potential threat elements," the government term used to describe possible terrorists on the lists, Barocas said.

The ACLU will sue to get the lists from the towns that deny the forthcoming second request, Barocas said.

Neither Middletown Business Administrator Robert Czech nor Police Chief Robert Oches could be reached to comment on how the township will treat the ACLU's request.

Municipalities were required to submit a list of threats to apply for U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants, according to the ACLU.

The department has required states to submit details about potential terror threats and states have included names of individuals and groups, said department spokesman Marc Short. But that information is meant to allow department officials to see if states properly appropriate annual department grants, he said.

Municipalities that release information about potential threats would only make themselves more vulnerable, Short said.

As for a master list of potential threat elements compiled by the towns, an official one doesn't exist, he said.

________________________________

Let's give the terrorists a heads up on what we know by giving this information to them.

Parker blames ACLU for judicial ethics complaint; ACLU denies it
    

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker on Tuesday blamed a civil liberties group for the judicial ethics complaint filed against him, calling it retaliation for his career-long stance against abortion, pornography, homosexuality and a proposed tax increase for schools.

Parker said the complaint was an attack by the American Civil Liberties Union "to force political-correctness on all Alabamians and turn us into another San Francisco."

Joel Sogol, a Tuscaloosa lawyer who filed the complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Commission, said the ACLU is not involved in it. A state ACLU official also said the civil liberties group is not involved.

The ACLU Vs. American Sovereignty


Currently the ACLU are appealing to the U.N. Human Rights Committee with their cries of how evil the United States Government is.

    The American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Human Rights Network today urged the U.N. Human Rights Committee to hold the U.S. government accountable for flagrant and repeated violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

    “Locally, nationally and globally, the United States has repeatedly failed in its responsibility to uphold basic human rights,” said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. “We are appealing to the international arbiters to hold the U.S. accountable to basic human rights standards.”

As sickening as this is; it is only one step in the ACLU’s agenda to undermine America’s sovereignty and freedom that so many soldiers have sacrificed and died to preserve. The ACLU are obviously frustrated by their inability to advance their radical agenda more quickly under the U.S. Constitution, and are now determined not only to convince the American judiciary to look to international law, but also to use it as a means to their ends. They hold it as a higher authority than our own Constitution and are more than willing to sacrifice our sovereignty in their pursuit to radically force change on America to fit their own radical views.

The sad thing is that they don’t have to try very hard to convince our judiciary. Last month former ACLU lawyer, and current Supreme Court Justice, Ruth “Snoozer” Ginsburg gave a speech that argued explicitly for the relevance of foreign law and court decisions to interpretation of the American Constitution. She isn’t the only Justice that buys into this philosophy. FIVE Justices believe that international law should bear weight in interpreting our constitution.

The ACLU don’t hide this agenda, they are proud of it.

    The ACLU sponsored a conference at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, October 9-11, 2003, to promote the use of international law in U.S. courts. The conference was titled “Human Rights at Home: International Law in U.S. Courts.” Publicit for the event stated, “The emphasis throughout the conference will be on using international law and human rights norms to advance justice in U.S. courts or on behalf of U.S. clients.” Some of the alleged human rights “injustices” cited were in the areas of “environmental justice,” “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights,” and “children’s rights.”

    ACLU publicity included comments from ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero and conference organizer Ann Beeson. Romero said, “Our goal is no less than to forge a new era of social justice where the principles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are recognized and enforced in the United States.”

    Beeson added, “From the grassroots level all the way to the Supreme Court, international human rights law is beginning to emerge as a tool for the victims of discrimination here at home.” Source

While the ACLU’s rhetoric and efforts to use international law to rewrite, undermine, and bypass the Constitution has already gone beyond academic debate into the realm of actual use. As stated earlier, there are plenty of judges that have already adopted the philosophy and the ACLU are already participating in court cases where the judge uses international law in their decisions. It isn’t only at the federal level, but has penetrated even into the state level.

All through the confirmation process of Justice Alito, the ACLU and leftards were screaming that Alito was a racist bigot that would undermine judicial precedent. However, this judicial philosophy has more potential to undermine judicial precedent than any current philosophy being espoused, and it has already proven to do so. The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret the law and determine if laws are constitutional. There are several major flaws in the use of international law in our courts. Not only does it undermine the very authority of the Constitution deeming it impotent of any power, but it also gives the judicial branch a power that was never intended to be granted to it; the power to write law. Followers of this philosophy view the Constitution merely as a persuasive authority, equated with foreign law, to be relied upon if they are in line with her predetermined beliefs. It doesn’t really matter if their beliefs are inconsistent with the Constitution itself, they can simply find a foreign law that is.

New rights, such as gay rights, or abortion should not be stretched from our Constitution that never granted them. If new rights like these are to be given, then the people should have some say in that. There is a process set in place by the founders to do just this. They should be granted through law or a constitutional amendment. They should not be granted via judicial fiat.

Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation’s sovereignty and national security.

    For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “With today’s action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations.” Source

Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.

And as we stated earlier, just yesterday The American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Human Rights Network urged the U.N. Human Rights Committee to hold the U.S. government accountable for “flagrant and repeated violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn’t directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU’s embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.

    In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the UNHRC’s discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a “showdown with religion,” clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source

It is a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, and religious exercise. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.

If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs…why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America’s freedoms, and our very sovereignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU’s vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churchs and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them.

ACLU: Sex Offender Billboards a 'Waste of Money'

About 100 billboards are going up around Mississippi that show photographs of convicted sex offenders, along with their names, sentences, and descriptions of their crimes, according to the Jackson (Mississippi) Clarion-Ledger. The billboards are a part of the state Department of Human Services' effort to raise public awareness about sex crimes against children, but the American Civil Liberties Union in Mississippi has called the move a waste of taxpayer funds.

Lamar Outdoor Advertising, which charded $37,000 for the signs, said it gave the state a 75 percent discount on the job.

One 12-foot-by-24-foot billboard above U.S. 49 in Richland was pasted up on Wednesday, over a previous ad showing Girl Scouts selling cookies.

ACLU joins opponents of Arlington ordinance on assemblies
Thursday, March 16, 2006
By Rod Smith
Special to the Gazette

BANGOR -- The Arlington Township Board of Trustees has relaxed language in a proposed ordinance governing public and private gatherings, but even the less stringent version has failed to quiet critics, including members of a pagan church.

At a meeting Wednesday packed mostly with vocal critics and a few advocates of the proposed ordinance, the board announced that it would delay making a final decision on the ordinance until April.

A representative of the American Civil Liberties Union told the board that he believed the ordinance would be unconstitutional.

Jim Rodbard, of Kalamazoo, who said he was working with the Bangor-based Caer na Donia y Llew, a local pagan church, told the board that even the more relaxed version of the controversial ordinance distributed at the meeting would not ``pass constitutional muster on the First Amendment.''

Rodbard said it would place a burden on the exercise of religion.

``It's not narrowly tailored to advance a state interest,'' he said.

Planning consultant Kenneth Dettloff detailed the latest draft of the proposed ordinance.

``The first draft was way too strict,'' he said. ``It prevented or may have impacted people with private parties such as pig roasts, outdoor church functions. So we made another attempt.''

Under the new proposed language, a site-plan permit would be required for gatherings of more than 30 hours with more than 150 people. Bonds would no longer be required, and the minimum site size was reduced from 10 acres to five.

The old language would have required a permit when there were 50 or more people for at least 14 hours.

Rodbard said the ACLU is willing to provide the township with an analysis of the proposed ordinance before it is adopted. If adopted as is, Rodbard said, the ACLU might sue.

"If we're successful (in a lawsuit), we will seek attorney fees,'' he said, which the township could be forced to pay.

The most vocal opponents were representatives of the local pagan church, who were concerned the ordinance could be used to discriminate against them because it had come about after noise complaints from a pagan church festival held last summer named ``Paganstock.''

One of the opponents who spoke was AC Fisher-Aldag, who said pagans had been falsely accused of nudity, drug abuse, cult activity and animal sacrifice when getting permission to hold the festival.

Caer na Donia y Llew, the name of the church, is Welsh for ``House of Goddess and God.''

``There's great potential for abuse and prejudice in the application process, which we Caer (church) members have already seen,'' she said.

In addition to the religion-rights argument, the earlier draft of the ordinance had been criticized on grounds that it could mean that people holding graduation parties or family reunions might have to secure township permits.

Supervisor William Colgren said the ordinance's purpose was just to regulate large gatherings.

``We've had three times now where we've had a big gathering,'' he said. ``All the township wants to know is where it takes place and to make sure we have the safety precautions in there.''

``Paganstock'' drew about 150 people last summer, according to literature from the pagan group. Several local residents complained about the music, which Fisher-Aldag described as Celtic, and a farmer complained it affected the milk production of his cows.

While there were audience members who applauded the board on its efforts to find a balance, there were others who said the proposed ordinance did not address the actual complaint.

``If you have problems with noise, why don't you just pass a noise ordinance?'' Rodbard asked.

Resident Chuck Jordan said the less-strict ordinance was still discriminatory.

``This issue of safety and health -- that's all a red herring,'' he said. ``It's not the township's responsibility to protect people from themselves.''

After an hour of discussion, Colgren said the matter would be tabled until April. ``We got a lot of good input tonight,'' he said.

_________________________________

This is another reason why the bill to prevent frivilous lawsuits and paying attorney's fees needs to be passed.

Student Appeals Against Anti-Harassment Training


A student from Boyd County High School is appealing a ruling allowing required attendance of Anti-Harassment Training.  U.S. District Judge David Bunning wrote that "to address the issue of harassment at school, including harassment based upon actual or perceived sexual orientation, is rationally related to a legitimate education goal, namely to maintain a safe environment"

The Training had been agreed in a settlement between the school and gay rights group over an extracurricular gay group.  It mandated that all students and facility must attend the training.  Students who refused to attend would be penalized with an unexcused absence.

The student, Timothy Allen Morrison II, and his parents, Timothy and Mary Morrison, sued the school claiming the training violated his religious rights to tell others they were going to hell.  They also claimed the training was meant at changing his beliefs without parental consent.

"Just telling students not to pick on others because of their sexual orientation or gender identity doesn't force them to change their beliefs, and the judge agreed with us about that," said Sharon McGowan, a staff attorney with the ACLU's national Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.  The ACLU represented the school in the case.

ACLU backs brothels in lawsuit


LAS VEGAS (AP) - The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging legislation that bars brothel owners from advertising in other counties.

Along with two newspapers and Bobbi Davis, the owner of the Shady Lady Ranch brothel near Beatty, Nev., the group argues the legislation violates owner's constitutional rights.

The issue first arose after Davis attempted to put an ad with a $50 coupon in the Las Vegas weekly Citylife newspaper and was refused.

The newspaper said it had no choice under a Nevada law intended to keep bordellos from advertising far and wide for customers. While prostitution is legal in several rural Nevada counties, it is unlawful to advertise it in counties such as Clark, where prostitution is illegal.

"We can only advertise locally," Davis told the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Friday. "I live outside a town that has 1,100 people in it. We don't want the locals, we want the tourists."

The law limiting advertising to counties where prostitution is legal is "an old state law and is unconstitutional," said Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada. "Once a business license is issued, that business has the same First Amendment rights as anyone else."

CityLife and the High Desert Advocate newspaper in Wendover joined Davis as plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed this week. CityLife is owned by Stephens Media Group, which also owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

But most of Davis' fellow brothel owners hope the regulations that limit their advertising remain intact.

George Flint, a brothel industry lobbyist, called the advertising limits a "life insurance policy." Flint said owners fear angering legislators with overly sexy ads.

"Our fear is that some people in our industry will go insane with dramatic advertising and it's going to incense legislators and threaten our long-term survival."

CityLife Editor Steve Sebelius said other brothel owners are being too skittish.

"They have learned to keep things under the radar and not to make waves," he said. "They're worried there will be more regulation and they'll go out of business. That's just intimidation. Voters have continued to keep prostitution legal over the years."

Sebelius said the money brothel advertising could bring to his newspaper wasn't a consideration in joining the lawsuit.

ACLU Sues Bush Workers


The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on Monday against workers for an event with President Bush, saying they violated the civil rights of two people who were ejected because of their political views.

According to court documents, Leslie Weise, 40, and Alex Young, 26, were thrown out from the March 21 event where President Bush was promoting his retooling of Social Security after it was noticed the car they arrived in had a bumper sticker reading "No more blood for oil," while wearing T-shirts saying "Stop the lies" under other clothes.
The suit names Michael Casper, Jay Bob Klinkerman and five-other unknown workers as defendants the ACLU claim conspired in the decision to remove the two.

ACLU backs brothels in lawsuit


The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit challenging a Nevada law barring brothel owners from advertising outside their home county.

Along with two newspapers and the owner of the Shady Lady Ranch brothel near Beatty, the group argues the legislation violates an owner's constitutional rights.

The issue first arose after Shady Lady owner Bobbi Davis attempted to put an ad with a 50 dollar coupon in the Las Vegas Citylife newspaper. Davis was refused.

The newspaper says it had no choice in the matter because a law prohibits brothels from advertising far and wide for customers.

UCLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein says the law is unconstitutional -- the First Amendment protects a business's right to advertise.

Public Hearing On Drug Dogs At Marin Middle School

Trustees of the Sausalito Marin City School District are vowing to press ahead with plans to bring drug-sniffing dogs to a local middle school.

The plan has come under fire from parents, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

But Board President George Stratigos says a majority of the trustees will not back away from their decision to have the dogs sniff-out the personal belongings of students at Martin Luther King Junior Middle School.

The trustees say they have no evidence drugs are being brought to the school but want to use the monthly inspections to avoid potential problems. A public hearing on the issue is scheduled for Monday night.

Under the program, students would be required to leave their classrooms while the dogs from a Houston firm sniff their backpacks. The inspections would continue until the end of the school year at a cost of $2500.

Federal Appeals Court Panel Upholds Tennessee Statute Allowing 'Choose Life' License Plates

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Friday voted 2-1 to uphold a Tennessee statute that authorizes the production and sale of "Choose Life" specialty license plates, the AP/San Diego Union-Tribune reports (Johnson, AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, 3/17). The state Legislature in 2003 enacted the measure authorizing the production of the plates, and Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) allowed it to become law without his signature. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil Liberties Union in November 2003 filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court to prevent the state from distributing Choose Life plates, alleging that the manner in which the state approves license plates is unconstitutional and allows the state to endorse some political issues while ignoring others. U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell in September 2004 ruled that the law is unconstitutional because the government is engaging in "viewpoint discrimination." New Life Resources, a group associated with Tennessee Right to Life and a beneficiary of the money collected through the sale of the plates, appealed Campbell's ruling. The group contends the plate's message is similar to government-sponsored public service announcements urging people to quit smoking or students to stay in school (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 11/4/05). According to the AP/Union-Tribune, the Tennessee Legislature rejected a "Choose Choice" license plate option in 2002 (AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, 3/17).

Ruling, Dissent
In the 6th Circuit Court panel's majority opinion, Judge John Rogers said, "Although this exercise of government one-sidedness with respect to a very contentious political issue may be ill-advised, we are unable to conclude that the Tennessee statute contravenes the First Amendment." Judge Boyce Martin in a dissenting opinion called the statute unconstitutional because it fails to represent both sides of the abortion debate. Shortly after the ruling, Kentucky state officials said that they would begin offering Choose Life license plates in a few months. Thirteen states offer a Choose Life license plate.

 

ACLU Backs Reid/Clinton Contraception Bill


The American Civil Liberties Union has released a statement “hailing” a bill which would increase funding for programs that they claim are aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies. They do so while adamantly opposing all efforts to teach the one birth control program that is known to work 100% of the time it is tried, abstinence. The ACLU has recently gotten the federal government to pull funding for abstinence only programs but yet hails the use of federal funding for distribution of condoms, instructions on their use, advocates the sale of Plan B over-the-counter for “women” 16 and over, federally funded birth-control, and federally funded abortion.

This latest heralding of a bill introduced by liberal Senators Harry “The Sleeping Pill” Reid (D NV) and Hillary “I’ll Never Be President” Clinton (D NY) would increase federal funding for the following programs:

1) Requires coverage for prescription contraceptives in otherwise comprehensive drug benefit plans. [Government regulation of private industry. After all, insurance companies are not arms of the federal government.]

2) Promote awareness of emergency contraception. [Forget about taking personal responsibility for your actions. Let’s just eliminate and cover up using a pill called Plan B. That’s a Clinton deal all the way.]

3) Fund medically accurate programs to reduce teen pregnancy. [But ignore teaching avoidance of what causes pregnancy in the first place.]

4) Increase family planning services for low-income women. [Code for Abortion - After all, what is Planned Parenthood?]

The left’s answer for every difficult problem is to get rid of it quickly as possible and forget that it occurred. A girl gets herself in a family way because she made the following WRONG decisions.

1) She chose to have sex.

2) She chose to not use protection at the time of the sex act.

And then the left would have the girl make more WRONG decisions by using Plan B or RU486 to terminate the pregnancy or result to using a procedure which has been linked to increased occurrences of breast cancer, post abortive infections, and depression brought on the remorse of having the abortion. The vast majority of women who have an abortion will have more of them. It is seen as a quick and easy resolution to a problem brought on by irresponsible behavior.

I believe that it is a crime to use federal tax money collected from vast numbers of people who don’t believe in artificial birth control because a segment of the population decides to have irresponsible sexual relations. Some religious communities have strong beliefs against premarital sex. This bill would force these people to pay for artificial contraception without teaching abstinence programs which is the only 100% effective form of birth control. It works 100% of the time that it is employed. You can’t get pregnant if you don’t have sex.

But the ACLU objects to ANY restrictions on social behavior. In their minds you should be free to do whatever you want whenever you want to do it. And if something negative happens, the federal government should pay for you to correct the problem. Personal responsibility is something that is foreign to the thinking processes of not only the ACLU, but every one of these so-called free-thinking liberal minding morons in this nation. Why should I pay for your mistakes?

If these irresponsible people were forced to live with the consequences of their bad decisions, perhaps this would become a deterrent to irresponsible behavior.

Soldier will not be deployed to Afghanistan

FORT DRUM, N.Y. The Army has agreed not to send a Fort Drum soldier and practicing Buddhist to Afghanistan while his conscientious-objector application is pending.
A federal judge ordered the move.

Twenty-four-year-old Corey Martin of South Dakota applied for discharge in December. Then the Army ordered him sent to Afghanistan on March 14th.

Lawyers for the New York Civil Liberties Union are representing Martin.

Martin joined the Army in June 2001.

In court documents, he said his anti-war feelings surfaced during a Christmas visit with his family in 2002.

He said he realized his intelligence job, quote, "would cause the death of a person who might otherwise live."

Photographer detained in White Plains wants apology

Ben Hider, a terrorist?

No, but the 27-year-old photographer from England said he was treated like one Friday when he whipped out his camera and snapped pictures of the West-chester County courthouse.

Hider said three armed police officers instantly surrounded him, frisked him, emptied his pockets and then detained him in a room for two hours while lecturing him about his citizenship and the terror threat in America.

The photographer demanded an apology, and got one late yesterday from the state Office of Court Administration, which called to express regrets over the "unfortunate" incident and said it would explain to local officers that there's no rule against photographing the courthouse. But the union representing the court officers said the officers acted appropriately, especially since they have been getting conflicting instructions on dealing with such situations.

