ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[airIam2worship]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[airIam2worship]

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"             

Ps 59:8 ¶ But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[Soldier4Christ]

The ACLU's war on the Boy Scouts


Last summer, a federal judge in Chicago ruled unconstitutional the old tradition of holding Boy Scout Jamborees at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia every four years. The military base belongs to the taxpayers and citizens of America, and the Boy Scouts do not. But the Boy Scouts do much for the nation, and even if the nation doesn't own the Boy Scouts, the Boy Scouts own major stock in the nation.

On Thursday, April 6, oral arguments will commence in Chicago at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellant is the Department of Defense, and the case is Winkler v. Rumsfeld. If the decision is upheld, the military will be barred from providing Jamboree campsites at Fort A.P. Hill, showing exhibits to the Scouts, and lending military equipment to the Scouts.

The Boy Scout Jamboree has been held at Fort A.P. Hill since 1981, and the military has provided support and resources for every Boy Scout Jamboree since the first one in 1937. The Jamboree is an opportunity for military recruitment, personnel training, and facilities construction and maintenance used for other military purposes. Some 40,000 Scouts and adult leaders attend the Jamboree from around the world, and no president has turned down an invitation to speak at the gatherings except for Bill Clinton.

The Boy Scouts are not the only group that partners with the nation's Armed Forces, though it would seem they ought to be at the top of the list of partners. As the Boy Scouts of America Legal Issues website explains, "Military bases routinely hold circuses, carnivals and rock concerts which are open to the public; the military provides safety, security and logistical support for sporting events and political conventions; the military sends bands to perform at churches, community centers, and nursing homes across the country; and the Navy's Blue Angels perform flyovers for NASCAR racing, truck and tractor pulls, and local parades across the country."

That the American Civil Liberties Union would single out the Boy Scouts for exclusion from our nation's military bases suggests an agenda so out of control that if upheld by the Seventh Circuit will threaten the very strength of our nation.

What kind of thing is it, this attempt by the ACLU to rid the public square of boys in uniforms who swear to serve God and country?

There are three possible answers. First, it might be justified by the nature of our government. Perhaps our government requires the purgation of private character-building groups from the public setting. But this is not the case. In fact, our form of government requires virtue that has its source in the private sphere. The public welfare cannot be divorced from private morality.

Perhaps though, second, something within that private sphere could still violate the principles of good government. Perhaps the Boy Scouts might do harm to the separation of church and state; perhaps the Scouts might impede upon the religious liberty of individual citizens. And yet the Boy Scouts do not constitute an establishment of religion or a violation of religious conscience. They are a private organization, and they are one of the most religiously diverse groups in the nation. Buddhists and Muslims join troops with Baptists and Mormons. Catholics go hiking with Charismatics.

And the third reason that the ACLU might wish to undo the role of the Boy Scouts in the public square is a more recent development. It is the non-discrimination code, which goes beyond basic egalitarianism to impose a radical agenda not only on the Boy Scouts of America, but on all of society – to subvert the foundations of that government that owes its very existence to the preservation of private morality. The non-discrimination code seeks to protect the moral choices of immoral human beings; it establishes license; it wreaks of our nation's communities havoc. Furthermore, it fails the test of the Constitution, as it is applied.

The Boy Scouts will discriminate, and they have the right to do so, and they are right to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to discriminate in the 2000 case of Dale v. BSA. The Scouts can exclude homosexuals and atheists from joining troops as members and leaders for the same reason that a homosexual or atheist organization can exclude Christians or people who won't pay dues. In our free society, private organizations can set their own terms as long as they don't impose anything on other groups.

That isn't to say that the government has no interest in private organizations. The government must work alongside the private sphere if it is to be effective. Governments from the local to the federal must partner with groups like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, the American Legion and the VFW, or the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. Whether the occasion is Hurricane Katrina, or Sept. 11, or Veterans Day, or the Boy Scout Jamboree, a connection between government and the private sphere ought not be precluded.