ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU eyes ban on illegals


HAMILTON - Butler County's latest crackdown on illegal immigrants has grabbed the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Our eyebrows are a big V above our eyes," said Chris Link, executive director of the Ohio ACLU in Cleveland.

Butler County leaders are moving forward with a plan to require anyone who seeks a building permit to sign a pledge not to hire illegal immigrants. Random job site inspections also would be conducted by the Butler County Auditor's Office, with results reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Butler leaders plan to spend several weeks asking home builders, Hispanic groups and others to weigh in on the proposal.

They also plan to hold public meetings with federal immigration officials and Butler's sheriff and prosecutor's offices.

But after learning about Butler County's plan Friday, Link said the ACLU is closely watching this proposal.

If the plan is adopted as it stands, the agency contends it would be illegal.

The group also would be willing to file a legal challenge, Link said.

"Random checks are a violation of the Fourth Amendment," she said. "You do not have to let the police onto your property or work site unless they have warrants. You can't make people sign pledges that would let them sign away their Fourth Amendment right."

Link said she was trying to contact Butler County commissioners Friday to learn more about their plan and to offer some advice.

"When an idea is just not very good, we kind of wait around and let it play itself out," she said. "But when an idea is this far off the mark, we feel more urgency to weigh in."

Link said Butler County's approach to illegal immigration is flawed in general.

"Local law enforcement is not empowered to enforce federal law," she said. "What exactly are they trying to address? They are making these claims that people are illegal, but how do they know? A lot of what is going on in Butler County is manufactured by political figures."

Butler County Commissioner Mike Fox, who made the proposal, dismissed the objections.

"The ACLU will oppose any attempt to enforce immigration laws in America," he said. "These are the same people that sued the volunteers who were trying to protect the borders. They don't even think it's lawful to protect this nation's borders. So I don't really care what the ACLU's opinion is.

"What I care about is businesses complying with the law. What we are trying to do is very simple. We are trying to make sure that the federal agencies responsible for protecting America do so."

But Fox said he would talk with the ACLU.

"I enjoy every opportunity I get to save people's souls," Fox cracked. "And if there ever were a group that needed a little missionary work, it is the ACLU. So tell them to call me quick."

Butler County's other two commissioners, Greg Jolivette and Chuck Furmon, voiced support for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, but have raised some technical concerns about Fox's plan.

For example, they say the proposed inspections should be done by law enforcement, not the Building Department. And Jolivette has worried that the proposal could amount to racial profiling of Butler County's growing Hispanic population.

Jolivette said he would welcome the ACLU's involvement.

"I voiced the same concerns, so I would like to hear from them," he said.

"We are not going to do anything until we have input from lots of different groups."

Last week, Butler County Sheriff Rick Jones launched a $10,000 advertising campaign to warn employers who are hiring illegal immigrants that they are breaking federal law.

He also has drawn national attention for billing the federal government more than $150,000 to cover jail costs for illegal immigrants charged with crimes. He has since begun negotiations to receive some of that money.

Jones said Friday he wasn't concerned about the ACLU's statements. He plans to continue working with federal immigration officials.

"We will enforce the law together as though we are one," he said. "We going to share resources. I am not going away. I appreciate (Link's) opinion, but it doesn't really mean that much to me."

[Soldier4Christ]

Controversial Christmas break OK'd

Whether they celebrate the holiday or not, Francis Howell School District students will have Christmas break this December.

The Board of Education voted 4-3 Thursday night to change the name of the district's winter break to Christmas break.

The decision seemed to please many people who applauded in the packed audience. Others expressed disappointment.

"I'm very happy," said district resident Kim Hutton. "Christmas is as American as apple pie. We can honor the American cultural tradition of Christmas and still be diverse and tolerant."

Hutton triggered the Christmas controversy last year when she asked the board to officially recognize the holiday on the district calendar.

"I'm disappointed," said Angela Lawson, a district parent who said she spoke on behalf of five families opposing the name change. "Our district is composed of a wide variety of people with different beliefs. We do not believe Christmas should be ignored, but we also do not believe it should be singled out and placed above other holidays that fall within the same time period. It may not be unconstitutional, but it is disrespectful."