"No apology is called for," said John McKillop, president of the state Supreme Court Officers Association. "These officers were doing their job. My problem here is that there are no policies whatsoever regarding issues like this, and the officers have to fend for themselves. In previous incidents, court officers were criticized for not detaining people, who were taking pictures of that very same facility."

The executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage over the treatment of Hider and said this sort of thing has been an ongoing problem since the Sept. 11 terror attacks. That agency is currently suing New York City after it detaining a videographer who took pictures outside Grand Central Terminal, and recently pressured the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to stop threatening people who photograph subway and train stations.

"It seems the court officers need a bit of a lecture about fundamental rights and their obligation to respect them," Donna Lieberman said.

Hider lives in White Plains and has a green card to work in this country. He moved to the U.S. from England in 1998. The graduate of Purchase College, SUNY, works as an intern in Manhattan for World Picture Network. About 10 a.m. Friday, he was walking to the train station, on his way to a dentist appointment in Scarsdale, when he saw the flag waving outside the courthouse on Martine Avenue.

"It just looked nice," said Hider, who grabbed his digital camera and started taking pictures. Then, he said, "I heard them yelling for me to stop."

When he asked why he was being targeted, they told him it was because of the terrorist threat in America and told him he was taking pictures of an official government building.

"Then they found out I wasn't a citizen and said that would not help my case," Hider said.

They took him into the courthouse, where they searched him, took pictures of him, copied his identification papers, and peppered him with questions.

"I was terrified," he said. "Having the words 'terrorist' and 'noncitizen' and all that stuff thrown at me was a scary thing. Then once I could collect my senses and realized that I did nothing wrong, I realized nothing could happen. Then I became more annoyed." Initially, the officers told him they contacted the counterterrorism task force and that members would be there soon. But after two hours, no one showed up, and Hider was let go.

"While I was being escorted out, the officer told me I was really lucky that this other terrorism unit didn't show up because 99 percent of the noncitizens that get taken by them are never seen again," Hider said. "So then he told me I should really think about getting my citizenship."

Willard Bodie, chief court officer of the 9th Judicial District, which includes the county courthouse, confirmed that the officers did question Hider for photographing the courthouse.

"It's all post-9/11," he said. "We take an interest in things we never took an interest in before. It's a new day and age."

Bodie would not name the officers involved, and said he didn't believe they were threatening to Hider in any way.

While he offered no apologies for their actions, the Office of Court Administration did.

"What happened to Mr. Hider is most unfortunate," OCA spokesman David Bookstaver told The Journal News. "It was inconsistent with our policies and we will be reaching out at the highest level to personally apologize to Mr. Hider. Further, we have clarified and crystalized our policies as it pertains to individuals taking photographs in public areas outside the courthouse."

McKillop said this was just a "knee-jerk reaction by Bookstaver because there's a commotion."

"I'd like them to show me a policy on this," he said.

Late yesterday, First Deputy Chief Administrative Justice Ann Pfau called Hider to apologize, though Hider said he's really hoping to hear from the officers.

"I want an apology from those officers because I want them to admit they were in the wrong for holding me for two hours for just taking pictures of flags," he said.

Specialty tags widen the gap

Do Tennesseans want state government to collect donations for the anti-abortion movement and promote Christianity?

A fair number of state legislators apparently believe that's the case, given the support that is being given to controversial and divisive messages, one approved and one proposed, for specialty license plates.

So far Tennessee legislators haven't gone quite as far as Missouri state Rep. David Sater, the sponsor of a resolution that would designate Christianity as Missouri's official "majority" religion.

Opposition has been slow to develop, however, against a proposed new specialty plate depicting a stylized fish silhouette that has become a popular symbol for Christianity.

And some Tennessee legislators are celebrating the decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to allow Tennessee to offer "Choose Life" license plates, devoting some of the proceeds to the abortion alternatives group New Life Resources.

There have always been efforts to cast government on one side or the other in divisive religious and moral debates, but using specialty license tags as the vehicle for controversial messages is a relatively new twist on the theme. The General Assembly needs to have a serious conversation about this program before it gets out of hand.

The 6th Circuit decision was hailed by state Rep. Glen Casada, R-College Grove, as "a victory for the First Amendment and the doctrine of separation of powers" as well as "a victory for the unborn."

"The public square," he said, "should be a place where all ideas are welcomed, not just those approved by the (American Civil Liberties Union)."

In fact, if the specialty license plate program is a public square, in this case not all ideas are welcome. The General Assembly has rejected a specialty plate bearing a pro-choice viewpoint.

As to First Amendment rights, a rejection of the anti-abortion specialty plate would not have interfered with an individual's right to express his or her opinion on the abortion debate.

Opinions on the question are expressed openly on motor vehicle bumper stickers, billboards, fliers and other media without interference.

Neither could approval of a new tag depicting Christian symbolism be defended as a blow for individual liberty. Various Christian symbols are commonly displayed on cars and trucks.

Numerous court decisions, however, have sought to keep government out of the business of promoting religious doctrine, based on a clearly stated Constitutional prohibition.

Even the 6th Circuit stated in its opinion supporting the state's right to issue "Choose Life" tags that "this exercise of government one-sidedness with respect to a very contentious political issue may be ill-advised."

Look for more ill-advised decisions on specialty plates if the program continues much longer.

License plates serve a useful purpose for police officers who need to know whom they're stopping on the highway. They're a poor stand-in for the public square.

 Deltona Mayor Who Censored Religious Paintings Has Ties To ACLU

Deltona Mayor Who Unsuccessfully Tried to Censor Religious Paintings Says the ACLU Shaped His Political Philosophy

A week after Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit over censored religious paintings, Deltona Mayor Dennis Mulder sent an email to George Griffin, President of the Volusia/Flagler chapter of the ACLU, stating: "The importance of the ACLU is immeasurable to me, my life, and my political philosophy." Explaining why he was unable to attend the ACLU meeting, the next sentence asked Griffin to "Please share my thoughts with the group."

After Mayor Mulder and acting City Manager/City Attorney, L. Roland Blossom removed paintings by Lloyd Marcus from a Black History Month display due to their religious themes, Liberty Counsel sent two letters, one explaining the law and the second demanding the paintings be returned. When Mulder and Blossom refused, Liberty Counsel filed suit. At an emergency meeting of the City Commission, Mulder and Blossom backed down and the paintings were displayed.

Public records now reveal that Mayor Mulder has close ties to the ACLU. In one email sent to Mulder, ACLU President, George Griffin, suggested that Mulder could "save face" by claiming that he sought a "second, expert, legal opinion" from the ACLU and decided to display the paintings. The ACLU wrote that if Mulder would state he got advice from the ACLU, "it would irritate the hell out of them [Liberty Counsel]." A week later, Mulder wrote to Griffin that the "importance of the ACLU is immeasurable to me, my life, and my political philosophy."

Since Mulder's political philosophy has been shaped by the ACLU, we looked at a list of some activities of the Florida ACLU. Their web site reveals the group opposed an ordinance to seal magazines deemed harmful to juveniles, opposed the use of school property for use after school hours by religious organizations, opposed the distribution of Bibles by the Gideons, opposed a committee to review films and course material for state schools to comply with community standards on pornography, fought for physician-assisted suicide, fought to overturn a ban on homosexual adoption, opposed parents being notified of their child's abortion, supported partial birth abortion, defended a nude demonstration, tried to force a school district to censor religious speech of students, and opposes the right of citizens to pass an amendment that declares marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The web site does not reveal that the ACLU lost is 8-1/2 year attempt to silent student religious speech, a case Liberty Counsel defended. The web site also does not reveal that the ACLU lost its attempt to evict churches from renting school facilities after school hours, a case also defended by Liberty Counsel. Perhaps Mayor Mulder should have done a little more research about correct legal philosophy before censoring religious expression.

Rather than having his life and political philosophy shaped by the ACLU, Mayor Dennis Mulder should read the Constitution. He would find that the First Amendment is a friend, not a foe, of religious expression.

ACLU Challenges Drugs-Related Ban on U.S. Student Aid (Update1)

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit seeking to overturn a U.S. law that makes students ineligible for federally backed college loans once they have been convicted on a drug charge.

The suit, filed today in U.S. District Court in South Dakota, contends the law enacted in 1998 violates due-process and double-jeopardy provisions of the U.S. Constitution. It names U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings as the defendant. The department has no comment on the case, spokesman Chad Colby said.

The law discriminates against poorer students who rely on federal aid to pay tuition, said South Dakota college senior Kraig Selken, one of three plaintiffs in the case. Selken, who lost his student aid after a marijuana conviction, said students have a harder time improving their lives because of the law.

``The thing that it ends up being aimed at is just to deter education,'' Selken, a 21-year-old history major at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota, said in an interview. ``It's not about deterring drug use.''

The federal government spends more than $78 billion a year on student financial aid. Nearly two-thirds of the nation's 19 million undergraduate students receive some type of assistance, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Students Using Drugs

The suit, filed by the New York-based ACLU on behalf of Selken and other students, asks the court to suspend enforcement of the law. The law affects ``thousands'' of students, the ACLU said, without being more specific.

The author of the law, Representative Mark Souder, a Republican of Indiana, said U.S. taxpayers shouldn't subsidize students ``who are frittering away their educations by dealing or using drugs.''

``If students want to pay for their educations themselves and use drugs while doing so, that's one thing,'' Souder said in a written response to a request for comment. ``If they expect to receive taxpayer funds while using drugs, that's something else.''

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson said the law is part of a misguided policy that emphasizes punishment over treatment. The approach produces more violence and drives addicts to lower- cost, dangerous narcotics like methamphetamines, he said.

What Is Dangerous?

``There needs to be an understanding of what is dangerous regarding these drugs, and what is dangerous nine out of 10 times has to do with prohibition,'' Johnson said in an interview. A Republican, he is on the board of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a Washington-based advocacy group and one of the plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit.

Selken, who has a grade-point average better than 3.0, pleaded guilty in October 2005 to a misdemeanor possession charge after police found a ``small amount'' of marijuana in a house he shared with two other students, the ACLU said in its complaint.

He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, with 57 days suspended on condition of treatment, and fined $250 plus $147 in lab costs, Selken said. He was required to attend a drug-treatment course.

The law allows students to resume receiving financial aid if they attend a treatment program that includes two random drug tests. Selken said his court-ordered punishment didn't require the random tests, and he now must pay $2,600 to re-take the course with the random tests, to keep his student loan.

Tuition

Tuition at Northern State University costs about $1,500 a semester, most of which Selken covered with federal aid, supplemented by his job as a restaurant waiter. Losing that aid will delay his plans to become a teacher or a lawyer, he said.

The treatment exemption is of little value to many students, said Wolf, the ACLU's lead attorney in the case.

``Many of them can't even get into such a program because the waiting lists are so long,'' Wolf said.

The law was applied by the Department of Education to cover students with prior convictions. Under that policy, the law affected 35,000 students, Wolf said. Congress last month revised the law, saying it applies only to convictions occurring while the student is in school.

The case is Students For Sensible Drug Policy Foundation v. Spellings, CIV. 06-3007, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of South Dakota.

ACLU Defends Blogger’s Right to Parody “Ex-Gay” Group (3/22/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

SAN FRANCISCO – Citing First Amendment protection for parodies, the American Civil Liberties Union today came to the defense of a California man who received a cease-and-desist letter after posting a parody of a billboard advertisement for so-called “reparative therapy” on his website.

“The moment I saw the billboards last September, I was deeply offended. The inspiration for the parody I created came to me instantly. How would straight people feel if their very being, their sense of self was being so overtly disparaged?” said Justin Watt, a blogger from Santa Rosa, California. “Their response was to try to intimidate me into taking the image down. It’s troubling that an organization as big as Exodus would go to such great lengths to silence its critics.”

The billboard, sponsored by “ex-gay” ministry Exodus International, read, “Gay? Unhappy? www.exodus.to.”  After seeing a photo of the billboards online, Watt posted an altered version reading, “Straight? Unhappy? www.gay.com” on his website, Justinsomnia.org.  Liberty Counsel, an anti-gay legal group representing Exodus, sent Watt a cease-and-desist letter earlier this month claiming the parody violated Exodus’s intellectual property rights and threatening legal action if the parodies were not removed.  In a response sent today to Liberty Counsel, the ACLU’s cooperating attorney, Laurence Pulgram of Fenwick & West, LLP, called upon Exodus to drop its attempts to censor Watt, pointing to case law holding parodies to be Constitutionally protected speech.

“Parodies like Justin’s are protected by the First Amendment as a form of political commentary.  His point was to make a comment on a very important issue he has strongly held beliefs about: that Exodus’s tactics are wrong, that there’s nothing wrong with being gay, and that being gay doesn’t make you unhappy,” said Ann Brick, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “Just as a group like Exodus has a Constitutionally protected right to say whatever it wants to about gay people, even when that view has been roundly condemned by every major psychological and medical organization, Justin has a right to use parody to voice his opposition.”

The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association and other mainstream mental health and medical groups have denounced reparative therapy, stating that there is no evidence that reparative therapy is successful and that the practice may in fact be harmful to those who undergo it.

“Justin’s use of Exodus’s own image to criticize its message is exactly the sort of speech the Constitution protects,” said Pulgram, who heads the copyright litigation group at Fenwick & West.  “The law protects people like Justin from groups like Exodus that try to use copyright as a method of bullying their critics into abandoning their First Amendment right to express their opinions through parody.”

Watt is represented by Brick, Pulgram, and Tamara Lange of the ACLU’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Project.

Additional information about the case, including an image of Watt’s billboard parody, the ACLU letter responding to Liberty Counsel’s cease and desist letter, and statements from mainstream mental health and medical organizations about reparative therapy, is available at  www.aclu.org/caseprofiles

Ex-gay group targets blogger with cease and desist; ACLU intervenes

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 22, 2006

Print This | Email This

A man who posted a parody of an ad promoting "ex-gay" program Exodus International has been served with a cease-and-desist, RAW STORY has learned. The ACLU plans to intervene on the man's behalf.

Justin Watt, a blogger from Santa Rosa, CA, says he was "deeply offended" by an Exodus billboard that read, "Gay? Unhappy? www.exodus.to." The ministry believes that it can cure people of homosexuality, thus giving them a happier life. Watt digitally altered an image of the billboard on his website (Justinsomnia.org) to read, "Straight? Unhappy? www.gay.com."

Attorneys representing Exodus sent Watt a cease-and-desist letter earlier this month, claiming he had violated their intellectual property rights. The group threatened legal action if the parodies were not removed. At that point, the American Civil Liberties Union was called to intervene.

Ann Brick, an attorney with the ACLU, says that Watt's parody is protected First Amendment speech. "His point was to make a comment on a very important issue he has strongly held beliefs about: that Exodus's tactics are wrong, that there's nothing wrong with being gay, and that being gay doesn't make you unhappy."

No mainstream medical or psychiatric group believes that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.

ACLU irked by Fresno police proposal to double cameras

By Denny Boyles / The Fresno Bee

(Updated Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 6:38 AM)

The Fresno police and the American Civil Liberties Union agree on only one thing about a proposal to increase the number of surveillance cameras in town.

Cameras, both sides say, are not silver bullets that eliminate crime.

From there, the debate goes downhill in a hurry.

Fresno police Capt. Al Maroney calls the proposed cameras a valuable policing tool, and says they will improve safety for both the public and law enforcement.

Mark Schlosberg, a staff attorney for the ACLU in San Francisco, said the cameras won't stop crime, and instead would represent a "wrong-headed" approach that would further erode privacy rights.

Tuesday, Maroney outlined a proposal that would more than double the number of surveillance cameras in place at intersections, public buildings and in commercial businesses.

Maroney estimates there are 121 cameras in place on public property citywide. More than 20 monitor traffic operations, 33 are in place at waste-water facilities, and dozens of others are mounted on the corners of buildings such as the courthouse, the jail and the Santa Fe Depot.

Maroney said those cameras could be linked to cameras at private businesses and images could be sent through the Internet to dispatchers, giving police a quick view inside and outside businesses during and after crimes.

To explain the idea, Maroney offered this scenario:

A liquor store owner triggers a silent alarm, alerting police that a robbery is taking place. When the call comes in, a dispatcher sees a special icon on his or her computer screen that a camera is in place at the business.

With one click of a mouse button, the police are watching the robbery live. Another click, and cameras mounted on poles at nearby intersections pan around so police can see outside the building as well.

 As the images are recorded for prosecutors to use later, dispatchers give responding officers a description of the suspects, and warn them whether weapons are visible or suspects are trying to hide.

Police call the idea e-VIEW, or electronic Video Incident Enforcement Watch.

"Down the road, we could have several hundred cameras around town," Maroney said. "Some would be owned by the city, others would be privately owned but linked to our system. They wouldn't be monitored all the time, but they would be there when we needed them."

To Schlosberg, the idea is one step closer to what he called the surveillance society.

"These type of Big Brother surveillance programs, where you put cameras over large areas of the city, are ineffective in reducing crime and jeopardize our precious privacy rights. And once those privacy rights are lost, they will not be regained," Schlosberg said.

Schlosberg said he has read numerous studies that show video surveillance does not permanently reduce crime, even when used in massive numbers.

"London is the most covered city in the world in terms of police cameras, and it hasn't reduced crime there. All cameras do is drive the crime to a different area," Schlosberg said.

Fresno doesn't have to look as far as London to see an example of video cameras assisting police. The Clovis Police Department has had a smaller-scale system operating for several years.

Capt. Bob Keyes said the Clovis system has grown steadily since the first cameras were installed at Clovis and Herndon avenues. But, he said, Clovis does not use the system to replace officers.

"Our system has been grant-funded all along, and it has grown as new partners have contacted us," Keyes said.

Clovis has more than 100 cameras on its system, with the majority set to monitor city property, including police headquarters, common areas of the city jail, and other infrastructure.

Cameras are also located at numerous intersections, on water towers downtown and at Letterman Park, and along the city trails.

Keyes said those cameras are accessible at every desktop computer in the police department, as well as on laptops in patrol cars, and in a more limited way at other city agencies. Public Works, for example, has access to fixed cameras on waste water treatment facilities.

"Our system is event-driven. No one is assigned to watch any of the cameras, and there shouldn't be an expectation on the public's part that someone is watching a camera at any given time," Keyes said.

Keyes has video clips that show how the system helps police officers both during and after crimes.

One video clip from Letterman Park showed a group of teenagers breaking into a storage facility. Dispatchers were called about the break-in and zoomed in a camera before a patrol car arrived. The second clip showed a break-in at the 500 Club in downtown Clovis.

Keyes said one of the most significant parts of the Clovis system is what the cameras won't show.

In downtown, for example, two cameras can "see" the Clovis Cole Hotel. In both cases the camera are set so the windows of the hotel are pixelated. When the camera operator tries to zoom in, a large gray block covers the windows.

"We've done that same thing when a camera can see a residence, in order to protect privacy," Keyes said. "We don't want the cameras able to see anything we shouldn't see."

Brad Stevens, a member of the Tenaya Park neighborhood association, said he and his neighbors want something to drive crime away from them. The group is considering having Fresno police install a camera at their park.

Stevens said he and his neighbors invested $90,000 in the park last year, only to see vandals come in and damage equipment and tag walls with graffiti.

"We at least want the police to come out and explain their proposal to us," Stevens said. "It seems like an opportunity to improve the safety of our park, and also form a nice partnership with the police. But we want to know more before making a choice."

Maroney said there is no rush to get the system up and running.

"We want to take our time," Maroney said. "We don't want to do a good idea in a poor way. We want to get things started as soon as it is practical, but the chief wants it done correctly instead of quickly."

