ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

______________________________

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[Soldier4Christ]

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