As they left the meeting room, two students high-fived each other and said, "Yes! We've got Christmas break this year."

Nick LaFoy, a freshman at Francis Howell Central High School, said he spoke to several peers about the name change.

"I haven't talked to one student that feels passionately either way," he said. "Most are just annoyed this is such a big issue."

LaFoy, 15, was the evening's "student representative," an honorary non-voting position on the school board.

"I am a Christian and I do believe it should be called Christmas break," he said. "The history of this break was founded on Christmas. No title you put on an event is going to change the substance of it."

Board members Mark Lafata, Terry Black, Bill Spencer and Ken Schaller voted to change the name. Members Marty Hodits, Anne Womack and Bob Farr cast dissenting votes.

Board members said they have received hundreds of e-mails during the prior week, probably more than they have received on any other issue.

Black originally proposed the name change in December, but the board postponed its decision while it weighed the legalities. The firm Crotzer, Ford and Ormsby delivered an opinion that changing the name would not violate the United States or Missouri constitutions.

Black on Thursday said he spent "a lot of time in reflection" on his decisions and even considered withdrawing it from the agenda. Black said many people expressed concern about the change, but a greater number supported it.

"This is not about anyone's ego. This is about respecting others who have asked me to represent them on this topic," Black said. "Pastors have asked me to represent their congregation's views. I have been called to do this. As an elected representative, this is my responsibility."

Black said the district called the winter hiatus "Christmas break" until a previous board changed it 12 years ago.

"Then quietly, one day it disappeared. It was a label peeled off the calendar," he said.

Farr, head pastor of Church of the Shepherd in St. Peters, said the change was not fair to other religions that had holidays that fell within the 21-day break.

"I do not believe changing the calendar will make our community more or less Christian," Farr said. "If you want more Christmas, go to your church. If we look to the public education system to help students find faith values, we are looking in the wrong place. I believe in democracy. I do not believe in theocracy."

Member Bill Spencer said he did not see how changing a word on the calendar would create a theocracy.

"I'm a Christian," Spencer said. "I celebrate Christmas and I celebrate Easter, which is also on our calendar. But I can still teach my children about diversity."

Hodits said changing the name would invite lawsuits from groups like the ACLU.

"Who will be the winner here?" he said. "It will be the lawyers. Not the students or the district. Let's spend tax dollars on education and put it in the classroom and let's not give it to the lawyers."

Hutton said she had been in contact with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal defense organization that might help the district pay its legal bills if the ACLU sues.

"The ACLU would be out of its mind to challenge it," she said. "We are not breaking any laws and we are not hurting anyone."

Representatives for the ACLU and Alliance Defense Fund could not be reached for comment by Journal deadline Friday.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Attacking General Hayden


No sooner does President Bush nominate General Michael V. Hayden to be the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, then the American Civil Liberties Union begins lobbying the Senate to vigorously question the nominee on his involvement with the “warrantless program to spy on Americans.”

They preface all of this by stating they are a non-partisan organization, and take no official position on the nomination of any cabinet-level appointees. Yes, they state it with a straight face. If they are non-partisan, Lord help us if they ever opt to take sides.

The following is from Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director as presented on the ACLU website:

    “The appointment of General Hayden is the latest example of President Bush giving promotions to those who have led the greatest attacks on our Constitution and fundamental freedoms. This administration continues to demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect for the rule of law and our core civil liberties and civil rights. We hope that the Senate will use this opportunity to break through the administration’s stonewalling about the illegal program to spy on Americans without any check. Lawmakers and the American people have a right to know how many people have had their private conversations monitored.