Court rules Mpls ‘photo cop’ ordinance illegal
By: Jeremy O’Kasick
Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder
Originally posted 3/22/2006

Ruling scene as victory against encroachment on rights

News Analysis

“We are very pleased with the decision,” said Teresa Nelson, legal counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN), about the ruling last week by Hennepin County District Court Judge Mark Wernick declaring illegal a Minneapolis ordinance supporting the city’s “photo cop” program.

The suit, bought by the ACLU-MN on behalf of Daniel Kuhlman, challenged the controversial ordinance, which provided the legal basis for establishing a system of traffic-law enforcement that permitted the use of cameras placed on light posts at intersections to catch alleged traffic violations. According to Kuhlman and the ACLU-MN, the ordinance abrogated the presumption of innocence and violated due process.

“This ordinance presumes that the owner of a vehicle that is photographed is guilty and then puts the burden on the owner to prove that he or she was not the driver,” said ACLU-MN Executive Director Chuck Samuelson. “It turns the notion of due process on its head.”

In a statement released last week, the City said that it was disappointed in the decision and was considering whether to appeal the ruling. The cameras were turned off on March 15 pending the city’s decision on challenging the court opinion.

Over 26,000 people have been issued citations under the photo cop ordinance, which carried a $142 fine.


Program has ‘Big Brother feel to it’

While the ACLU-MN’s challenge to the law rested on a legal assertion of the priority of Fourth Amendment rights, many in the community who oppose the program do so on the basis that the law and the program erected around the law are part of a broader campaign by the government to restrict democratic rights and the rights of working people.

In particular, many have objected to the idea advanced by City officials and police that setting up video surveillance on street corners as a way to catch red-light runners is in the interest of working and oppressed people.

“They take advantage of everything that happens to generate fear and concern and pass legislation to take away our rights,” said community activist Brock Satter, who also has been a vocal opponent of police brutality.

“It does have kind of a Big Brother feel to it, which may be the reason why a law permitting this kind of ordinance has not passed at the legislature,” said Nelson, referring to the fact pointed out in Judge Wernick’s ruling that a state law decriminalizing red-light violations would have to be enacted in order for the photo cop ordinance to be lawful.

The photo cop program is like many such programs set up around the country and in other nations. These measures range from special ID cards for immigrants; to workplace surveillance programs; to security controls at airports, to courthouses, and office buildings; to curtailment of the right of habeas corpus; and even to fifth and fourth amendment rights of the accused.

Government officials promote these measures as minor intrusions into the public’s privacy required of everyone to insure a better quality of life, or to protect the public from crime or terrorism.

Peter Erlinder, professor of constitutional law at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, disagrees with these justifications. He explained that these measures have nothing to do with protecting the quality of life, or fighting crime or terrorism, but are rather rationalizations aimed at gaining popular support for restricting working people’s rights, especially the right to organize against injustice.

“I’m sure most people don’t understand this,” said Erlinder in an interview with the Spokesman-Recorder. “Most people who go for these types of laws believe that they will use them against somebody else. That’s an illusion. There is no wall that separates the use of these laws against someone else and from their use against you and me,” he explained.

Erlinder pointed to the example of Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen who was held under provisions of the Patriot Act by the government for several years without charges and without access to an attorney as an enemy combatant. The law itself, as well as the specific provisions under which Padilla was held, was initially justified as a way to apprehend “foreign terrorists.”

“Yet,” explained Erlinder “the first person arrested under the provision was a U.S. citizen.”

In the United Kingdom, where video surveillance operations like the photo cop program have been in effect for a longer period of time, there are over four million cameras in operation over the space of the entire country, according to a January 16 article in the London Times. This “gives the UK a quarter of the world’s cameras to photograph one per cent of the world’s population,” said the article.

In an article in The Financial Times, reporter Sarah Duguid described how one camera operator spied on three young men. “He zooms in on three young men wearing baseball caps,” wrote Duguid. “He gets so close to them that I can read the brand of their mobile phone. ‘Theoretically,’ explained the operator, ‘I could read a text message from here.’”

According to the London daily newspaper Telegraph, officials of the Camden Council in North London put small cameras in flowerpots, light fixtures, and fake electricity boxes to keep track of residents. Municipal officials have cited fighting crime and “anti-social behavior” as justifications for the measures. However, camera operators at one control center in Liverpool were reportedly caught watching a woman undress in her home.


Some fines to be refunded

About 7,000 people who have received tickets will be sent letters by the court. Those letters will explain that they should hold off on paying the fine or taking other action pending a decision by the city on whether to appeal, according to Hennepin County District Court Chief Judge Lucy Wieland, as reported in the Star Tribune.

According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Judge Wieland said that the court would consider requests for rebates from drivers who paid the fines under the program.

Nevada parole chief disputes critical report
March 22, 2006, 08:07 AM

The head of Nevada's Parole Board says a prison system report that criticized her panel's efforts -- a report written by a previous director and rejected by the new state prisons chief -- is -- "filled with lies."

Parole Board Chairwoman Dorla Salling sought to dismiss the internal report developed during the tenure of former state prisons director Jackie Crawford. But it was defended by several speakers from Redress Incorporated, a group critical of what it describes as a badly flawed criminal justice system.

The Nevada chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union also expressed concern about the system, noting that the state's parole rate is far below the national average.

The ACLU also said the internal report, while controversial, contains a lot of useful data.

A legislative study panel heard the testimony and will weigh it in coming up with recommended changes on prison sentence, parole and pardons.

Those suggestions will go to the 2007 Legislature.

Attorney announces run for Alabama Supreme Court

OPELIKA - A conservative Alabama attorney announced Tuesday he will run for a spot on the Alabama Supreme Court.

Ben Hand, who represents Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker in a lawsuit filed against him by the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement that Alabama residents deserve conservative justices on the bench. Currently, all of the justices are Republican.

He also said it was unacceptable for three justices to side with the ACLU to remove the Ten Commandments Monument from the Judicial Building a few years ago.

Hand, a prosecutor for the city of Opelika and a municipal judge for the city of Wedowee, said it’s “a terrible shame that the ACLU attack a judge (Parker) who defends women and children against vicious thugs.”

Parker was critical of fellow justices for following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that makes it unconstitutional to execute a minor.

Lawsuit Targets 'Onerous' Student Speech Codes at Georgia Tech

By Jim Brown
March 22, 2006

(AgapePress) - A federal civil rights lawsuit accuses the Georgia Institute of Technology of censoring the speech of religious and conservative students by enforcing "draconian" speech codes. The suit claims students at the school "are less free to speak and express themselves at the Institute than they are in downtown Atlanta."

The Alliance Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a speech code at Georgia Tech that prohibits "acts of intolerance." ADF senior legal counsel David French says on one hand, Georgia Tech bans students from saying anything that would be subjectively deemed "intolerant" -- and on the other hand withholds lawful funding to religious student groups.

In the meantime, French alleges, the school is engaging in explicit religious instruction on the issue of homosexual behavior through a training program called "Safe Space."

"Georgia Tech has put together a training program that teaches students, administrators, and employees of Georgia Tech ... that those who believe that homosexual behavior is unbiblical can and should be compared to those who used the Bible to justify slavery," the attorney explains.

The online training manual found at Safe Space states: "Many religious traditions have taught, and some continue to teach, that homosexuality is immoral. These condemnations are based primarily on a few isolated passages from the Bible. Historically, biblical passages taken out of context have been used to justify such things as slavery, the inferior status of women, and the persecution of religious minorities."

French says he finds it curious the American Civil Liberties Union has not weighed in on the matter, given the group's penchant for voicing concern over the so-called separation of church and state. Georgia Tech, he believes, is "clearly overstepping" its bounds in interpreting religious texts and then "pushing it own view upon a religiously diverse community on campus."

French, who heads up the ADF's Center for Academic Freedom, says the school also withholds lawful funding to religious student groups.

"Our clients ... have been trying to change the climate at Georgia Tech literally for years," says the ADF spokesman. "And for their trouble they've had their speech censored, they've had their protests shut down by campus police -- and most recently they had university officials warn them away from speaking any further along the lines that they were wanting to speak."

The two plaintiffs -- Orit Sklar and Ruth Malhotra -- are members of the group College Republicans at Georgia Tech. They claim their ability to dialogue on "matters of political, cultural, and religious importance" is restricted by the school's speech code and intolerance of dissenting students.

ADF filed Sklar v. Clough [PDF] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against enforcement of the speech code, a declaration that the speech code is unconstitutional, as well as damages and attorneys' fees.

Dangerous Bill Advancing in State Legislature
HB 1233 SD1 Would Legally Redefine "Sex" from its Traditional Meaning of "Male or Female" to Mean Whatever Any Individual Wants it to Mean
By Garret T. Hashimoto, 3/22/2006 1:11:09 AM

A very dangerous bill is advancing in the state Legislature and will become the law of the land unless Hawaii's citizens speak up right now. So far only one individual has made the effort to testify against this bill.

On the other hand, testifying in support of this bill have been the American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.); Lambda Aloha; The Center; Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii; Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P.F.L.A.G.)˜Oahu; Civil Unions-Civil Rights Movement; Community Alliance on Prisons; Democratic Party of Kauai; Gay and Lesbian Education and Advocacy Foundation; and Ohana Metropolitan Community Church of Honolulu.

Sounds harmless enough? Read on.

House Bill 1233 Senate Draft 1 would legally redefine "sex" from its traditional meaning of "male or female" to mean whatever any individual wants it to mean "regardless of whether [it] is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth."

The bill purports to make it illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation based on "sexual orientation" and/or "sex, including gender identity or expression." The phrase "sex, including gender identity or expression" would be a fundamental redefinition of law because it would mean the definition of "sex", i.e., male or female, would be expanded to include "gender identity or expression."

What is "gender identity or expression"? Here's how HB1233 SD1 defines that phrase: "Gender identity or expression‚ includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person‚s sex at birth."

This is not to be confused with "sexual orientation" which is already defined by law as "having a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, having a history of any one or more of these preferences, or being identified with any one or more of these preferences."

One of the "pioneers" in extending legal protections based on "gender identity or expression" has been the City of San Francisco which "prohibits intentional and deliberate misuse of appropriate forms of address and/or pronouns, and/or denial of access to bathroom/restroom that is consistent with and appropriate to the customer‚s or client‚s gender identity."

Furthermore, San Francisco law explicitly deals with public accommodations with showers: "In sex-specific facilities, where nudity in the presence of other people is unavoidable, agencies, businesses, organizations, City contractors, and City departments shall make reasonable accommodations to allow an individual access and use of the facility that is consistent with that individual's gender identity which is publicly and exclusively asserted.

Taking into consideration Hawaii's definition of places of public accommodation, this would include such places as showers at public parks and campsites (Ala Moana, Waikiki, Malaekahana, etc.); shower facilities at public swimming pools; spas and health clubs in hotels, resorts, and in the community. In addition, restrooms in all public accommodations would no longer be "male" or "female" but would be open to anyone regardless of the sex they were born with because under the "gender identity or expression" law you can choose to be whatever you want, whenever you want.

In summary, if the practical application of the law is to be modeled on the San Francisco model - as appears to be the goal of at least some in Hawaii's LGBTIQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer and Questioning) community - the State of Hawaii is destined for major upheaval.

If language stating that "sex" includes "gender identity or expression" becomes codified in law - and subsequently extended throughout Hawaii's statutes - the "unintended consequences" could be far-reaching.

Ban on Viagra urged for predators
Lawmakers want to make gotcha143 drugs off-limits for sexual predators.
BY JENNIFER MOONEY PIEDRA
jmooney@MiamiHerald.com

TALLAHASSEE - Florida lawmakers want to ban the state's most egregious sexual predators from using gotcha143 drugs.

Under the proposal, sexual predators would face criminal charges if caught using or possessing drugs such as Viagra, Cialis and Levitra.

State Sen. Carey Baker, a Eustis Republican, said the ban would help deter crime and punish predators, just like existing Florida laws that restrict gun ownership and voting by felons after they serve their time.

''It's like giving alcohol to an alcoholic,'' said Baker, who filed the Senate version of the bill. ``If this helps reduce one crime, then it's worth it.''

The measure, which will be voted on today in Senate and House committees, was the brainchild of state Rep. Aaron Bean, a Fernandina Beach Republican who is sponsoring the House version.

It stems from a move by Florida lawmakers last year to ban Medicaid recipients from receiving state-paid Viagra, regardless of whether they are sexual offenders.

PHARMACISTS WORRIED

But the new push is causing concern among pharmacists, who don't want to be responsible for having to conduct sexual-predator checks on all customers seeking to fill prescriptions for gotcha143 drugs.

That task, they say, should be left to physicians who prescribe the medicine.

''If any checking needs to be done, it needs to be at the point the order is initiated -- not when the order is executed,'' said Michael Jackson, executive vice president of the Florida Pharmacy Association.

He said his agency is working with legislators to resolve some of its issues.

''We understand the needs and desires of this legislation and what it's trying to do,'' he said. ``But we're not so sure that placing pharmacists in control is something that will work.''

Baker said he understands the concerns of the pharmacists and will make sure they aren't burdened with any extra government mandates.

He said he eventually would like to see an easy-to-check database that would keep pharmacists alert to the status of a sexual predator.

If the proposal becomes law, convicted sexual predators found with the drugs will be charged with a second-degree misdemeanor -- punishable by a maximum 60-day jail term and a $500 fine.

Repeat offenders would be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor, which means as much as a year in jail and a fine up to $1,000.

ONLY PREDATORS

Baker said the bills would affect only sexual predators -- those who prey on children or commit violent sex acts -- and not the broader category of sexual offenders, which can include 18-year-olds who happened to get caught up in a relationship with under-age partners.

But critics say the measure will not prevent sexual predators from striking again.

''I don't think it will have any effect on protecting children,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. ''It's sadly more about politics.''

 State, ACLU settlement will cost $700,000


A settlement reached by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and the state Children, Youth and Families Department over conditions within the juvenile justice system will cost the state more than $700,000.

The two sides signed an agreement last month that requires security improvements, increased mental health programs and rehabilitation services in juvenile detention facilities across the state, among other things.

Also under the agreement, the ACLU promised not to pursue litigation as long as CYFD makes a good faith effort to implement changes.

The money part of the settlement includes $220,000 for the six months that ACLU attorneys spent preparing their lawsuit and $400,000 for the attorneys to monitor CYFD's compliance over the next four years.

Another $85,000 was paid to six former residents of the New Mexico Boys School in Springer and one former female resident at an Albuquerque juvenile jail as compensation for physical injuries received from guards and other inmates and for insufficient medical and mental health care.

Attorney and former juvenile jail superintendent Justin Pennington said paying the ACLU to hold CYFD accountable is "nonsense" because the organization is not in a position to enforce the settlement agreement.

"The better course would have been to file the case and have it enforced by the court," he said.

Peter Simonson, the organization's executive director, said the ACLU is in a better position to monitor CYFD because of its expertise.

As for the teens who were compensated, ALCU attorney Peter Cubra said seven will receive about $12,000 each because of civil rights violations while in juvenile jails. One teen suffered a broken arm at the hands of a guard and another wasn't treated for hepatitis, Cubra said.

Outgoing CYFD Secretary Mary-Dale Bolson said the payments were not an admission that any harm was done but a response to "large-scale threatened litigation."

State government bans disputed abstinence program
March 22,2006
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - The Rhode Island Department of Education has banned from public schools a privately run abstinence program that critics say violates students' constitutional rights.

Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union say Heritage of Rhode Island offered a curriculum that embraced sexist sterotypes, broke state privacy laws and showed students a videotape with religious references.

The nonprofit pro-abstinence group provides health education programs.

The A-C-L-U complained about the program to Education Commission Peter McWalters, who decided to ban the program last week.

The program's sponsor says it received federal funding, but its curriculum was not approved by the state.

State education officials say they will now review the H-I-V and AIDS curriclums of all
public schools.

 Westmoreland faces civil action


By FRANK DELANO

A civil-liberties group and a state agency have raised possibilities of legal action against Westmoreland County for failing to provide handicapped access to public buildings.

In a letter sent Monday, an attorney for the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy charged that the county had not complied with all terms of a 2003 settlement agreement to provide handicapped access to the George D. English Sr. Memorial Office Building in Montross.

"It is my hope we can bring this matter to a swift conclusion without the need for litigation," wrote VOPA Managing Attorney Jonathan G. Martinis. "After three years, Westmoreland County owes its citizens with disabilities nothing less."

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia notified the county that it intends to file a lawsuit under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act unless the county promptly provides handicapped access to the offices of the Circuit Court clerk.

"The Americans with Disabilities Act is 16 years old now, and we're still fighting for basic compliance," said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU.

He said the old courthouse containing the clerk's office is "no ordinary building, and this is not a symbolic act on our part."

"This is about access to the clerk of the court, a person who is visited by thousands of people each year who need to conduct business in Westmoreland County," he said.

County Administrator Norm Risavi said that a team composed of a professional engineer, a building inspector and the county's maintenance supervisor inspected all county buildings yesterday for ADA compliance.

Risavi said he hoped to have a plan and a budget for ADA projects ready for approval by the Board of Supervisors at its April 10 meeting. A supplemental appropriation by the supervisors may be necessary to fund the work, he said.

Risavi would not estimate when the various ramps, curb cuts, bathroom renovations and signage would be installed.

He said some of the work could be done by county staff, but other jobs would be put out for bids under the county Procurement and Contract Administration Policy.

But last year, Risavi waived bid requirements for renovating the old courthouse's second floor as an office for Circuit Court Judge George Mason III.

"I have determined that competitive sealed bidding would not be practicable or fiscally advantageous to the county," Risavi wrote in a finding on the judge's office. "Competitive negotiations would better serve the county."

Last year, the judge's office was expected to cost $100,000. Now, Risavi said it will cost $140,000.

A story in the March 15 Free Lance-Star attracted the attention of both the ACLU and VOPA, Willis and Martinis said. The story described Mason's expensive office and problems of handicapped accessibility at it and other county buildings

"This is almost hard to believe," said Willis.

"It's bad enough to flaunt the law by ignoring the rights of disabled persons, but it is an outright affront to human decency to spend more than $100,000 to renovate a building without adding something as simple and inexpensive as ramps that rise 3 feet."

In a March 17 letter to Gayle Harding, a wheelchair-bound resident of Coles Point, Martinis said he had sent a VOPA paralegal to survey the English Building and the old courthouse 200 yards away.

Harding complained to the county and VOPA in 2000 about accessibility problems at the English Building. In April 2003, the county finally agreed to fix them.

Martinis gave the county five days to notify VOPA "how Westmoreland County will rectify these violations of state and federal law."

Rebecca K. Glenberg, legal director of the Virginia ACLU, told the county to present its plan by March 28 to remedy the violations "or face legal action." She also requested copies of county records pertaining to both buildings and their accessibility.

Harding was injured in an automobile accident when she was 19.

Now 50, she has served as chairwoman of the Northern Neck Disability Services Board.

"I hope this goes somewhere," she said of the ACLU's and VOPA's prodding of the county.

"But it's not just Westmoreland County. It's not just those buildings. It's the mind-set of people that's got to change. People need to understand what it's like to roll a mile in my wheelchair."

Report faults cops' undercover activity
DISPUTE OVER MONITORING `PEOPLE'S PARADE'
By Ken McLaughlin
Mercury News

Santa Cruz police ``more than likely'' violated the civil rights of organizers of a zany New Year's Eve parade by using undercover officers to monitor their planning meetings, the city's police auditor says.

