ACLU v America, again

[nChrist]

I'm Wondering - Does the aclu EVER achieve anything GOOD?

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU expanding into heartland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

Time for conservatives to wake up

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

The American Civil Liberties Union says it has already raised $258 million over the last year and is seeking $77 million more to hire new attorneys and launch new liberal advocacy programs in states like Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, and Tennessee. Major donors to the ACLU's fundraising campaign include billionaire financier George Soros, who gave $12 million through his Open Society Institute. (More details)
 
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero says the group plans to, among other things, expand its advocacy on behalf of illegal aliens and homosexuals seeking marriage rights in heartland states.
 
American Values president Gary Bauer says the ACLU campaign is one more sign that conservative and pro-family people "better wake up."
 
Gary Bauer"I still hear a lot of grousing, a lot of complaining about the election, about nothing's at stake, there are no choices or whatever -- that couldn't be more wrong," Bauer emphasizes. "The left right now is on the offensive; they are raising massive amounts of money. This ACLU announcement makes it clear they're going to take the battle right into the heartland where the pro-family movement is the strongest."

Bauer says the ACLU is going to use the courts, their regulators, and every other option available to force the country to accept their "radical left-wing agenda." Pointing to the outcomes in the last two presidential elections, he says liberal activists understand they are in a battle to make America in their image.
 
"The day after those elections you didn't hear [liberals] moaning and groaning and firing [accusations] at each other and blaming each other," he recalls. "What you saw ... was people going to microphones and saying 'We're going to fight even harder. We're going to raise even more money. We're going to do even more things at the grassroots level until we prevail.'"
 
Bauer laments that many "men and women of faith" currently lack the "fighting spirit" that exists on the left.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU bats .000 in TN school case

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

The American Civil Liberties Union asked the court to ban students in the Wilson County, Tennessee, schools from five faith-related activities -- playing a song with a religious reference in honor of a three-year-old cancer victim; observing the "See You at the Pole" student prayer event; participating in the National Day of Prayer; and holding any Thanksgiving or Christmas observances that included religious references. The liberal legal group also wanted to ban a parents' prayer group from meeting anywhere on campus.
 
Nate Kellum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), represented two students' families: the Walkers and the Golds. He says the ACLU came up 0-for-5 on its requests.
 
"This is a clear win for religious freedom and, if not a total loss for the ACLU, certainly a hollow, shallow victory. The court acknowledged that Christians -- like the Walkers, like the Golds and their families -- cannot be discriminated against for their beliefs, and that personal prayer, mentions of God, and Christmas references are constitutionally appropriate in the school," Kellum contends.
 
The ADF attorney says the lawsuit should clear up any confusion about the ACLU's goals with regard to any public expression of Christian belief. "The ACLU, with this lawsuit, hoped to wipe out every reference to God, but walked away with a 'take nothing' judgment. We are very pleased that the Walkers and the Golds were able to repel the ACLU's unmerited attacks," Kellum explains.
 
The order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee states that all of the activities the ACLU contested at the school may continue.

[nChrist]

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

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

Brothers and Sisters,

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

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

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

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

Other comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[nChrist]

If the ACLU wants to give us a gift that will be appreciated,

they can DISBAND, GO HOME, and give their BIG MOUTHS a rest for about 100 years.

[Soldier4Christ]

If the ACLU wants to give us a gift that will be appreciated,

they can DISBAND, GO HOME, and give their BIG MOUTHS a rest for about 100 years.

That would be a gift worth celebrating in the grand ole fashion of the 4th of July.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU vying to stop Naval prayer

Do Americans want a military free of all religious influence?

That is the question being posed in response to a letter from the ACLU to the United States Naval Academy demanding that midshipmen not be allowed to pray before their noon meal.
 
For decades, lunch at the U.S. Naval Academy has been preceded by a brief, voluntary prayer. But earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote the Academy demanding that the prayers cease. The ACLU claims the prayers violate the so-called "separation of church and state." But Joel Oster, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, says the real intent of the letter is clear.
 
"The ACLU wants to rid the U.S. government from anything religious. And this is just another example of them trying to get involved and trying to strip America from its religious heritage and its religious practices, and it must be stopped," Oster contends.
 
He says the ACLU and other anti-religious groups are seemingly even more aggressive in their opposition to all things godly than they have been in the past.
 
"I think they're ramping up their attacks. While in the past, maybe they've said, 'We're not really going after all prayer, just overtly sectarian prayer,'" he points out. "Now, the gloves are off and it's clear they're going after any and all prayers," Oster explains.
 
Oster says that ADF tries to avoid the distinction between sectarian and non-sectarian prayers because government should not be in the business of scrutinizing the content of anyone's prayers. He argues that the military should be able to determine how to best prepare its men and women for combat, including acknowledging that there is a spiritual dimension to military service. ADF has offered to defend the Naval Academy free of charge if the ACLU sues.

[HisDaughter]

I just couldn't decide which I liked best....

[Soldier4Christ]

I think that they are all quite fitting.

[nChrist]

Hello GrammyLuv and All,

Thanks for the great graphics. I think that the ACLU vs. GOD with the hammer and sickle is the most accurate graphic. If we were a Godless communist country, I think that the ACLU would finally be happy. The ACLU and their supporters are really a pretty pathetic group of people. The horns on many of their heads are beginning to show now. In the end, most of them will get exactly what they want for ETERNITY.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Famous Christian Quotes 56 - "All of us who were engaged in the
struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending
providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy
opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our
future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful
friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have
lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing
proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men.
And if a sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it
probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?" -- Benjamin
Franklin (To Colleagues at the Constitutional Convention)

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU given 'veto power' over free-speech rights

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

The South Iron School District allows off-campus organizations to distribute literature to students before and after school, and during other non-instructional times such as lunch breaks. But the American Civil Liberties Union sued, saying the Gideons should not be allowed to hand out Bibles because of their religious nature. U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry agreed.
 
"In fact, the federal judge said...the ACLU must be able to have the say-so over whether religious literature can be distributed -- and obviously, if the ACLU has that say-so, no religious literature will ever be distributed," says Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

But Staver points out that the First Amendment prohibits any "heckler" from having the right to prohibit free speech. "...The ACLU may not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but, frankly, the Constitution requires equal treatment," states the attorney. "...Hecklers may heckle all they want to, but they may not veto private religious speech."
 
Staver is asking the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule Judge Perry. He says that, to his knowledge, no other U.S. court has ever ruled that a private, third party should be given veto power over private religious speech.