    “Hayden’s approval of warrantless surveillance on Americans raises serious questions about whether the CIA would be further unleashed on the American public. It was under General Hayden’s watch that the NSA started to wiretap Americans, without court or Congress’ approval, even though the FISA Court acts quickly to review requests for intelligence investigations. Those who oversee our nation’s intelligence agencies must have the highest respect and regard for our Constitution — not the blatant disregard that individuals like General Hayden have shown. This is also an opportunity for Senators to demand the CIA to disclose its operations that may have run afoul of the Constitution and other federal laws - the practice of extraordinary rendition, the torture and abuse of prisoners and the use of ‘black sites,’ or secret prisons operated overseas. We encourage the Senate to fully investigate this nominee.”

Oh yeah, that’s non-partisan. Romero wants a fishing expedition because he’s hoping something may have happened.

If there’s blatant disregard on anyone’s part it’s Romero and his ilk with their disdain for those who are trying to keep us free. Their cavalier attitude about the Islamofascist threat to this country manifests itself in their open borders policy and their attempts to thwart the justice and security systems of our nation.

If the ACLU is against him, he must be the right guy for the job.

[Soldier4Christ]

Lawmaker denounces cross removal
Introduces bill to fight ACLU, curb judicial power

Angered by a judge's order to remove the giant Mount Soledad cross in San Diego, a California state lawmaker is introducing a bill to protect symbols of American heritage that have a religious aspect.

The Defense of Veterans Memorials Act would be the first state legislation of its kind, mirroring the federal Public Expression of Religion Act, introduced in the House last year, which would remove from judges the authority to award attorney fees, or damages to groups such as the ACLU.

As WorldNetDaily reported May 3, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered the city of San Diego to remove the mountain-top cross within 90 days or face a fine of $5,000 a day.

Thompson ruled in 1991 the cross violates the so-called "separation of church and state," but the case has remained in courts and become an issue of public policy.

The battle began in 1989 when Phillip Paulsen, an atheist, filed suit, and a court ordered the city to remove the cross. In 1998, the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.

During its brief period of ownership, the Memorial Association made significant improvements, including extensive landscaping and the addition of more than 3,000 plaques honoring military veterans.

Pointing out "separation of church and state" is not mentioned in the Constitution, the California bill's sponsor, Republican Sen. Jim Battin, said the term should not be used to "destroy any remnants or images of Christianity."

"The hatred of a religious symbol is not a just cause to tear down memorials that hold noteworthy meaning," he said. "Is the Arlington National Cemetery next on the hit list?"

The bill is scheduled for hearing today in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Battin, whose bill was introduced at the urging of the American Legion, said there has been a dramatic increase in litigation in California and around the country by special interest organizations against the public display of symbols of America's history and heritage.

Cities have been strong-armed into removing religious symbols from their city seals, law enforcement emblems and city property because they can't afford to defend themselves, Battin pointed out.

"The very threat of imposition of attorney fees or damages in such cases," said a statement by Battin, "has a coercive and chilling effect on debate, deliberation and decision-making by public officials when faced with the duty to decide what symbols of our American history or heritage may or may not be displayed in the public sphere without offending somebody, if those symbols, no matter how historical, traditional, or time honored, contain a religious symbol."

In Los Angeles, for example, the ACLU threatened the county Board of Supervisors with a lawsuit if officials did not remove a small cross from among the many symbols on its more than 50-year-old county seal

Members of the board, which voted 3-to-2 to comply with the ACLU's demand, publicly said they feared court-ordered attorney fees to be paid by taxpayer funds if the ACLU were to prevail.

Nevertheless, the county was faced with paying an estimated $1 million to replace all its seals.

"Laws that were created to preserve religious freedom and protections are now being manipulated to destroy them," said Battin. "This is inherently wrong. My bill aims to keep scare-tactics and threats of costly lawsuits from determining the outcome on such suits."

Similar suits have been brought against the city of Redlandsm, Calif., for having a cross on its city seal; the Federal Mojave Desert World War I Veterans' Memorial which consists of two pipes strapped together and mounted on a rock outcrop by veterans in 1934 to honor World War I veterans; and the Boy Scouts of America for having Christian themes and symbols in their manuals.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge Luttig Resigns


    Judge J. Michael Luttig, one of the country’s most prominent conservative jurists and once considered a likely Supreme Court nominee, has resigned from the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., to become senior vice president and general counsel for the Boeing Co. in Chicago.