The auditor, Palo Alto attorney Robert Aaronson, concludes in a 34-page report that police were too quick to send two undercover cops, posing as surfer dudes, to infiltrate three meetings over a two-month period in late 2005.

``Less intrusive alternatives were available, but none were tried,'' Aaronson wrote.

One such option suggested by Aaronson: telephoning parade planners to see what they were up to.

The controversy began after the city decided it could no longer afford to pay for First Night Santa Cruz, an alcohol-free New Year's Eve celebration that for years kept the downtown safe for families. So a small group of artists vowed to stage a ``do-it-yourself'' parade instead -- with no official organizers or parade permits.

The group billed the event as a ``people's parade,'' Santa Cruz-style. But police -- worried about other downtown events that had turned violent -- smelled anarchy.

Police brass have called the dust-up a tempest in a teapot, arguing that officers had a responsibility to investigate the group -- Last Night DIY -- to ensure its permitless parade came off peacefully.

But Santa Cruz activists, with support from the American Civil Liberties Union, have accused the department of needlessly spying on a community group. They have called it part of a chilling, post-Sept. 11 pattern.

Police Chief Howard Skerry said Wednesday that he respected Aaronson's role in the process.

``The public's trust is very important to me,'' he said. ``You have to respect individual rights. . . . I'm not sure where we go from here, but it's important for people to know that a decision was made early on to make this process as open as possible.''

Skerry said he was happy that Aaronson acknowledged that legal precedents outlining when it's OK to infiltrate community groups were not completely clear -- and that ``there were no credible allegations of misconduct by any city employee.''

When he became aware of the DIY group in late October, Deputy Police Chief Kevin Vogel said in his own report, he checked out its Web site (www.lastnight diy.org) and perceived a ``tone of defiance'' toward the city's requirement for obtaining a special-event permit. Vogel suggested the undercover operation, saying the department needed to come up with a plan for policing the parade.

When Vogel's report on the operation was released last month, Aaronson called it ``incomplete and flawed'' because Vogel was investigating an operation that he had himself authorized.

Wes Modes, one of the parade planners, said his group felt vindicated by Aaronson's report.

``It's what we've been saying all along,'' said Modes, an artist and a carpenter from Felton. ``He just shatters a lot of the arguments police have made.''

Mark Schlosberg, police practices policy director at the ACLU of Northern California, said Aaronson's report highlights the need for clearly written police policies on the monitoring of community groups.

``It's not just a problem in Santa Cruz,'' he said, noting that only San Francisco seems to have a clear policy.

Abortion rules challenged
Teens who want to avoid telling their parents about an abortion would have new requirements to face under a House bill.


Accusing pregnant teens of ''judge-shopping'' when they go to court to avoid having to talk to their parents about an abortion, a House committee Wednesday passed a measure to tighten rules for girls who seek the court bypass.

The House Civil Justice Committee voted 4-3 to pass a proposal by Rep. John Stargel, a Lakeland Republican, that will change a law legislators enacted last year that set the rules for the parental-notification amendment passed by voters in 2004.

Under the current law, the parents of underage girls who seek an abortion must be notified, unless the girl petitions a court and receives a waiver to avoid the requirement. Judges are now given 48 hours to decide whether the teen is mature enough or has a valid reason to avoid telling her parents. Teens may go to any judge within one of the five district courts of appeal regions in the state.

Stargel's bill would lengthen the time a judge has to rule to five days, require teens to petition to courts closer to home, and add a requirement that doctors notify parents if a judge allows for an abortion because of a medical emergency.

The bill also requires judges to consider a host of additional factors before approving a waiver, such as the teen's ''emotional stability, credibility and demeanor as a witness,'' her ability to accept responsibility and whether she can ''explain the medical consequence of the abortion.'' The court would have to decide if ''there has been any undue influence'' by another person on the minor's decision.

''What's happening here is that certain groups know which judges are going to get the opinion in certain courts and they're getting a rubber stamp,'' Stargel said.

He said his information is based on anecdotal information and conversations with judges around the state.

There is no similar Senate proposal. Stargel's bill would have to be passed by both chambers to become law.

Lobbyists for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Florida chapter of Planned Parenthood warned that the additional restrictions would interfere with the waiver process required in the state Constitution and likely be thrown out by the courts.

Larry Spalding, legislative counsel for the ACLU, told the committee that his organization chose not to challenge the notification law passed last year because, even though it opposed it, members believed the law was ``well-crafted.''

''If this bill is enacted, I would have no hesitation to recommend a challenge,'' he said.

He said that since the goal of the 2004 amendment was ''to get minors to talk to parents'' the numbers show the effort ''has been successful.'' The numbers of teens seeking the judicial bypass, he said, are ``fairly small.''

Stephanie Grutman, director of Planned Parenthood of Florida, denied Stargel's claim that teens are judge-shopping.

She said that of the nearly 50,000 teenage abortions in Florida last year, only 201 underage girls sought out the courts to get an abortion without telling their parents, and only 184 were approved.

She said the courts that have had the greatest number of judicial waivers approved -- such as 30 in Miami-Dade County, 62 in Palm Beach County, 56 in Orange County -- were in areas nearest to abortion clinics.

No waivers have been granted in Monroe County and only 14 in Broward County, which has fewer clinics.

Three members of the committee also expressed concern about the direction of the bill and voted against it.

Voter ID coalition will sue Brewer
Law's application too rigid for group


A coalition of advocacy groups plans to sue Secretary of State Jan Brewer over the state's new voter identification requirements, claiming her rigid application of the law could prevent some out-of-state Arizonans, such as military members or college students, from registering in their home state.

Brewer dismissed the legal threat Wednesday as little more than politics and vowed not to back down from the challenge.

The latest confrontation is part of the continuing legacy of Proposition 200, a ballot measure approved by Arizona voters in 2004. The measure imposed new proof-of-citizenship requirements on registrants and strict voter ID rules at the polls.
advertisement    


This dispute centers on whether Arizona voters who register using a nationwide federal voter registration form also must produce the proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or valid Arizona driver's license, demanded by state law. Federal law requires registrants using the federal form only to sign the document after checking boxes attesting to their citizenship and age.

It is unclear how many Arizona voters actually register using the federal form. Brewer estimated that fewer than 5 percent do so. In Maricopa County, about 1 percent of voters in the past general election registered using the federal form.

The form is recognized nationwide. Residents who are out of state temporarily sometimes use it to register by mail. Local advocacy groups also hand out the form periodically in voter registration drives.

Deputy Secretary of State Kevin Tyne said the form generally is not used by military members overseas, who are provided registration and voting materials under a Department of Defense program. The department has agreed to follow Arizona's registration requirements for service members voting by mail in this state.

The dispute over how much proof of citizenship is required with the federal form prompted a recent exchange of testy letters between Brewer and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which oversees its use under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The commission told Brewer in a March 6 letter that it was against federal law for Brewer to require additional proof of citizenship from any registrant who properly filled out and signed the federal form.

Jonah Goldman, director of the National Campaign for Fair Elections, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the intent of the so-called federal motor-voter law was to streamline the registration process and encourage participation.

"Motor-voter was really designed to make it as easy as possible for voters to get on the voter registration lists," he said.

Thomas R. Wilkey, the federal commission's executive director, wrote to Brewer that the state "may not refuse to register individuals to vote in a federal election for failing to provide supplemental proof of citizenship" if they have otherwise properly filled out the federal form.

In a reply last week, Brewer said that she intended to ignore Wilkey's opinion, calling it "incorrect" and noting that more than 1 million Arizona voters imposed the requirements for proof of citizenship.

"After consulting with the Arizona attorney general, I will instruct Arizona's county recorders to continue to administer and enforce the requirement that all voters provide evidence of citizenship when registering to vote," Brewer wrote.

On Wednesday, a coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, the Arizona Advocacy Network, People for the American Way Foundation, the League of United Latin American Citizens and Goldman's group formally notified Brewer that it intends to sue in federal court.

The notice is required under the 1993 voting law and gives Brewer 90 days to relent. Brewer made it clear Wednesday that she would not back down. She noted that the Department of Justice approved the state's new registration requirements last year.

"The law is the law, and states have rights," she said, accusing the litigants of being Proposition 200 foes who "are doing everything they can to thwart the will of the people."

But Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, said they are trying to prevent voters from being disenfranchised. She said Brewer's requirement would make it hard for out-of-state Arizonans to register because they often do not have access to a birth certificate, valid Arizona driver's license or other form of citizenship proof.

"Our preference is that she (Brewer) follow the spirit and intent of the National Voter Registration Act, which requires her to accept the federal form as is," Brown said.

1999 letter talked of morality, not crowding, in Black Jack housing ordinance


Black gotcha30icials have insisted that its city ordinance defining what kind of family can live within its limits has nothing to do with morality, but a letter written by its mayor in a similar case years ago suggests otherwise.

Black Jack law forbids more than three people from living together unless they’re related by "blood, marriage or adoption."

On that basis, the city denied an occupancy permit to Olivia Shelltrack and her fiancé, Fondray Loving. In January, the couple moved into their five-bedroom home with their three children. But city officials have repeatedly ruled that the household fails to meet Black Jack’s definition of family.

Mayor Norman McCourt has insisted the city ordinance used to reject the couple’s permit request is intended to prevent overcrowding and has nothing to do with marital status.


But in a November 1999 letter he wrote regarding a similar but unrelated case involving the unwed parents of triplets, McCourt makes specific comments about the city’s "morals and standards."

"Most of the circumstances are of their own making," McCourt wrote of the couple, who had challenged the rejection of their occupancy permit. "The easiest resolution to cure the situation would be for them to be married. Our community believes that this is the appropriate way to raise a family."

The letter is addressed to the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, which defended the couple in municipal court.

"While it would be naive to say that we don’t recognize that children are born (out) of wedlock frequently these days, we certainly don’t believe that is the type of environment within which children should be brought into this world," McCourt wrote. "I believe the City has acted appropriately in keeping with the law, consistent with our community’s morals and standards, and that we will continue to enforce our ordinances to protect the interests of our community."

When reached Wednesday, McCourt said he did not recall the letter, which he assumed was drafted by the city attorney. He said he needed to locate records related to the letter before he could comment on its specifics.

However, McCourt maintained that the city’s definition has nothing to do with morality. And he pointed out that many municipalities in the St. Louis area have similar, if not identical or more stringent, rules.

But numerous city planners and housing directors contacted by the Post-Dispatch have said those laws are intended keep fraternity houses or group homes out of residential neighborhoods.

McCourt said such selective enforcement is discriminatory.

"Why would you have something on the books that you don’t enforce? It’s like having a 30 mile an hour speed limit and everybody goes 45. You have to have a standard," he said.

Black Jack’s special counsel, Sheldon K. Stock, said the city’s law does not violate any state or federal legislation. He cited a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving East Cleveland, a suburb of Cleveland, that allows cities the right to sustain "traditional family values" by allowing that community to limit the number of unrelated people living in a dwelling.

Black Jack residents will get a chance to voice their opinion on the issue in a public hearing tentatively scheduled April 26.

Shelltrack, who has lived with Loving for more than 13 years, said she found McCourt’s letter offensive.

"It sounds like he’s aiming it at the children. He doesn’t want unwed children in his community? Are they that different? Are they bad kids just because their parents aren’t married. It’s clearly ridiculous," she said when contacted about the letter Wednesday.

Shelltrack said she and Fondray hope to eventually get married in a large, traditional ceremony. But for now, that isn’t a priority.

"Giving our kids a nice home is a priority. Putting them in a good school is a priority. Planning a wedding is not," she said.

"It shouldn’t be anybody’s business," she added. "As long as I’m paying taxes and I’m not breaking any laws and I’m not a criminal, and I mow my lawn, why would anyone care?"

Vista deputies trying out a mobile hidden camera

Deputies in Vista are now testing a camera they say will allow them to secretly record illegal activities in public areas.

But while the aim is to catch criminals, anyone who walks in front of the camera is subject to being watched and recorded as they go about their daily business.

The camera, said to be the first of its kind in the county, will allow Vista deputies to secretly observe any public area, such as a park or alley, where criminal activity has been reported, said sheriff's Sgt. Marc Ramirez, of the community-oriented policing team.

Deputies are testing the mobile camera now and will begin using it in the next few weeks, he said.

Sheriffs officials would not permit the $20,000 wireless camera to be photographed. They said that if pictures were published, the camera might be recognized and damaged in the field. The camera was paid for with a grant from the city's Weed and Seed Program, in which the city works with law enforcement and private partners to reduce crime in the Townsite neighborhood.

"It looks like any standard utility equipment (like a phone or cable box)," Ramirez said of the camera.

The digital camera can be mounted just about anywhere and can transmit high-definition images to a deputy monitoring the encrypted images live at another location via a laptop computer, Ramirez said. The camera can also record images to be viewed later, Ramirez said.

Deputies cannot set the camera up arbitrarily to try to catch citizens committing crimes, officials said.

"There are established policies and procedures in the Sheriff's Department regarding electronic surveillance equipment and they are adhered to," Ramirez said. For example, the activity being recorded must be in plain sight and be able to be seen from the street.

Assistant City Manager Rick Dudley said the city supports using the camera, and added that the city has used concealed security cameras in the Creekwalk, near the Vista Village redevelopment area, for a few years and hasn't heard any complaints about privacy.

"If you're a car thief, or somebody who breaks into cars and steals stereos, maybe you should be up in arms about this," he said. "If you're a normal person who abides by the law, we're not interested in what you're doing."

Sheriff's Cpl. Steve Litwin said there should be no concern that deputies will be using the camera to look inside people's houses. The focus, he said, is on catching people making street drug deals and vandals.

Kevin Keenan, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, said, "To be clear, I don't think there's a legal violation of a right to privacy, but this type of secret surveillance contributes to a total information surveillance society. It has the potential to chill legitimate, lawful, First Amendment activity."

"At a minimum, the public should demand effective, independent oversight in how these cameras are used, Keenan said. "Our sense is the public is fed up with all these cameras everywhere."

He said there is potential for abuse of the equipment by law enforcement. He also said that while the images are encrypted, there's almost no technology that hackers can't break.

Tom Fleming, president of the Vista Village Business Association, said Wednesday that he thought the camera was a great tool for law enforcement and would benefit business owners and law-abiding citizens. Fleming said the camera will only serve as a deterrent to criminals doing illegal things in public places.

"They're not going to be putting them in private areas," Fleming said. "I don't think it's an infringement."

Ramirez said the camera will be useful for long surveillance details and in cases where criminals might recognize a sheriff's vehicle.

"It's like having a deputy on surveillance for 24 hours and it doesn't need a break," Ramirez said.

Litwin said the camera may also be used by the sheriff's narcotics and gang units as well as the community-oriented policing team.

Ramirez said the camera is very sophisticated and can be programmed to zoom in on people's faces or license plates, then zoom back out, depending on how they are programmed. He said if a surveillance effort was next to a private home, the camera could even be programmed to black out a nearby window.

While the camera is mobile, deputies could opt to leave it mounted in one location and it can record up to a month's worth of activity, Litwin said.

The sergeant said digital camera recordings are acceptable as evidence because they are time- and date-stamped and are encrypted to a federal standard, so they can't be altered.

Litwin said so far they have only used the camera to test it out and that some deputies are still being trained in how to use the system.

ACLU protests closed school meeting

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado has asked Denver Public Schools to turn over the minutes and an audio recording of a Feb. 16 executive session held shortly before the school board voted to close the Manual Educational Complex for a year of reforms and send its students elsewhere.

Many students, teachers and other members of the Manual community oppose the plan.

ACLU Legal Director Mark Silverstein said in a letter sent to school officials today that the executive session wasn't convened in accordance with the Colorado Open Meetings Law and the Colorado Open Records Act. That means whatever happened in the meeting is public information, Silverstein said.

He said the school board announced during the public portion of its Feb. 16 evening meeting that the purpose of the executive session was "legal advice," but did not provide the detail that the law requires. The board also failed to vote on whether to convene the executive session, he said.

The ACLU's letter said the school district staff publicly presented a plan for Manual High School before the executive session that would not have moved its students to other schools. After the executive session, the school board unexpectedly introduced, considered and passed the plan to close the school next year while the three small schools housed there are consolidated and other changes are put in place.

The ACLU said it is requesting the records of the executive session "on behalf of the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance, and the Rev. James D. Peters Jr.; as well as on behalf of Elleta Mesgun, and organizer for One Nation Enlightened." They are among opponents of the plan.

If the records aren't produced, the ACLU will seek a court order to obtain them, the letter said.

A response from Denver Public Schools was not immediately available.

Florida high court allows same-sex ban ballot initiative, strikes down redistricting

The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday released an advisory opinion to the state Attorney General that permits the 2008 ballot to contain a citizen initiative banning gay marriages, even though the initiative failed to collect enough petition signatures to place the constitutional amendment on the 2006 ballot. According to the ACLU, which brought the initiative challenge on behalf of a labor union and six same-sex couples, the amendment would define marriage as "the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife," excluding official recognition of all other arrangements, including civil unions and corresponding domestic partner benefits. The ACLU challenged the initiative on the grounds that it violates the constitutional single-subject requirement of all Florida ballot initiatives, as it bans both gay marriages as well as all other legal protections for same-sex couples.

The Florida Supreme Court also released an advisory opinion on Thursday striking down another citizen ballot initiative that would create an "independent nonpartisan commission" to oversee congressional redistricting, as opposed to the current system run by the state legislature. The ruling found the initiative violated the single-subject requirement, as it required both single-member legislative districts as well as the establishment of the commission. Justices noted in both opinions that they were ruling not on the constitutional merits of the initiatives themselves, but only on whether they met constitutional requirements to appear on the ballots.

Oklahoma House Approves Limiting Children's Access to Explicit Library Materials

by Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
March 23, 2006

(ChristiansUnite.com) - - Oklahoma lawmakers have approved legislation that would place books containing sexually explicit content in an adult-only section of public libraries across the state. House Bill 2158 would withhold public library funding if books containing graphic sexual references are not placed out of the reach of minors.

The House voted the bill in last week in a vote of 60-33 after more than two hours of questions and debate. During that discussion, opponents raised the issue of censorship and criticized the legislation as an unfunded mandate that would remove local control from library boards.

But the bill's author, Representative Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City), argued that children deserve a time of "protected innocence" and sheltered from early exposure to the sort of sexually explicit and inappropriate material with which their culture is inundated. Associated Press quotes Kern as observing that contemporary advertisers apparently "can't sell toothpaste without sex," and that even the American Library Association is "out to sexualize our children."

Lynn Rahman with Oklahomans for School Accountability feels parents should decide whether their children can have access to the kind of material dealt with in HB 2158. She believes the bill is ultimately about affirming parents' exclusive right to make that final determination.

If the legislation passes, Rahman contends, "parents will have the last say. If they want to check these books out for their children, they can do so. It isn't a complete removal, but it's just a restoration of parental right."

However, the Oklahoma activist anticipates a tough battle in the Democrat-controlled Senate. She is encouraging parents and other concerned citizens to let their state legislators know how the pro-family public feels about the measure.

"I had been putting out newsletters when the bill made it to the House, and I think I'm going to do the same thing and urge people to contact their senators," Rahman notes. Emphasizing the reasonableness of HB 2158, she points out, "No books are to be removed according to this bill -- just relocated."

AP reports that prior to the House vote, Kern distributed to her fellow legislators several excerpts from books she said were found in local libraries. The excerpts were from books that contained homosexual or sexually explicit references, and the state representative remarked, "The average citizen does not have a clue what is in the library."

Last year, Kern asked the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Library Commission to place similar books, including a homosexually-themed children's storybook called King and King, in the adult section of the library. The lawmaker's request came after she received complaints from two of her constituents about children's easy access to the inappropriate library materials.

Oklahoma House Approves Limiting Children's Access to Explicit Library Materials (http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04204.shtml)

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/
Copyright © 2003 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.

 ACLU Lawsuits and National Security

 

The ACLU and several other organizations have brought two well publicized law suits against the Bush administration on the issue of “unauthorized” domestic spying.  Of course, none of the plaintiffs can demonstrate that they have been targeted by the surveillance program and the claim that this is domestic spying is not technically accurate since only those conversations with a suspected terrorists outside the United States are considered.

           

Plaintiffs include a gaggle of left wingers including the Council on American Islamic Relations, Greenpeace, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, a writer for the Nation among others.  Their argument is that the present administration is in contravention of the law since the president lost the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance domestically after the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.  The administration counters this claim with the argument that surveillance was authorized with the 2001 congressional resolution allowing for the use of force against al Qaeda.

 

Lost in the swelter of claims and counterclaims is the context for this litigation.  The war on terror has not ended and the threat posed by the terrorists remains real and frightening.

 

While the president insists all measures must be taken to assure American security, the plaintiffs seem to be asserting that the only threat is the abridgement of the law and the erosion of civil liberties.

 

On the day the lawsuit was filed, al Manar, Hezballah’s main vehicle for spreading anti-American propaganda asked, “What structure built of gray sandstone in 1792 became a source of all oppressive decisions the world over?  The answer:  “the White House.”

           

In May 2004 Sheik Nasrallah said he is prepared for martyrdom.  “Let Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and all those tyrants in Washington hear… there will only be room for great sacrifice, for the call to martyrdom.”

 

The editor of Egyptian weekly Al Arabi is quoted in Memri as saying, “Anti-Americanism is like music” to his ears.  He calls America “a plague” and “an ongoing crime.”

           

The head of the Sunni religious courts in Lebanon, Sheik Muhammad Kar’an, called America “the garbage of all nations.”

           

A professor of political science at Notre Dame University in Lebanon, Dr. George ubgone86ar said, “America is the New Nazism.”  He added, “I hope that every patriotic and Islamic Arab will participate in this war, and will shift this war not only to America, but to all corners… wherever America may be.”

 

Anis al Naggash, who was involved in terrorist attacks in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, appeared on Al Manar in August 2005.  He said, “The U.S. is the enemy of Arabs and Muslims… every person must resist it… if he can resist with weapons, it is his duty, mandated by the Koran.  Any cleric with knowledge of Islam must declare jihad against the U.S., England, and their allies.”

 

As late as this January three would be terrorists were arrested in Italy after vowing to launch an attack in the U.S. that would dwarf 9/11.  Curiously with the exception of the Philadelphia Inquirer this story was conspicuously ignored by the U.S. press corps.

 

Through conversations that were wiretapped, Italian officials heard Algerian terrorists plan to kill tens of thousands of Americans.  This story raises two interesting questions: Did the press ignore the story because the report would support President Bush’s use of domestic surveillance and doesn’t this story portend the very frightening scenario that must be thwarted?

 

There are those in our midst who prefer legal battles against the administration because they fear a loss of civil liberties, but they do not fear, or appear not to fear, radical Islamists intent on their destruction.

 

Can there be any doubt that if fanatics in various corners of the globe could get their hands on nuclear weapons, they would be used?

 

Can there be any doubt that radical Islam is intent on causing harm to the United States, its citizens and our allies?

 

And can there be any doubt that a toxic poison has been set loose worldwide that could have apocalyptic repercussions if we do nothing about it?

 

President Bush, in fact any future president, has an obligation to take those steps necessary to provide for national security.  It is not merely sad, but dangerous that many civil libertarians do not appreciate what is at stake in this global war.  If the plaintiffs’ efforts in the forthcoming lawsuits are successful, another weapon in the war against terror will have been rendered nugatory.  Is there any wonder about who benefits from such a decision?

Christian group backs off case against blog parody


A Christian group that promotes heterosexuality Thursday quietly dropped its beef against a blogger who poked fun at it.

Exodus International initially claimed the altered image of one of its billboards by Justin Watt infringed its copyright. But Exodus is no longer pursuing the matter after Watt stopped using its "watermark" logo, Exodus President Alan Chambers said.

Watt, operator of the Justinsomnia blog, says he exercised free speech when he parodied the Exodus billboard, which says, "Gay? Unhappy? www.exodus.to." Wyatt re-created the billboard on his site so it read, "Straight? Unhappy? www.gay.com."

(Exodus uses ".to" as its domain suffix because ".com" was not available.)

Watt, 26, a Web developer in Northern California who enlisted the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union and high-powered law firm Fenwick & West, has posted his blog for four years. He posted the parody Sept. 19 because he found Exodus' message "offensive." A lawyer representing Exodus sent Watt a cease-and-desist letter on March 2.

The dust-up has made Watt a cause célèbre among bloggers. More than 40 other websites now carry the spoof.

Had the dispute escalated, it would have extended the debate over fair use of copyrighted material beyond print and electronic media and to blogs, says copyright attorney Tom Zellerbach.

Companies frequently ask websites to remove images and text out of concern they infringe copyrighted material. But high-profile cases involving bloggers have been rare, Zellerbach and other lawyers say.

The incident gained attention because Watt understood his rights and contacted an attorney, said ACLU lawyer Ann Brick, who represented him. "We don't know how often people get cease-and-desist letters and pull material without knowing their rights," she said.

"Just as the First Amendment allows Exodus to post its billboard, it gives Justin the right to post a parody," Brick said.

ACLU Hails Rhode Island Department of Education Efforts to Stop the Use of Harmful "Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage" Curriculum in Public Schools

(Providence, RI) - Responding to a complaint filed by the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union last September, the state's Department of Education (DOE) issued an advisory to all school districts last week, instructing them to stop using a federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum in the public schools. The ACLU has hailed the development, arguing that the curriculum had raised serious privacy and discrimination concerns and needed to be stopped.

"We are very pleased with the state's response to the inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars to support discriminatory and religious teachings in public schools," said Steven Brown, Rhode Island ACLU Executive Director. "Students deserve facts, not sexism, in their sex ed classes."

The curriculum, developed by Heritage of Rhode Island and called "Right Time, Right Place," was offered in Pawtucket and Woonsocket public schools last year. In letters sent to the DOE Commissioner Peter McWalters, the ACLU argued that the program, run by a private organization, promoted sexist stereotypes, ignored the state's comprehensive sex education standards, invaded students' privacy rights and endorsed particular religious views. The DOE said in its advisory that after review by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Heritage of Rhode Island curriculum had been "determined to be NOT consistent with the Rhode Island Health Education Standards."

In addition to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in Rhode Island, federal dollars support Heritage curricula, a product of the South Carolina-based Heritage Community Services organization, in Georgia, Kentucky, Maine and South Carolina.

After obtaining documents relating to the program, the ACLU pointed out to the Commissioner that, among other things, the curriculum: taught students that "girls have a responsibility to wear modest clothing that doesn't invite lustful thoughts," and that a man is "strong" and "courageous," while a "real woman" is "caring"; included a video whose host explains how abstinence helped him to "honor my relationship with Jesus"; and required students to complete a survey, while providing identifying information about themselves, that asked a series of personal questions, including "When was the last time you had sex?"

Arguing that this curriculum appeared to "undermine or contradict - rather than supplement - statewide anti-discrimination policies or comprehensive sex education mandates," the ACLU called on the DOE to determine how and where the curriculum was being used elsewhere in Rhode Island, and to advise school officials of its illegality. The two-page advisory sent by the Commissioner last week makes clear that "Right Time, Right Place" is not appropriate for use as part of public school health curricula. The advisory also requires all school districts in the state to submit a copy of their school health education curriculum for the Department's review.

"Programs like Heritage of Rhode Island subject students to an abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum that is both ineffective and harmful," said Jennifer McAllister-Nevins, State Strategies Attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Teens need information on how to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and STDs - they don't need sex education riddled with inaccuracies and gender stereotypes."

The Rhode Island ACLU's efforts to stop the misuse of public dollars to fund ineffective, medically inaccurate, and discriminatory abstinence-only-until marriage sex ed programs in their state is part of a national ACLU campaign, Not in My State. In September 2005, ACLU affiliates in 18 states called on local officials to keep unsafe abstinence-only-until-marriage programs out of public schools' classrooms. The campaign encourages officials to select health and life-skills curricula that present medically accurate, age-appropriate, and unbiased information about sex and sexuality. For more information, go to: www.takeissuetakecharge.org.

Since 1997, the federal government has spent nearly a billion dollars on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Yet research indicates that many such programs do not help teens delay having sex, and some studies show that these programs actually deter teens from protecting themselves from unintended pregnancy or disease when they start having sex.

House sponsor hopeful about bill that would bar ACLU’s rewards in religion lawsuits
Mar 24, 2006
By Tom Strode
Baptist Press

WASHINGTON (BP)--Indiana’s John Hostettler is trying for the fifth consecutive Congress to prevent the American Civil Liberties Union from receiving government funds when it succeeds at legal challenges to public expressions of religion.

This year, the Republican representative has more hope than before thanks to the American Legion. The country’s largest veterans organization, with about three million members, has aggressively thrown its influence behind Hostettler’s bill, and the persistent congressman is encouraged at his proposal’s prospects.

Hostettler’s measure, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), H.R. 2679, is designed to close what he considers a loophole in federal law that has allowed organizations such as the ACLU to collect attorneys’ fees when they win lawsuits challenging religious symbols on public land or religious groups’ use of government property.

The American Legion released a 40-page document Feb. 28 urging its members to work for passage of Hostettler’s bill. The publication, "In the Footsteps of the Founders," provides a blueprint for building local support for the legislation in an effort to urge members of Congress to approve it. The document has been sent to all of the nearly 15,000 American Legion posts, and the organization’s national commander, Tom Bock, has urged members in a written release to “educate and activate” their communities.

The American Legion “has really, really gotten behind PERA,” Matthew Faraci, the communications director for Hostettler, told Baptist Press. “They have been going around to other members of Congress and trying to make them aware how important this legislation is. We are really confident that there’s going to be action on this bill.”

PERA would change a federal law that allows attorneys’ fees to be paid by the government when a court finds a person’s civil rights have been violated. The bill would bar the awarding of attorneys’ fees when the deprivation of rights involves the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The ACLU and other organizations have gained attorneys’ fees in numerous cases in which they have won legal challenges to religious expression and symbols. These include:

-- The ACLU was awarded nearly $800,000 in attorneys’ fees from the city of San Diego, Calif., in its successful effort to prevent the Boy Scouts of America, which acknowledges God in its oath, from continuing to use Balboa Park, according to the pro-family organization Eagle Forum.

-- The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center gained about $540,000 from the state of Alabama in a successful challenge of the Ten Commandments monument displayed in the State Judicial Building by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, according to Eagle Forum.

-- The ACLU received about $63,000 in a successful attempt to remove a cross from the Mojave Desert World War I Memorial in California, according to the American Legion.

That case prompted a unanimously approved resolution by the American Legion in 2004 urging Congress to pass legislation to bar attorneys’ fees in successful suits calling for the removal or destruction of such symbols. It also pointed to a special concern of the American Legion -- the consequences for crosses, Stars of David and other religious symbols on veterans’ graves.

Bock called the removal of the Mojave cross a “very dangerous precedent. There are 22 national cemeteries with veterans at rest beneath religious symbols. There is nothing in the law to prevent groups like the ACLU from filing establishment-clause lawsuits against those sacred grounds and then receiving taxpayer-paid attorney fees.

PERA “will restore legal balance in this country, and it will protect us from being the victims of this assault on our religious liberties,” Hostettler said in a Feb. 28 speech at the American Legion’s national conference in Washington, according to his written text.

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State described Hostettler’s bill as “deeply misguided and mean spirited.”

“It is an attempt to deny Americans access to the federal courts to ensure their religious liberty rights,” the AU executive director said in a written statement to BP. “Few Americans are wealthy enough on their own to subsidize federal court cases, which can last years. The current law allows plaintiffs and their lawyers to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees if the case is successful. Hostettler's proposal would pull the financial rug out from under Americans, especially religious minorities, who believe their rights have been violated.”

The ACLU will be looking at Hostettler’s bill but is not yet prepared to comment on it, a spokesman for the organization’s Washington office told BP.

Hostettler’s bill has 40 cosponsors. There is no companion bill in the Senate.

House sponsor hopeful about bill that would bar ACLU’s rewards in religion lawsuits (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22902)

House sponsor hopeful about bill that would bar ACLU’s rewards in religion lawsuits
Mar 24, 2006
By Tom Strode
Baptist Press

WASHINGTON (BP)--Indiana’s John Hostettler is trying for the fifth consecutive Congress to prevent the American Civil Liberties Union from receiving government funds when it succeeds at legal challenges to public expressions of religion.

This year, the Republican representative has more hope than before thanks to the American Legion. The country’s largest veterans organization, with about three million members, has aggressively thrown its influence behind Hostettler’s bill, and the persistent congressman is encouraged at his proposal’s prospects.

Hostettler’s measure, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), H.R. 2679, is designed to close what he considers a loophole in federal law that has allowed organizations such as the ACLU to collect attorneys’ fees when they win lawsuits challenging religious symbols on public land or religious groups’ use of government property.

The American Legion released a 40-page document Feb. 28 urging its members to work for passage of Hostettler’s bill. The publication, "In the Footsteps of the Founders," provides a blueprint for building local support for the legislation in an effort to urge members of Congress to approve it. The document has been sent to all of the nearly 15,000 American Legion posts, and the organization’s national commander, Tom Bock, has urged members in a written release to “educate and activate” their communities.

The American Legion “has really, really gotten behind PERA,” Matthew Faraci, the communications director for Hostettler, told Baptist Press. “They have been going around to other members of Congress and trying to make them aware how important this legislation is. We are really confident that there’s going to be action on this bill.”

PERA would change a federal law that allows attorneys’ fees to be paid by the government when a court finds a person’s civil rights have been violated. The bill would bar the awarding of attorneys’ fees when the deprivation of rights involves the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The ACLU and other organizations have gained attorneys’ fees in numerous cases in which they have won legal challenges to religious expression and symbols. These include:

-- The ACLU was awarded nearly $800,000 in attorneys’ fees from the city of San Diego, Calif., in its successful effort to prevent the Boy Scouts of America, which acknowledges God in its oath, from continuing to use Balboa Park, according to the pro-family organization Eagle Forum.

-- The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center gained about $540,000 from the state of Alabama in a successful challenge of the Ten Commandments monument displayed in the State Judicial Building by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, according to Eagle Forum.

-- The ACLU received about $63,000 in a successful attempt to remove a cross from the Mojave Desert World War I Memorial in California, according to the American Legion.

That case prompted a unanimously approved resolution by the American Legion in 2004 urging Congress to pass legislation to bar attorneys’ fees in successful suits calling for the removal or destruction of such symbols. It also pointed to a special concern of the American Legion -- the consequences for crosses, Stars of David and other religious symbols on veterans’ graves.

Bock called the removal of the Mojave cross a “very dangerous precedent. There are 22 national cemeteries with veterans at rest beneath religious symbols. There is nothing in the law to prevent groups like the ACLU from filing establishment-clause lawsuits against those sacred grounds and then receiving taxpayer-paid attorney fees.

PERA “will restore legal balance in this country, and it will protect us from being the victims of this assault on our religious liberties,” Hostettler said in a Feb. 28 speech at the American Legion’s national conference in Washington, according to his written text.

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State described Hostettler’s bill as “deeply misguided and mean spirited.”

“It is an attempt to deny Americans access to the federal courts to ensure their religious liberty rights,” the AU executive director said in a written statement to BP. “Few Americans are wealthy enough on their own to subsidize federal court cases, which can last years. The current law allows plaintiffs and their lawyers to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees if the case is successful. Hostettler's proposal would pull the financial rug out from under Americans, especially religious minorities, who believe their rights have been violated.”

The ACLU will be looking at Hostettler’s bill but is not yet prepared to comment on it, a spokesman for the organization’s Washington office told BP.

Hostettler’s bill has 40 cosponsors. There is no companion bill in the Senate.

Somewhere, someone is watching you as British habit bites Big Apple

It's taken as read in London that, if you walk around the City for any longer than half an hour, your beaming face will have been snapped by around 300 surveillance cameras, from those in the Tube or the shops or the bank to those ugly boxes that peer down from tall poles on the edge of the congestion charge zone.

Around a third of CCTV cameras in the western world are in Britain. It's now accepted as the way things are, something to be bemoaned but hardly the kind of snooping likely to provoke civil unrest.

In New York, life is rather different. Such cameras are few and far between, and a good job too, in most people's books. The only camera likely to capture your image 300 times a day is owned by an over-excited Japanese tourist. But that is about to change - New York, say "cheese" and get ready for your close-up.

The NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg has just announced plans to spend more than $8m on installing more than 500 cameras in locations across the city. Not only that, but it is looking for close to $100m to throw its own "ring of steel" around Wall Street. Modelled on the UK version in the City, police want to rig up a system which will photograph every car and person crossing south of Chambers Street, where the low rise brownstone houses of Greenwich Village and SoHo give way to the skyscraping glass temples to commerce.

The NYPD has no comprehensive system to monitor the Financial District - considered the nation's number one terror target - and a team of five NYPD experts visited London in September to get a look at the "ring of steel", such as it is.

The City and lower Manhattan share a number of characteristics. Both neighbourhoods are about a square mile in area. Some 300,000 commuters travel through each daily. Both are global financial hubs, with banks and stock exchanges that remain targets for terrorist attacks.

The people, though, are different, and in Gotham, where Wall Streeters are already feeling the heat of aggressive regulation elsewhere in their lives, they don't seem to appreciate the opportunity for a few more Kodak moments.

Leading the charge, as always, is the American Civil Liberties Union, who don't much care for the argument that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. They believe the attacks of September 11 have led to a crisis in civil liberties, with "national security" being used to hide a multitude of sins.

For Ring of Steel, read Iron Curtain, is the general opinion of the scheme's critics. But, with the cameras and controlled entrances surrounding whatever eventually replaces the World Trade Centre, the battle is going to take on a particular poignancy. Expect lawsuits at dawn.

If nothing else, it will at least keep the courts busy. You may think that, in the US, such a thing was hardly a problem. With some of the more frivolous lawsuits making the headlines, you'd think there was plenty to keep their honours occupied. It seems barely a week can go by without someone suing McDonald's for making them fat, or slapping a lawsuit on Starbucks for making their coffee too hot.

In a particularly bizarre case last week, a man from California was incensed when a council-owned dump truck crashed into his car. He decided to sue the driver of the dump truck.

The snag? He was the driver. A lesser person may have considered this an insurmountable hurdle, but not our intrepid hero. He wasn't one to let such a minor technicality set him back, and filed suit against himself, hoping he could prove the council negligent - presumably for hiring someone so incompetent that he can't get through the day without crashing his two vehicles into one another.

So you'd think the US justice system had more than enough to be getting along with. You would, of course, be wrong. The New York City small claims court is begging for more business. With the number of suits filed annually down by half over the past decade, from 60,000 in 1995 to just 32,000 last year, too many of the clerks are idly twiddling their thumbs.

But before you applaud a sudden outbreak of common sense, consider that it's probably more likely that the small claims court is just no longer as enticing for potential litigants - most are looking for closer to $2m payouts rather than the maximum $5,000 that the small claims court can provide. A reasonable sum but hardly winning the lottery.