    In a three-page letter to President Bush today, Judge Luttig, a 1991 appointee of President George H.W. Bush, wrote of his particular pride in helping define the law in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “In the prosecution of those who committed the atrocities against America on that morning, the court has been asked to address some of the most complex and far-reaching legal questions of our day,” Judge Luttig wrote.

    Because of the Bush administration’s policy of funneling terrorism-related cases to the Fourth Circuit, widely viewed as one of the most conservative federal courts, Judge Luttig has had occasion to write opinions concerning convicted Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and on two U.S. citizens once held without charge as “enemy combatants.” Judge Luttig generally has sided with the government, seeing the executive branch as holding sweeping powers to protect national security.

Sounds like he followed where the money was.

    People close to the selection process said that it was unlikely President Bush would consider Judge Luttig for any future vacancies, as political imperatives all but precluded nomination of another white male for the high court.

He has slapped down the ACLU on several occasions. I’m sad to see such a great Judge go. It is important that we keep liberal activist judges from filling the positions in these lower courts. It is important that we start paying attention, because the judicial nominee war has re-ignited.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Vs. America In UN Torture Court


I have illustrated before how the ACLU undermines America’s sovereignty and Constitution when it tries to trump our national security with international law. However, I think that must be their goal.

    Today the American Civil Liberties Union delivered a petition with more than 51,000 signatures calling for the enforcement of the universal prohibition against torture to the U.S. State Department delegation at the meeting of the U.N. Committee Against Torture in Geneva. The ACLU has been monitoring the committee proceedings and providing information about U.S. sponsored policies and practices of torture and abuse at home and abroad. The U.S. delegation denied on Friday that incidents of detainee abuse are systemic.

    “Instead of denying the systemic abuse of detainees confirmed by its own documents, the U.S. government must own up to the truth and take full responsibility,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project who is currently observing the committee’s examination of the U.S. report in Geneva. “We hope that the Committee Against Torture will hold the government accountable for the torture and abuse of detainees both within the United States and abroad.”

If anyone should be held accountable for crimes against humanity it should be the U.N. Gateway Pundit, illustrates this very well, here, and what a joke it is to be held accountable to them here.

For all the ACLU’s rhetoric about denial, they have absolutely no substantial evidence of any kind of systematic abuse. Still, the U.S. tried to appease them, banning the practice of water-boarding. This practice is not torture, and banning it is not admitting that we practiced it. However, to the ACLU this only brought more questions.

    “That they’ve specifically dealt with it - even while saying that doesn’t mean it was happening previously - raises questions,” said Jamil Dakwar, a field attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who has been monitoring the U.N. committee’s hearing into U.S. adherence to the U.N.’s Convention on Torture.

To the point, the U.N. has no room to judge when it comes to human rights. The U.N. is a joke when it comes to this. As Rightwinged points out, they are raping 8 year old girls in a food for sex scandal in Liberia!

For heaven’s sake, Cuba is now a member of the UN Human Rights Council!

Jim Hoft has been all over this.

    Religious persecutors, Womens Rights violators, Communist Regimes, and illegal organ harvesters will make up the new UN Human Rights Council.

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup of reactions to this. Expose The Left has video of Eric Shawn talking about his new book…The U.N. Exposed.

And this is the organization that the ACLU want to hold the U.S. accountable to? The ACLU, and the U.N. are two of the most dangerous organizations in the world. They are both seeking to destroy America’s credibility and soverignty. The U.N. are a corrupt joke when it comes to human rights, and they have absolutely zero credibility to make any judgements on America in that area.

On October 27, 1787, Alexander Hamilton predicted that a “dangerous ambition” would one day tyrannize the gangling young American Republic, all the while lurking “behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.” It could almost be said that Hamilton had a prophecy of the ACLU.

[Soldier4Christ]

New NSA Leaks From USA Today


Update: Bush responds.