Chief clerk Joseph Gebbia is rather alarmed and wants New York to embrace its favourite pastime all over again. "We'd like to build the numbers back up," he said. "We have the capacity to do a lot more and we'd like to see people take advantage of that." All potential litigants have to do is go down to the court, fill in a form saying who they want to sue, and pay a fee of up to $20.

"It's one of New York's best bargains,' Gebbia says.

Quite right. Although, then again, only if you win.

Advocates Push Troubled Program
Some say banning vouchers threatens Bright Futures, McKay programs.


TALLAHASSEE -- Hoping to mobilize support to protect vouchers, proponents of the now-unconstitutional Opportunity Scholarship Program have warned that the American Civil Liberties Union and others will attempt to kill some of the state's most popular educational plans unless lawmakers act.

Not likely, said an ACLU lobbyist earlier this month, though he said the group is still considering legal action against the state's new pre-kindergarten program.

Pro-voucher politicians, including Gov. Jeb Bush, have said the ACLU won't be satisfied with the Florida Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year that ended the OSP. That program gave about 700 students in failing public schools taxpayer money to attend private schools.

The court did not rule on the ACLU's concerns that the program unconstitutionally used public money to send children to church-based schools. Instead, it said the program was unconstitutional since it created a separate education system that didn't meet the same standards as public schools, such as requirements to take the FCAT standardized test.

Voucher proponents say popular programs like Bright Futures, which allows Florida college students to use money to attend public and faith-based colleges, and the McKay Scholarship plan that allows students with special needs to attend church-run schools would also be in jeopardy unless the constitution is changed.

But ACLU lobbyist Larry Spalding said earlier this month that the group has no intentions of challenging either the McKay or Bright Futures programs. That drew an angry challenge from John Kirtley, a Tampa millionaire who has championed vouchers.

"I think that's a ruse," Kirtley said. "They sued on the OSP program because they said money flowing to faith-based providers of K-12 education violates" the constitution.

He said the ACLU's claim that the OSP was unconstitutional while ignoring other programs that allow state money to go to faith-based schools or colleges was "intellectually dishonest."

Spalding said OSP was different from Bright Futures and the McKay program. He said Bright Futures students are adults voluntarily choosing options and aren't required to attend school like K-12 students. And he said McKay addresses students with unique needs that can't be served in public schools.

Kirtley said that's disingenuous and accused the ACLU of waiting until after a possible vote on a constitutional change this November to get involved, rather than becoming a lightning rod for voucher opponents to rally support. Spalding agrees an ACLU suit would draw flak.

"If we go that route, then we're going to be the target," Spalding said.

Voters in 2002 chose to require the state to provide a fully funded option for 4-year-olds to attend pre-kindergarten classes. The state opted to pay private schools, including church-run facilities, to teach some of the participating students.

Spalding said the lack of a public school alternative makes the pre-K program a more blatant violation of the constitutional ban on the use of taxpayer money to pay for religious uses.

"On the church-state issue, pre-K is worse," Spalding said.

ACLU officials sent a letter to legislative leaders last year threatening legal woes if the

pre-K plan allowed faith-based providers. Asked why the ACLU hasn't legally challenged the

pre-K program that is now nearly a year old, Spalding said the issue was still being studied. The ACLU sued the state immediately after the OSP was put in place. Tens of thousands of children and their families are now enrolled in the pre-K program.

Even lawmakers who have mixed feelings about vouchers feel programs like pre-K, McKay and Bright Futures may be left vulnerable to legal attacks unless lawmakers act.

"If we don't do something this year," King said, the ACLU or another group "could bring the whole process of vouchers to an end."

There seems to be sufficient legislative support this year to change the law so that most of the students currently in the OSP program could receive the corporate vouchers to maintain attendance at their current schools.

But Bush and others feel the constitution must be changed to not only resurrect OSP, but protect the corporate voucher plan and the McKay Scholarships.

The Florida House concurs, but the Senate has yet to even consider such a constitutional remedy, which would need a threefifths majority approval in the House and Senate before facing a statewide vote in November.

Senate Education Committee chairwoman Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, said that three weeks into this year's two-monthlong session, she has yet to see any such proposals in the Senate.

"If someone wanted to do the bill or have the bill, it would be floating around somewhere, and I haven't seen it," she said.

King said it's been difficult to get a majority of senators to back vouchers in the past, and the Supreme Court decision has only added to their reticence.

"I'm not so sure that the Senate in particular is that eager to jump into waters that they know now are tested," he said.

King is pushing legislation that would enact stricter rules on private schools accepting voucher students. Whether that would be sufficient to meet the Supreme Court's concerns is unknown.

It's a sign of the new defensive posture among advocates of school choice that OSP, once touted as an integral part of revamping education, is now portrayed as a tiny experiment.

ACLU Teaching Children How To Be Good Criminals


If there is one thing that American needs more of, especially our children, it is to learn how to take responsibility for our actions and to realize that our actions have consequences. The ACLU are working hard to teach our children just the opposite. When they are not teaching our children that abstinence is harmful, abortion shouldn’t require parental consent, the Bible is the enemy, teachers that pray are like terrorists, or fighting away the military recruiters, they may be teaching them how to keep their drugs well hidden from authorities.

    Students crowded 107 Keith Hall Thursday night to learn how to properly respond to and protect their rights in case of police contact. Indiana Voices for Peace hosted “Busted: A Citizen’s Guide to Surviving Police Encounters,” which consisted of a short ACLU video and a question and answer session with two representatives from Pittsburgh’s chapter of the ACLU.

    Jeff Burk (senior, political science), vice president of Indiana Voices for Peace, explained the purpose of holding the event before playing the video.

    “The cops in this area are starting to get pretty aggressive,” he said. “We’re hoping that students will get a better understanding of what their basic rights are.”

Now before you libertarians jump down my throat, this isn’t about rights. I have no problem with the ACLU informing students of their fourth amendment, and miranda rights not to incriminate themselves, but take notice of what the ACLU are not saying, and what they are advocating. They go beyond teaching basic rights and into the realm of evasion.

In one segment of an ACLU video they showed students how to avoid being caught with marijuana in the trunk by “asserting their rights.” This one wasn’t the big deal with me, despite the fact that the best way not to get busted with marijuana is to not have possession of it. The ACLU offered no offered no discouragement there whatsover. Instead of teaching the kids to avoid being busted for something illegal, they taught the kids how to be to get away with criminal activity.

What this amounts to is an indoctrination of irresponsibility, and it a mentality that is hurting our country. My friend Gribbit described it a few days ago when talking about the ACLU’s view towards abstinence.

    This is akin to telling your child not to shop lift but if they are going to anyway to not get caught. Then teaching them methods on not getting caught as opposed to teaching them to just plain not do it.

Except in this case it isn’t just akin, it is exactly what they are doing.

Now, here is where I really started having a problem….

    The video also showed a segment where a young woman hosting a party got herself into a world of trouble when a guest allowed police to enter her home and find drug paraphernalia.

    According to the ACLU video, however, “getting busted is no party.”

    They suggested a number of ways the young woman in the video, and viewers, could protect herself from a police violation of her rights. The ACLU recommended that partiers:

    - Know who is at the party and what they are doing.

    - Keep paraphernalia and other illegal articles out of view of police.

Lets stop right there for a moment. Notice that the ACLU did not suggest the best method to keep out of trouble at a party; obeying the law. Instead they told the kids to keep their drug paraphernailia well hidden, in essense not only condoning the criminal activity of possessing it, but also of concealing it. They go on to even offer suggestions on how to do so.

    Attorney Paul Berks and criminal defense lawyer Tom Farrell spoke briefly after the video and fielded questions from the audience. Berks said that police are able to search your house or car if they have “probable cause,” like detecting the odor of substances. “Shut the windows, lock the door, he said, “or your ability to keep them out is diminished.”

Teaching our children their individual rights is a good thing, however rights standing alone do not make up for a free society. Our primary focus should be teaching our children responsibility, and certainly not how to avoid it. Individual rights can not exist in a social vacuum. Any legitimate discussion of freedom must start with society, not the individual. The most important part of this discussion must start with what kind of social order is best suited to maintain the establishment of liberty. The proper exercise of rights is limited by the moral boundaries of society, otherwise known as laws.

Only morally responsible individuals are capable of exercising their rights in a way that is truly liberating, and this magnifies into society. Morally irresponsible individuals do not use rights, they abuse them, which unavoidably leads to others losing their rights in the process. The social order that is best suited to the establishment of liberty is one that respects a balance between the social authority of mediating institutions and the rights of individuals.

The primary focus our children should be learning is how to live responsibly within society. Self restraint should be the most desirable characteristic of an individual within a free society. Either people police themselves or the police will do it for them. The only alternative to those two choices is anarchy, which is not an option in a society that wants to be free. A society that fails to encourage a strong sense of responsibility in its citizens is one that is not prepared to distribute rights to individuals. Without the responsibility, liberty crumbles.

So remember people, the best way to avoid getting busted by the authorities is to do the responsible thing…not break the law. And the best way to avoid responsibility is to call the ACLU. With all the terrorists they are defending they are sure to find some kind of loop hole for a measly bag of grass.

ACLU vs. Seattle Smoking Ban

Seattlest posted a lament recently about the unexpected down-side to the new indoor smoking ban, specifically our newly rediscovered sense of smell. Where is the justice in prohibiting one foul odor only to open the floodgates to lesser noxious fumes? Apparently, the champions of freedom at the ACLU read Seattlest, as they have now seized this historic opportunity to answer the call to justice (from their recent news alert):

    Religious exemption to the Clean Indoor Air Act SB 6213, HB 2652

    Position: Support

    Status: Did not pass

    In November 2005, the voters overwhelming [sic] approved a statewide smoking ban. Unfortunately, the drafters of the initiative did not consider the impact the ban would have on certain religious rituals. A number of religions incorporate smoke or smoking in their ceremonies. The smoking ban unconstitutionally prohibits these practices. These bills would have simply inserted a religious exemption into the Clean Indoor Air Act to make the statute constitutional. We had strong support from a number of legislators. However, the bills did not pass due to the concern that the change would be interpreted as a reversal of the initiative and a rejection of the "will of the people." We will continue to work on this issue in different arenas, and we may seek to pass this legislation next year if it is still needed.

This article was taken from the ACLU website.

___________________________


ACLU Applauds Defeat of Abortion Ban in Mississippi

Says Bill Would Have Endangered Women’s Health and Lives

JACKSON, MS -- The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded the defeat of a dangerous and extreme abortion ban late last night in the Mississippi legislature.
 
“This extreme abortion ban would have threatened the health and lives of women across this state,” said Nsombi Lambright, Executive Director of the ACLU of Mississippi.  “This is a great victory for the women of Mississippi and speaks to an active and growing pro-choice voice in the state that is fighting to ensure that all women can access the reproductive health care they need.”

The ban, which Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said he would have signed into law had it passed, came only weeks after a similar abortion ban became law in South Dakota.  Last week, advocates for women’s health in South Dakota launched a grassroots campaign to repeal that measure at the polls in November.

“History has shown us that when women are denied access to abortion they may resort to desperate measures,” said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.  “The women of Mississippi would be better served if the legislature would focus on commonsense solutions aimed at reducing unintended pregnancy such as funding medically accurate sex education and ensuring access to birth control, including emergency contraception.”

The bill, which failed to pass last night after Senate and House negotiators were unable to reach an agreement, would have outlawed abortion in Mississippi, a state that is already failing when it comes to protecting access to reproductive health care.  Ninety-eight percent of counties in the state are without an abortion provider, and in a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute, Mississippi ranked 30th in the nation in its efforts to help women avoid unintended pregnancy.

Similar bans on abortion are still pending in eight states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

Rhode Island Boots Abstinence-Only Sex Ed from Classrooms

By Jim Brown and Jody Brown
March 28, 2006

(AgapePress) - Rhode Island has dumped a federal education program that encourages young people to abstain from sexual activity and other risky behaviors. The state's education officials are being accused of caving in to the demands of the ACLU.

The Rhode Island Department of Education has ordered public schools to no longer work with Heritage of Rhode Island and to stop using its federally funded sex-education program. The directive came after the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claimed curriculum from the abstinence-education provider "endorsed particular religious views ... invaded students' privacy rights" and "promoted sexist stereotypes."

In a press release about the Department's decision, the Rhode Island ACLU stated it was pleased with the state's response to "inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars to support discriminatory and religious teachings" in public schools. The ACLU chapter's executive director, Steven Brown, said that "students deserve facts, not sexism, in their sex-ed classes."

The program at issue is an abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum called "Right Time, Right Place," which, according to Heritage, is a "character-based family-life and sexuality program" designed to work within a school's already existing curriculum. Chris Plante, executive director at Heritage, says state education officials sided with the ACLU without even formally reviewing the curriculum.

"There is not a religious bent to this program," Plante claims. "For us, and particularly because we work in Rhode Island where we know that the faith community sees the religious or the spiritual necessity of this type of program, we work hand-in-hand [with that community] producing a public health message here. But, unfortunately, perception is the reality these days."

This is not the first time Heritage and the ACLU have locked horns. Last year the ACLU protested a textbook once used by Heritage that taught students that girls should wear clothing that does not invite "lustful thoughts from boys." The book was also criticized for referring to men as "strong" and "courageous," and for calling women "caring." Plante maintains that instead of teaching young people they are responsible for their actions, the ACLU would rather wage a campaign against modesty and sexual purity.

"Politically, here in Rhode Island, those terms and things like that are considered gender-biased," acknowledges Plante. "Heritage of Rhode Island pulled that textbook simply because we wanted no obstacle between our message that abstinence from all forms of sexual activity as an adolescent is the healthiest choice an adolescent can make."

Plante says that last September, the ACLU began a concerted nationwide "attack" on abstinence-only-until-marriage education programs. That nationwide campaign, known as "Not in My State," involved ACLU affiliates in 18 states calling on local officials to keep what it calls "unsafe" abstinence-only-until-marriage programs out of public school classrooms, claiming they are "medically inaccurate and discriminatory."

ACLU set to appeal 'Choose Life' tags

Proponents say plates shouldn't be delayed

Despite a federal appeals court ruling this month that lets Tennessee put "Choose Life" on license plates, it isn't clear when — or even if — the tags will ever hit the road.

The American Civil Liberties Union is likely to appeal to the full panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee, said yesterday.

The further delay in getting the plates on the road — which has been three years in the making — frustrates one anti-abortion lawmaker.

Tennessee should not let the ACLU and other groups hold the plates hostage, said state Rep. Glen Casada, R-College Grove.

"They're playing it too safe," Casada said. "Just because there's a chance for appeals, there is no reason to stop what the 6th Circuit said was OK to do. … It's time to move forward."

In fact, Casada said he has been under the impression that the plates would be for sale soon with the favorable ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit.

"It's unfortunate some people thought production of the plates was under way," Weinberg said. "There's another step to take." The ACLU expects to decide either today or tomorrow which court to appeal in, she said.

The tags, supported by the Tennessee Right to Life organization, have been on hold since the legislature approved them three years ago because of the legal challenge by ACLU and Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee.

Melanie Harsson of Antioch, who was at Capitol Hill this week for a lobbying effort called "Pro-Life-Woman's Day on the Hill," said she thought the lawsuit was backfiring on the two groups because all the publicity was helping get the word out about issues surrounding abortion.

"It's increasing awareness all over Middle Tennessee and West and East Tennessee, too," she said. More people than ever will want the license plates because of the lawsuit, she said.

Michelle Tassart with Tennessee Right to Life called the lawsuit frivolous. The fact that her organization, and others, fought the legal complaint showed the resolve held by those who fight to make abortion illegal, she said. "We've shown that we won't be silenced," Tassart said.

The ACLU and other plaintiffs have until tomorrow to file an appeal for a hearing before the 6th Circuit. They would have another week to ask judges to keep a court order in place that prohibits the state from making the "Choose Life" plates, Weinberg said.

The state Safety Department will not manufacture the plates until the court order is lifted and the legal matter is resolved, said Julie Oaks, spokeswoman for the Department of Safety, which runs the state license plate office.

Once that happens, and if the courts uphold the tags as constitutional, it would still be at least two months until the plates could be sold at county clerk offices, Oaks said. During those 60 days, the plates would be produced and the approximately 1,200 people who preordered them would be contacted, she said.

In the March 17 ruling, the three-member appeals panel said Tennessee would be within its rights to issue the "Choose Life" plates while denying a plate encouraging abortion rights.

While one-sidedness may be "ill-advised" on politically charged issues like abortion, the court ruled that there's nothing in the First Amendment to stop it.

The ACLU was disappointed, saying the ruling allows Tennessee to use state dollars to promote one viewpoint while silencing another. Two amendments to create a pro-choice plate have failed.

ACLU Rep Calls Smut Actions "Ridiculous"

The American Civil Liberties Union lobbyists have been talking to Senators, trying to dissuade them from moving forward with a bill that would boost FCC indecency fines dramatically. "We have been lobbying against it. We are opposed to it, and we are trying to stop it, ACLU legislative counsel Marv Johnson tells B&C.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has said recently he wants to finally move a Senate version of a similar House bill that passed over a year ago.

While the ACLU has not commented publicy on the FCC's recent indecency enforcement actions proposing over $3 million in fines against CBS stations, among others, Johnson calls them "ridiculous" and says that he thought they made a broadcaster court challenge more likely, particularly as the fine amounts mount. He said the ACLU would likely join such a suit as counsel, or at least file a supporting brief.

The just-proposed fines against CBS' Without a Trace could have topped $30 million under Congress' proposed fine boost of as much as 10 times the current $32,500 maximum per incident. That is enough to make it more than simply the cost of business for broadcasters not looking to anger Washington.

ACLU takes issue with the suggestion that the number of indecency complaints has dramatically increased, which some FCC commissioners have pointed to as something of a mandate for stepped-up enforcement.

Johnson points out that while the FCC used to count numerous complaints from one group--say, members of the Parents Television Council--as one complaint, it changed its methodology to count them individually (in part because PTC complained it was being undercounted). That means yesterday's single complaint would today be a hundred thousand.

"What they are trying to do is make the indecency problem as big an issue as possible," says Johnson.

ACLU’s Hypocritical Approach To Church And State
by Jay on 03-30-06 @ 11:10 pm Filed under ACLU, Church And State, War On Terror, News

Liberals proudly beam about how the ACLU keeps America safe from becoming a theocracy by dilegently keeping “church and state” seperated through endless lawsuits. I don’t believe that the founders of our country meant for the First Amendment to be bent to the shape the ACLU has put it into, but there is definitely a line between religion and the government that needs to be drawn.

In Bridgeport West Virginia, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer has asked a West Virginia high school to remove a picture of Jesus Christ that has hung at the school for 40 years. I won’t argue argue against the point that a highschool is really not an appropriate place for the picture, and I’ll even concede that the ACLU will probably win this case, but it most definitely is not a threat. And when voluntary acedemic classes on the Bible are offered at a school, you can bet the ACLU will be keeping a watchful eye. While I have my apprehensions with the ACLU on this , no one wants our children to be indoctrinated.

While there are grey areas, where we can all debate these controversial issues, there should not be a double standard. When it comes to Christianity in the public schools, the ACLU’s outcry can be heard the loudest. When it is Islam in the public schools, the ACLU’s silence speaks volumes.

    According to the Thomas More Law Center, for three weeks, “impressionable 12-year-old students” were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to ‘Remember Allah always so that you may prosper’; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the ‘Bismillah’ or ‘In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,’ which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls.

    Students also played “jihad games” during the course, which was part of the school’s world history and geography program.

The ACLU were completely silent on this one. This isn’t suprising, since a alleged senior terrorist operative, Abdurahman Alamoudi helped the ACLU write their religion-in-the-classroom guidelines.

In 2004, the ACLU won a hard fought lawsuit to remove a cross from the Mohave Desert public preserve.

    In the case, Peter Eliasberg, an attorney at the ACLU stated, “The federal government should not offer public land – owned collectively by people of every faith and of no faith – as a site for the advertisement and promotion of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Pope John Paul II, or any other particular religious figure. Contrary to what some believe, it is not the role of the federal government to advance Christianity or any other sectarian belief.” He further stated, “The courts have consistently held that a permanent religious fixture on federal land is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.”

However, it looks like the ACLU may be eating those words when the religion is Islam.

Hillel Stavis writes at Frontpage Magazine:

    Now imagine my surprise when I couldn’t find anyone – either at the Massachusetts ACLU – or at its big brother in Washington who had brought legal action – or who would even render an opinion - on the construction of a $22,000,000 religious structure on land virtually given away by the city of Boston and attendant religious instruction courses forced on a nearby state-funded college. How could such a monumental religious undertaking involving the obvious endorsement by government officials at every level escape the withering gaze of the watchdogs of the ACLU?

    It took only a few phone calls to find the answer. The religious structure and institution was neither a church nor a synagogue. It was a mosque. And not just another mosque. The Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque project will be the largest on the east coast of the United States and will be funded primarily through Middle East emirate money.

    Not content with support pledged by Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, the ISB sought to purchase the city-owned land at a bargain basement price. And did they ever succeed. The City of Boston obliged the group by selling its 1.9 acre site valued at $2,000,000 for $175,000. Boldly compounding the fraudulent conveyance part of the scam, the city agreed to receive further in-kind payment from the ISB in the form of an Islamic Library and courses in Islamic instruction at a state facility, Roxbury Community College; not a $200 crèche or a menorah made of scrap tubing, but a multi-million dollar enterprise based on defrauding taxpayers and establishing ongoing indoctrination courses on the glories of Islam. Not only did this enterprise represent “inherent religious activity”, but it went far beyond the ACLU’s floor for triggering action by involving explicit and manifold religious activity.

   cont'd in next post

Page Two

 If, as de Rochefoucault had it, “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue”, the ACLU has to be first in line at that altar. Carol Rose, Director of the Massachusetts ACLU, told me in 2004, in response to a private lawsuit brought by an individual based on violation of the establishment clause, that her organization favored the ISB’s position insofar as the lawsuit “violated that organization’s right of free speech.” After I put my dropped jaw back into place, I suggested that a $22,000,000 mosque built on giveaway city land along with taxpayer funded Islamic indoctrination amounted to a textbook case of Establishment Clause transgression and made the crèche case look like a minor infraction. At that point she terminated the conversation.

Go read the whole controversy, including how…

    one of the founders of the ISB, Abdul Rachman Alamoudi is doing a stretch in a federal prison for receiving cash from the Libyan mission to the United Nations, failing to disclose numerous trips to Libya and conspiring in a political assassination. He has also expressed his support for Hamas, along with Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.

If that isn’t enough to get your blood pressure boiling, maybe this is.

    North Liberty, Iowa. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has signed a lease for up to 25 years with a group that wants to build a Muslim youth camp at Lake Coralville.

    The lease allows the Cedar Rapids-based Muslim Youth Camps of America to build on 114 acres of federal land. Construction can start once the group works out details with county and state regulators, the corps said Wednesday.

    Plans for the $934,000 camp north of North Liberty call for lodging up to 60 campers ages 10 to 17 in cabins and tents plus staffers during the summer and up to 40 per night in the offseason. When completed, the camp will include a 2,400 square-foot lodge, a beach, recreation trails, five cabins, five tent pods and a bathroom.

Bill Aossey, Representative for MYCA, announced that the camp/convention center “has been purchased and given the name ‘Camp Heritage’ to emphasize the importance for Muslim children of understanding their roots.”

    These statements, including the fact that the proposed site will contain of a 36-foot dome-covered prayer tower, has not fazed the ACLU. Concerning the matter, the ICLU, the Iowa branch of the ACLU (who in March of 2000 condemned a proposal by 12 legislators to require posting of the Ten Commandments in the Iowa State Senate chamber) had this to say: “There is no establishment clause violation in government permitting the building of a structure that resembles a mosque or church…we are unaware of any cases involving governmental religious displays based on the theory that certain public architecture is an endorsement of one religion over another…this is not the case in which to try that argument out….”

If this doesn’t bother you enough, the Militant Islam Monitor points out even more disturbing details.

    Bill Aossey attends the Cedar Rapids Islamic Center. The website for the center contains numerous extremist and hate links, including a link to Al Haramain, the foundation that was one of the “principal players in charity-based financing of al-Qaeda” (December 20, 2002, National Review On-Line).

    Bill was a featured speaker at the 2002 and 2003 Iowa Muslim Student Association Annual Conferences. At the 2002 Conference, he gave a speech entitled “Martyrdom in Islam.” Martyrdom is considered a code word for suicide bombings. Also speaking at the 2002 Conference was Siraj Wahhaj, an individual that is alleged to have been a co-conspirator of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. At the 2003 Conference, Bill was joined by feature speaker Nihad Awad. Awad is the Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and an ex-member of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a front group for the terrorist organization Hamas. It has been reported that MYCA plans to rent out its proposed convention center in the off-season. Is it possible that the 2004 Conference will be held there?

    Judgement day for the final decision on the camp/conference center is set for Friday, July 11. According to the Daily Iowan, “Authority to approve or reject the camp proposal lies with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers…The decision to build or not to build falls squarely on Col. William Bayles’ shoulders.”

    Jalel Aossey, Bill’s son, who is listed on the Iowa Secretary of State Corporate Registry as the Registered Agent for MYCA, says that this would be the first Muslim camp in the United States to lease federal land, and that he envisions the camp as the first in a nationwide network. Will Col. Bayles give in to this vision of federally provided camps with radical connections or will he exercise restraint? I don’t know what his answer will be, but I do know which way I would vote.

Ahhh, no wonder the ACLU doesn’t have a problem with any of this. The ACLU’s hypocrisy on the issue of seperation of church and state should be a wake up call for any concerned American. One thing that can be said of the ACLU is that they are consistent. If there is a picture of Jesus in a school, or a voluntary prayer at a graduation cermeony the ACLU will be screaming that a theocracy is threatening our democracy, but when possible terrorist ties are involved and the threat may be real….you can count on the ACLU’s support. Would someone please investigate the ACLU?

I've already posted about this law suit but this post contains the actual poem in question.

_________________


ACLU sues Murray schools over student expelled for poem
by Jay on 03-31-06 @ 4:07 pm Filed under ACLU

I keep getting emails about this one. I’ve been meaning to post about it.

    ROME, GA (AP) — The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia filed a federal lawsuit Monday against Murray County schools for expelling an eighth-grader for writing a poem on school violence.

    The student, whose name was not released, was suspended and expelled last year after he showed a notebook full of poems to his English teacher, according to an ACLU statement.

    The statement said several students and another teacher “read the poem without incident, all commenting on his creativity and none believing the poem to be threatening.”

    The student was indefinitely suspended from the school and later was barred from attending any school in the district for the rest of the school year. Officials also filed an action against him in juvenile court that claimed he made criminal “terroristic threats,” the ACLU said.

    “Kids are being raised in a society where there are violent images around them, not just in movies but in the news,” said ACLU attorney Beth Littrell. “Their writing may reflect that and the school should not be punishing them for their creative expression unless it’s truly threatening.”

    Murray County School District has not yet received the lawsuit, said Dean Donehoo, director of administrative services. Donehoo declined to comment until the lawsuit has been reviewed by the school district’s attorneys.

A reader emails the poem in question to me.

    This is the poem:
    Something bad is going to happen at school,

    Maybe not to you, maybe to Loni,

    I’m not very sure, but I know it’ll haunt me

    For the rest of my life and for the rest of my days,

    all I will see is a red bloody haze.

    From Death to Desire,

    I have to find a heart that I truely addmire.

    From blondes to brunets, reds and browns,

    their screams provide me with a crisp, clean sound.

    I live in horror, terror and fear

    I feel like I must do something like Paul Reveare.

    I hear guns go off, bodies drop

    I just wish this little game would stop.

    Your heart beats, Your goin in shock,

    you reach for the glock but tha music stops …

Another reader emails:

    Please take a look at these attachments.My daughter is Loni,the girl mentioned in the poem.
    What are her rights?It seems like the boy who wrote the poem is the only one who has rights.They never mentioned his name but my daughter’s is there in black & white.By the way,she is still a minor
    Thanks,
    Cindy (last name removed for privacy concerns)

That certainly sounds threatening to me. Imagine if the school did NOT act on this poem, and the student in question did manage to harm Loni. The lawsuits against the school, very possibly aided by the ACLU, would fly fast and furious.

Allegations of the schools failure to protect the student from “a reasonably foreseen event” would crawl through the legal system, while the school defended its’ position of not taking action for fear of trampling on the First Amendment Rights of the student that wrote the poem, in the meantime Loni, and anyone else that may have gotten in the way of this student during his “exercise of his First Amendment Rights” would be, at the least, damaged for life.

This is a no win situation for the school, and erring on the side of caution, and in favor of protecting a student, was the correct course of action.

Lt. gov won't budge on grave-protest bill

SPRINGFIELD -- An end-of-session brawl over funeral protests continues to mount as Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn begins a public support campaign to prevent his legislation from dying in the state Senate.

Quinn on Friday unveiled a Web site that urges people to sign a petition to prohibit funeral demonstrations. The legislation has stalled in the Senate as lawmakers grapple with an exemption for cemetery labor picketing.

"We're not going to accept any watered-down, poorly drafted version," Quinn said. "If the Senate won't budge, then the people will act."

Quinn's proposal outlaws protests within 200 feet of a funeral during the ceremony and 30 minutes before and after it. The legislation came about after a series of disruptions at Illinois military funerals by a fundamentalist Kansas church.

The state House passed Quinn's version of the bill last month with little legislative opposition. While the legislation sat in the Senate Rules Committee, Sen. Arthur Wilhelmi (D-Crest Hill) proposed his own version with the labor picketing exception.

Union wants exemption

The Service Employees International Union says the exemption is needed so cemetery workers can protest at their job sites. The American Civil Liberties Union also opposes the bill on First Amendment concerns.

"What I'm trying to do is balance the issues -- the veterans issue and the rights of working men and women," Wilhelmi said. "My goal is to bring all the parties together and work out a compromise that will be a win-win for everyone involved."

But that seems unlikely to happen before next Friday's expected session adjournment date.

Quinn and state Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Norris City), House sponsor of the original bill, say the amended version would be ruled unconstitutional because the law would not apply to everyone.

Both men are hoping public support will help propel their legislation through the Senate. Both legislative chambers must agree on the bill before it can head to the governor.

"We should not put politics above patriotism," Quinn said. "We're going to get that law passed -- whatever it takes."

ACLU warns of free speech suit in Wilkins
Policy chills employee speech, group says


The American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to sue Wilkins if it does not revoke its chain-of-command policy.

Township employees were instructed in a Feb. 27 memo that in no case are they permitted to address issues to the commissioners "without the express permission and/or knowledge of the township manager."

Chain-of-command policies, ACLU attorney David Strassburger wrote Thursday to township Solicitor John Cambest, "chill speech on matters of public concern" and violate the Constitution.

Mr. Strassburger demanded that the township repeal the policy at the commissioners' April 10 meeting. If not, he said, the ACLU will sue in federal court on April 11.

Mr. Cambest said yesterday that township Manager Rebecca Bradley and chairman of the board of commissioners Frank Greco wrote the memo to clarify internal procedures, and not to restrict anybody's public speech at a public meeting.

Mr. Cambest said he is working with Mr. Strassburger "to see if we can compromise on the language."

The ACLU letter was sent on behalf of police Sgt. Anthony DeMarco, who declined to discuss the case on the advice of his attorney.

"If the officers had taken the extra step of speaking with me prior to going to this extent," Mrs. Bradley said yesterday, "we may have been able to work this out already."

Mr. Strassburger also wrote, "If Mr. DeMarco wants to speak at a public meeting and discuss ways to improve township government, report misconduct or abuse by township officials, or otherwise speak on an important public issue, the Constitution gives him the unfettered right to do so."

He also warned the township not to retaliate against Sgt. DeMarco.

ACLU of Pennsylvania legal director Witold Walczak discussed the constitutional principle. Chain-of-command policies are common and legal, in private business, he said. But governmental workers have greater protections because the Constitution is meant as a restraint on governmental power.

Chain-of-command polices curtail important free-speech activities, he said, like whistle blowing. Say a supervisor orders an employee to do something unsafe.

"Under this policy," said Mr. Walczak, "the employee is restricted to complaining to the supervisor. Since the complaint is about the supervisor, you are effectively eliminating any ability to fix the problem."

At least one township employee has recently been chastised for violation of the policy.

Police Chief Keith Guthrie wrote a memo to commissioners on Feb. 21 objecting to statements that Mrs. Bradley made about him in a letter published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Feb. 16.

Mrs. Bradley removed copies of his memo from commissioners' township mailboxes and wrote a warning letter to the chief.

"As you have been advised on numerous occasions, the chain of command for Wilkins Township ends with the board of commissioners, it is not the starting point. If you are upset about an article that I submitted to the Post-Gazette, then you should speak with me."

"Any future violations of the chain-of-command," she wrote, "will result in disciplinary action against you."

The ACLU’s Dangerous Views On Open Borders


It seems the hot topic lately has been illegal immigration. Many different plans have emerged on solving what a majority of people believe to be a crisis situation. While our nation debates the many different philosophies on fixing our Nation’s border problem, we would be amiss if we were not to mention the most dangerous philosphy out there, one the ACLU continually support, that of complete open borders.

We all know that the ACLU opposes any kind of legislation that could actually make meaningful immigration reform. And we have all watched as the ACLU has relentlessly tormented the efforts of the Minute Men who are attempting to do the job that our Federal government fails to do. But lets take a look at what the true motivation to all of that is.

    The ACLU’s opening position on immigration is set forth in an essay by Steven R. Shapiro of the New York Civil Liberties Union and Wade Henderson of the ACLU’s D.C. office entitled “Justice for Aliens.” According to this document, the desire to limit immigration can only be attributed to “hostility, motivated by nativism, racism and red‑scare.” The authors argue “use of the word ‘alien’ is both precise and powerful. In almost a primitive sense, it draws a line between members of the community and those on the outside . . . . they can be treated unequally . . . . the Supreme Court has concluded that certain classes of aliens may not even claim the right to constitutional protection . . . illegal aliens are not entitled to government benefits . . . . The rationale for this limitation is not an economic one . . . . the refusal to grant these often life‑sustaining benefits can be explained only by a desire to punish illegal aliens for breaking the law.

    Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the ACLU has redoubled its efforts to blur any distinction between citizens and non-citizens, and between legal and illegal immigrants. In Rhode Island, the ACLU protested the decision by the state government not to accept Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs) in place of Social Security Numbers when applying for a driver’s license. Anyone can get an ITIN, but only citizens have a Social Security card. The ACLU argument ran “As long as there is a substantial population of undocumented immigrants in the state, it makes little sense to deprive them of a license solely because of their immigration status.” There is no mention that a state driver’s license is the most widely accepted identity document in America, and once gained becomes the method for completely blurring one’s alien status.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has urged officials to enact an ordinance opposing a Justice Department initiative that would give local and state police the power to enforce immigration laws. “While we expect local police to cooperate with federal authorities in apprehending anyone, including non-citizens, who is suspected of criminal activity,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, “local police should not be in the business of detaining or arresting law-abiding aliens based on their immigration status.” Apparently entering the United States illegally is not breaking a law that the ACLU cares about, as an alien can still be considered “law abiding” having done so.

    The ACLU has opposed any Department of Justice plan to fingerprint and track immigrants and foreign visitors to the United States. “The ACLU has long opposed immigrant registration laws, saying that they treat immigrant populations as a separate and quasi-criminal element of society and that they create an easy avenue for surveillance of those who may hold unpopular beliefs,” read a press release, “The fingerprinting and tracking proposal is only the latest Bush Administration action targeted at Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent since September 11. Other discriminatory measures have included round-ups, dragnet questioning, the detention of more than a thousand young men and the targeting of Middle Eastern communities for heightened enforcement of minor immigration law violations.”[20] The ACLU also opposes the use of immigration law violations as the means for holding or deporting suspects with ties to terrorism, and the use of secret or classified evidence in deportation hearings.Source

During a dangerous era that our border security is of the utmost importance to our National Security, we have too many people doing far too little to solve the problem. And far too many people are bowing to the politically correct rhetoric of the ACLU’s radical agenda. Its far past time that people in the positions of power stop catering to the special interest groups for fear of the polls, and do what is right for America instead of what they feel is right for their reelections. If Congress does not wake up and stop punting around an issue that the majority of America has voiced their opinons on loud and clear, they may get a wake up call when its time to vote. Don’t let them say they didn’t know what their constituents felt so strongly about. Let them know.


_________________________

The ACLU does not want immigration reform because then it would be too difficult for their islamic terrorist partners to enter into the U.S.

PR, I've got to hand it to ya', you have a gift for writing and reporting all the atrocities of the ACLU, just reading some of the things they do makes me so sick. I pray that when we Christians are raptured that we will be able to see the things that await organizations such as the ACLU among others. I'd like to see them get their just desserts. Who will they try to sue then, or will they be 'happy' then when they have to live in the world and then face the Almighty Supreme God of the Universe.

Even though it is not a laughing matter it did bring me a chuckle when I had the thought of ACLU members standing before the Judgement Throne trying to file a law suit.

ROFL, I wasn't thinking that, but it is a very funny thought, can you imagine them rolling up their sleeves and telling God "put up your dukes"  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Ps 59:8 ¶ But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

Meth sting targeted South Asians, filing says
GREG BLUESTEIN
Associated Press

ATLANTA - Prosecutors and police zeroed in on stores owned by South Asians while ignoring white-owned stores in a sweeping drug sting, the American Civil Liberties Union contends in a motion to be filed this week.

The motion, which will be filed Wednesday, says authorities selectively targeted South Asians during an 18-month investigation that aimed to curb the sale of household products used to manufacture methamphetamines.

"They're targeting people who don't make meth, they don't use meth and they don't sell meth," said Christina Alvarez, an ACLU attorney handling the case. "People should be concerned that the government is continuing to blatantly scapegoat certain segments of society."

The group hopes the filing will prompt a judge to toss out the case against dozens of South Asian merchants indicted last year in Operation Meth Merchant, a sting designed to send a message to retailers knowingly selling meth-related products to drug makers.

Beginning in early 2004, 15 undercover agents were sent to small grocery stores, tobacco shops and delis in six remote northwest Georgia counties.

Once there, prosecutors said the informants were sold products ranging from antifreeze to pseudoephedrine even after the informants told the clerks - sometimes using slang terms - that they planned to make meth.

The investigation raised eyebrows, though, when 44 of the 49 retail clerks and convenience store owners indicted were South Asian, including several who shared the last name Patel. All but one of the 24 implicated stores were owned by South Asians.

In an area where roughly 20 percent of the 600 retailers are owned by South Asians, critics said authorities were "scapegoating" minorities.

"When we first started organizing, the people targeted were terrified," said Deepali Gokhale, an Atlanta activist who mobilized the area's South Asians and led protests in downtown Atlanta against the investigation. "They came out of their shock, and as they did, they realized the U.S. government had betrayed them."

Prosecutors said the federal law makes clear that it is illegal for merchants to sell products knowing - or with reason to believe - that they could be used to produce drugs.

Although a few of the cases have been tossed out, several have yielded guilty pleas and others are headed to trial, said David Nahmias, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. His office would not disclose an exact number, however, because cases are still ongoing.

In a statement, Nahmias denied claims that prosecutors intentionally targeted South Asian merchants and said attorneys were assessing each case on its own merits.

Lawyers for several of the suspects have claimed a cultural and language barrier contributed to their arrests. In the audiotape in Malvika Patel's case, for instance, the informant used the slang term "cook" for meth - a term her attorney McCracken Poston argued wasn't mainstream.

Patel's case was later dropped after she proved she was in Cleveland, Tenn., when the alleged sale occurred. The cases against six other suspects have also been dropped, Alvarez said.

The ACLU filing asks the court to dismiss the rest of the cases or call for a full hearing into allegations of selective investigation. It will be filed Wednesday, said Anjuli Verma, advocacy director of the group's drug law reform project.

Through police records and court filings, the ACLU said its team of five lawyers and three investigators documented dozens of white-owned stores that were cited by meth manufacturers but weren't probed.

The group will also provide testimony from two anonymous meth manufacturers, one who claims to have been an informant during the police sting. That informant contends in an affidavit he told police he purchased his supplies from white-owned stores but was ordered to make undercover purchases at South Asian stores.

"There's not only something fishy. There's downright evidence of discrimination," Alvarez said. "It's time to take a deeper look."

CLU Concerned Over New Minutemen Campaign


    The volunteer border-watchdog group Minuteman Civil Defense Corps has launched a new monthlong campaign one year after its operations along the U.S.-Mexico frontier began drawing national attention.

    The new effort comes as Congress debates controversial immigration-reform legislation that has drawn massive protests from advocates of illegal aliens.

    Along with Arizona, the Minutemen have planned exercises along the border in California, New Mexico and Texas, and along the northern frontier in Washington, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York state.

    J. Glenn Sorensen, a retired school administrator living in Flagstaff, Ariz., told the Associated Press the group already has accomplished part of its purpose, “to draw national attention to an insecure border.”

    “I don’t think anybody wants to close the border – I certainly don’t,” he said. “Basically, I think they need to be secure.”

    Bob Wright, director of New Mexico’s Minutemen group, said patrollers had been on duty less than 30 minutes Saturday when they alerted Border Patrol to the first group of illegal aliens – seven people – trying to enter the U.S.

    Don Goldwater, a Republican candidate for governor and nephew of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, was among the politicians and activists at a rally Saturday of at least 200 mostly older men and women at a remote southern Arizona ranch.

    “Build us that wall – now!” Goldwater said, referring to a measure to add 700 miles of fences along the border.

    Since Oct. 1, agents have caught more than 48,000 in the area patrolled now by the Minutemen, an increase of 48 percent over the same period last year.

    The group’s national leader, Chris Simcox, said volunteers will keep an eye on four watering stations set up by the group Humane Borders.

And of course, the ACLU will be keeping tabs on them.

    Critics accuse the Minuteman group of racism, but leaders say they reject any members of racist organizations who apply to volunteer.

    A chief opponent, the American Civil Liberties Union said it was concerned over “the potential for taking actions and … attempting to enforce immigration laws.”

    The Minutemen say, however, they only are reporters of illegal crossing to the Border Patrol.

Of course the race card is a favorite tactic to pull for those that oppose this National dilema that a vast majority of citizens are gravely concerned with. As our government fiddles around debating the issue, and doing what amounts to about nothing more than talk, the Minutemen have stepped up to do the job where our government is failing. The truth is that the ACLU’s opposition to fixing this problem has nothing to do with racism concerns, and much more to do with their radical and dangerous policy of open borders.

ACLU Continues Efforts To Tie TSA’s Hands

    The following can be attributed to Timothy D. Sparapani, an ACLU Legislative Counsel:

    “Screening methods that unnecessarily invade privacy, with no proven added benefit to security, provide only a false sense of security and must be rejected. We have a limited number of resources at our disposal, and the government must focus its energy on technologies and methods that provide real security, and not simply the illusion of security. Screening programs like Secure Flight and Registered Traveler invade our privacy and place undue burdens on completely innocent Americans and must be rejected.

    “TSA must use effective, minimally intrusive security measures to enhance airport safety that have minimal risk to privacy, maximum benefit to security and reflect the level of risk. Examples of such steps include: increased training for security personnel; heightened screening of airline and airport security personnel; strict control of secured areas of airports; a neutral entity to which passengers can report lax security procedures; luggage matching of all passengers; and the screening of all luggage, carry-on bags and cargo for explosives and weapons. The flying public can and must have better security measures put into place that do not unnecessarily curtail personal privacy and freedom.”

What kind of imaginary world does the ACLU live in where they can blather out minimally intrustive with maximum benefit to security in the same sentence? What they are basically saying in a nutshell is, lets do less with our security!

    From 9-11 to the present day, the ACLU has vigorously opposed every governmental attempt to more effectively protect the American people’s security. It sued, for example, to prevent the implementation of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was passed in November 2001 and included a citizenship requirement for airport screeners. It organized protests against a “discriminatory” Justice Department and INS registration system requiring male “temporary visitors” to the US from 25 Arab and Muslim nations to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. It condemned the FBI’s “discriminatory” plan to count and document every mosque in the US. It protested when FBI and Homeland Security agents recently tried to track down illegal Iraqi immigrants they deemed dangerous. In Illinois, the ACLU actually set up a hotline designed to give free legal advice to undocumented Iraqis facing deportation. Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser casually dismissed Americans’ concerns about illegal immigration, chalking such sentiments up to a “wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.”read more

If there is an effort to secure and protect Americans the ACLU are consistently there to chip away at it. They have continuously opposed commen sense measures by the TSA. Maybe its just me, but I wouldn’t trust the ACLU’s influence in advising on national security measures. Heck, the ACLU has also called metal detectors in airports an invasion of privacy.

Homeland Security Deputy Press Secretary arrested for soliciting 14 year old girl for sex
by Jay on 04-05-06 @ 7:16 am Filed under War On Terror, Child Exploitation, News

We have no sympathy for scum like this. Liberals, moderates, and Conservatives are all disgusted with this as they should be. This is definitely the kind of news that gets your blood pressure up after reading it first thing in the morning.

    Deputy Press Secretary for U.S. Department of Homeland Security Arrested on Polk County Charges

    Brian J. Doyle, DOB 4/7/50, the Deputy Press Secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., was arrested this evening at his residence in Silver Springs, Maryland, on 23 Polk County charges related to the use of a computer to seduce a child and transmitting harmful materials to a minor. Doyle’s arrest is the result of a joint investigation by the Polk County Sheriff s Office, working with Florida’s 10th Judicial Circuit State Attorney Jerry Hill s office, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Inspector General s Office.

    The Investigation
    On March 12, 2006, Doyle contacted a 14-year-old girl whose profile was posted on the Internet, and initiated a sexually explicit conversation with her. The girl was actually an undercover Polk County Sheriff s Computer Crimes detective. Doyle knew that the girl was 14 years old, and he told her who he was and that he worked for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. During future online chats, Doyle gave the undercover detective posing as a 14-year-old girl his office phone number and his government-issued cell phone number, so that they could have telephone conversations, in addition to their online chatting. Doyle used the Internet to send hard-core pornographic movie clips to the girl and used the AOL Instant Messenger chat service to have explicit sexual conversations with her. The investigation revealed that the phone numbers given to the detective were in fact Doyle s, and that the AOL account used was registered to Doyle. Doyle also sent photos of himself to the detective, which were not sexually explicit but did serve to further positively identify him.

Throw the book at this guy, and throw away the key.

    We will go after child predators, no matter where they live, to protect our innocent children, says Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd. This investigation shows that the long arm of the law can reach anyone, anywhere, anytime, who tries to harm our youth. There is no question that Doyle believed that he was having these disgusting, obscene discussions, on-line and on the phone, with a young girl. His conduct is vile and inexcusable.

Absolutely! People of all political stripes can stand in agreement here to get rid of this sick corruption.

Captain says it best:

    In this case, Doyle’s extracurricular activities escaped everyone’s attention, including (one supposes) the FBI and its pre-hire background check. It still reflects badly on the White House and the DHS, which is why political appointees such as Doyle are supposed to get a thorough vetting not just for security risks but also for the potential to embarrass the administration they serve. In the future, the Bush team had better learn to vet their candidates a little more thoroughly. Voters may not remember who Jack Abramoff is come November, but they will certainly remember who hired the Dirty Old Man of the DHS.

I’m in definite agreement that something is screwed up in the vetting process at DHS, but right now I’m more disgusted and angry at this man’s sickening crime to even go there. This is the kind of scum only the ACLU types will defend. I won’t be suprised if they take up his case.

ACLU vs Boy Scout Case Heads To Court Of Appeals

April 5, 2006 - Chicago, IL - PipeLineNews.org - In 2005, a federal district court in Chicago sided with the ACLU and ruled that the military's support for the National Scout Jamboree - held once every four years at Fort A.P. Hill in Fredericksburg, Virginia - unconstitutional. The case is Winkler v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-3451 (7th Cir.).

The ACLU's claim is that the Scout Oath's "duty to God" makes the Boy Scouts a religious organization, like a church, and that military support for the Jamboree violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

If the ruling stands, the military may not lend equipment or provide logistical support to the Jamboree, as it does for many other civic organizations. The Department of Defense appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. Oral arguments are now scheduled for Thursday, April 6 at 9:30 a.m. CST.

Deal clears path for cemetery protest ban

SPRINGFIELD -- Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, state lawmakers and a leading union for public employees struck a compromise Tuesday that should allow legislation barring protests at all funerals -- including military services -- to move forward.

The Let Them Rest in Peace bill had been stalled in the state Senate because of opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Service Employees International Union over a provision prohibiting any demonstrations or picketing near cemeteries and funeral homes.

Church targeted military funerals

The legislative push arose from controversial protests by the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church at scores of soldier funerals across Illinois and the Midwest. The fundamentalist church's followers said the troops met their deaths because they represented a country that condones homosexuality, and hurled epithets at mourners.

In a breakthrough, the broad prohibition against any picketing and demonstrations was stricken from the measure now pending in the Senate, prompting SEIU to end its opposition to the bill.

The legislation would still specifically prohibit loud and disruptive protests within 200 feet of funerals or memorials, "fighting words" that are distressful to mourners and the obstruction of entrances or exits to funerals or memorial services, said Susanne Hack, Quinn's legislative counsel.

The change was "all we needed to do to protect the rights of our members," SEIU spokeswoman Marrianne McMullen said late Tuesday.

ACLU hasn't reviewed proposal

While ending SEIU's opposition was a significant hurdle to overcome, the ACLU's position on the changes was not known late Tuesday.

ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka said his organization had not been able to review the modified proposal.

The bill could be voted on as soon as today in the state Senate. If it passes, the measure would return to the House for final legislative approval.

"We're real close to having all parties involved on board," said Sen. A J Wilhelmi (D-Crest Hill), the bill's lead Senate sponsor.

Scouts, ACLU back in court over Jamboree

Tribune staff reports


A lawsuit seeking to end government funding of the National Boy Scout Jamboree is scheduled to return to court Thursday, as the two sides in the dispute argue the case before federal appellate justices in Chicago.

Last July, a federal judge in Chicago held for the American Civil Liberties Union, ruling the military's historic support of the Jamboree was unconstitutional and issuing an injunction against the Pentagon's future participation in the event.

The military, represented by attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice, has appealed the decision. Oral arguments are to be made Thursday in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The military has said the event, which attracts tens of thousands of people, gives Army reservists an opportunity to fulfill training requirements. In a legal brief, government attorneys downplayed the scout's religious requirements.

But ACLU lawyers have argued the government's participation was unconstitutional because Scouts must take an oath pledging "duty to God."

U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning sided with the ACLU when she ruled on its 1999 lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs had "shown irreparable injury that ... their constitutional rights as taxpayers are being violated."

Manning concluded that the Pentagon's participation in the Jamboree violated the 1st Amendment because the Boy Scouts of America "excludes atheists and agnostics" and calls for members to believe in God.

At a news conference today in Chicago, Boy Scouts officials said no one at the Jamboree is required to pray or attend church, and that many of the resources provided by the military were promoting the armed forces, not religion.

The Jamboree is held every five years in Virginia near Washington, D.C. The last gathering was in July 2005. If Manning's ruling is upheld, it would affect the next Jamboree scheduled for 2010.

ACLU Endorses Bill To Supress Free Speech Of Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

    A new congressional effort to police advertising by crisis pregnancy centers is unnecessary, pro-life advocates said, and unconstitutional, free-speech defenders charged.

    The American Civil Liberties Union, which has long promoted itself as the leading defender of freedom of speech and civil rights, is right in the middle of the controversy, promoting the new legislation to the surprise of some.

However, this is not suprising to us at all. The ACLU have a long history of being selective in defending free speech, especially when it comes to pro-lifers. Besides, defending the first amendment is only third on the ACLU’s list of priorities, abortion is their number one priority.

    Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, introduced March 30 the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act (SDAWS), which calls on the Federal Trade Commission to bar organizations from advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not. Just 12 House of Representatives members have cosponsored Maloney’s bill, but leading abortion rights organizations, including NARAL Pro-choice America and the National Abortion Federation, are behind it.

    The ACLU also endorsed it, and that stunned some who have defended the organization’s work in the past.

    “[W]hat about the First Amendment?” asked Nat Hentoff, a syndicated columnist and a former ACLU board member, according to The New York Sun. “When you have the state, with its power, deciding what is deceptive on something as thoroughly controversial as this, it goes against the very core, it seems to me, of the First Amendment.”

    Hentoff called the ACLU endorsement “a really extraordinary mistake.” The ACLU advocacy for abortion rights has eclipsed its support for free speech, he told The Sun. “It’s the problem the ACLU has had for years,” Hentoff said.

And its not likely to change anytime soon. After all, some of the ACLU’s most lucrative donations are from pro-abortion groups. Its a much more profitable business than milking taxpayers over prayer and such. It is a $90 billion dollar industry. No wonder the ACLU thinks teaching abstinence is harmful. Its harmful to their pocketbook.

    The proposal is unneeded, representatives of crisis pregnancy centers said.

    “This legislation is unnecessary, as it aims to cure an ill that doesn’t exist,” Care Net President Kurt Entsminger said in a written release. Care Net is a nationwide network of about 900 evangelical Christian, pregnancy help centers. “This is nothing more than a routine attack on pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition. We find it particularly curious that in her announcement Rep. Maloney did not cite one example of a pregnancy center that is engaging in deceptive advertising.”

    Tom Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family Life Advocates (NIFLA), said in a written statement that crisis pregnancy centers “are providing accurate, truthful and complete information to empower women to choose life. The only fraudulent activity in this area comes from those in the abortion industry who want to withhold truthful information from abortion-vulnerable women.”

Amen to that! I’ve always thought abortion advocates were the ones that were deceptively named. Planned Parenthood? How deceptive is that? It has absolutely nothing to do with parenthood, or planning. Here is the straight talk on the deceptive business of abortion.

    So-called “counseling” in Planned Parenthood clinics is really marketing, providing few facts and is heavily biased in favor of abortion.25

    • Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was started by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler’s director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned “The Negro Project,” her strategy for eliminating the black population. In the last week of July 2002, a lawyer in Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against PFFA for their failure to fully inform women about abortion. The lawyer also agreed that PP is a racist organization that targets minority women.

    • “If a girl decides to carry her baby to term, … clinics don’t make any money. They make money only if she has an abortion. So, inevitably, clinics put pressure on women to abort.” — Carol Everett, who once owned and operated four lucrative abortion clinics.

    • “Nita Whitten, who once worked in an abortion clinic, says she was trained by a professional marketing firm in how to sell abortion over the phone. The main tactic abortion clinics use is fear. The phone operator asks the girl how late her period is and then tells her, ‘You’re pregnant.’ Not ‘You might be pregnant,’ but ‘You are pregnant.’ When a girl calls, Nita says, the object is not to help her; it’s to ‘hook the sale.’”

    • After the abortion, the girl is given free birth-control pills since, on the pill, she’s more likely to be sexually active. But since young people often do not remember to take pills consistently, there’s a good chance the girl will return to the clinic pregnant again. As Carol Everett puts it, “birth control sells abortions. Abortion is a business. A big business that uses slick marketing tools.” read more

    In announcing the introduction of her bill, Maloney said in a written release that some crisis pregnancy centers “should be called ‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have the right to exist, but they shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their particular beliefs.”

    Maloney’s bill is H.R. 5052. There is not a companion bill in the Senate.

Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers? This bill is garbage! Can you imagine the reaction if we were to create legislation forcing abortion providers to label their places “Baby Killing shops?” I’m sure we all could come up with some creative ones.

ACLU 'falsely' boots out abstinence program
Accused of spreading distortions that got curriculum barred by state



A group that had its abstinence education program barred by the state of Rhode Island after a complaint from the local ACLU, says the civil liberties group is spreading half-truths and distortions.

Heritage of Rhode Island, which produces a curriculum called "Right Time, Right Place," says the ACLU has falsely claimed a video in its program makes specific references to "a relationship with Jesus" and other faith-based issues, reports Agape Press.

In a news release, the Rhode Island ACLU said, "Programs like Heritage of Rhode Island subject students to an abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum that is both ineffective and harmful. Teens need information on how to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and STDs - they don't need sex education riddled with inaccuracies and gender stereotypes."

Heritage Executive Director Chris Plante, however, charges the ACLU has spread "misinformation" and has "not accepted any of our invitations to set the record straight."

The Rhode Island Department of Education recently ordered the state's public schools to stop Heritage's abstinence curricula, Agape Press said, after the ACLU complained it violated the First Amendment's clause prohibiting Congress from making a law establishing a religion.

Plante contends, however, the ACLU is confusing his group's video with a "Christian school version."

"We use a video called 'No Apologies,' which is published by Focus on the Family," he said, according to Agape. "When they originally did the video, they did two versions – one for public schools and one for Christian schools. We use the public school version."

Plante said it's unfortunate the ACLU allowed "prejudice based on misinformation" to "direct their attack on the abstinence message."

He notes that since last September, the ACLU has been engaged in a national anti-abstinence campaign in which it has accused federally funded abstinence programs of being "based on ideology and religion."

"It is becoming clear that the ACLU is more interested in promoting their agenda than ensuring that teenagers receive a balanced message that includes abstinence," he said. "When the ACLU couldn't find any religious teaching in our programming, they bent the truth to fit their national platform."

Plante believes the Rhode Island ACLU saw a reference to the "No Apologies" video in Heritage's lesson plans and then, rather than checking the facts, simply made the assumption Heritage uses the Christian version of the video. However, he insists that is not true.

Plante pointed out the curriculum producer agreed to an "Assurance of Compliance" with federal standards prohibiting the integration of faith-based content in its educational materials.

"We strive to work with integrity," Plante said, according to Agape. "By law our programming and materials must not include sectarian instruction, prayer, worship or proselytizing. Any institution we work with must understand that neither party can address abstinence from a faith perspective during our presentation."


Heritage is calling on the ACLU to "retract its false claims in the same manner they were initially proliferated."

"The time has come to put ideology aside," Plante said, "and to begin a dialogue between all concerned with protecting children from the consequences of risky sexual activity."