    Bush said any domestic intelligence-gathering measures he’s approved are “lawful,” and he says “appropriate” members of Congress have been briefed.

    The disclosure could complicate Bush’s bid to win confirmation of former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden as CIA director.

In an attempt to rekindle the scaremongering of the paranoid left, USA today has taken upon itself to “declassify” more classified information about programs aimed at protecting us. Obviously they decided that there wasn’t already enough damage done to national security.

    The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

    The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

    “It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA’s activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added.

    For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

    The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.

    The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.

It isn’t secret anymore, now is it? If you read the entire thing you could easily be left with the impression that the government has gathered all kinds of personal information on you, studied your calling habits, etc. These phone companies went along with the government’s request for phone records. These are records that the phone companies keep anyway, that are often called upon in court cases. No one has been listening in on domestic phone calls, they are only collecting a database of what numbers called other numbers.

Since Qwest is the only company that refused to work with the government on the matter without a FISA warrant, we should be seeing a mass flocking of the paranoid left over to this company. That might not be such a good idea however. This leak may have just tipped some terrorist to exactly what communications in America are more vulnerable.

I’m trying to figure out what the big deal is. We will watch this news fizzle out just like all the other NSA news. Even some that distrust the President are acknowledging that no laws are being broken here.

    If memory serves, Title III doesn’t cover what used to be called “pen registers.” USA Today suggests that the companies may be violating the Communications Act of 1933 by giving the information, but the NSA doesn’t seem to be breaking any laws by receiving that information.

There is a little more NSA news today that I found quite amusing for the simple fact that it drives the left crazy. NSA won’t grant Justice Department lawyers required security clearance. Heh.

    The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.

    The inquiry headed by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers’ role in the program.

    “We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program,” OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey’s office shared the letter with The Associated Press.

So, the DOJ is dropping the investigation. Prepare for lots of ACLU whining.

I’m with Macsmind on this one:

    Ok, ask yourself a question. Who in the hell is going to give a bunch of DOJ lawyers security clearances to probe, when all through the NSA story and the Plame Game, whenever a story was written in the MSM it was based on lawyers “close to the investigation”, who leaked out the information.

    Sorry, simply can’t trust these dolts to keep a secret.

    Yet this isn’t anything new. Again, FDR and past presidents felt the same way towards not only lawyers but members of congress who then - just as now - can’t seem to keep secrets to themselves.

So, why is all of this news coming out about the NSA now? Well, of course it is an orchestrated effort, and it is only the beggining. It is going to get a lot uglier as Bush tries to get Gen. Hayden approved to run the CIA.

AJ Strata hits the nail on the head.

    Same old story wrapped up in a different package and for one reason - Gen Hayden’s selection to head the CIA. Personally, I think the rogue CIA agents are fools to continue this game. This just exposes why Hayden must go, and why he should keep his uniform on. While in uniform he must do what the President orders (forget Rumsfeld). This is just a lame attempt to throw up disninformation.

Mark Levin hits it out of the park.

    honestly am appalled at the arguments I hear against our intelligence activities in the face of an enemy who has already infiltrated our country and unleashed attacks from within, killing thousands of our fellow citizens. I get the impression that too many do not take this war seriously.

    The NSA intercept program shouldn’t be controversial. The Constitution and precedent make clear that the president, especially during war-time, can intercept enemy communications, including if those communications involve U.S. citizens within the United States. It is absurd to argue otherwise.

Most definitely read this one all the way through.

Heh, I thought this comment at Newsbusters was amusing.

    I must confess, I’ve been keeping a database of phone numbers also, I call it “the phone book” and “caller ID”.

[Soldier4Christ]

Why Isn’t A Town Enforcing Their Law - The ACLU


The ACLU is watching a small town in western Pennsylvania because of its curfew law. Each night at 9:45 pm the Trafford fire station blows its alert sirens to alert teens and other children that the curfew is fast approaching. All persons under the age of 18 are to be home by 10:00 pm according to local law. But with the ACLU looking over their shoulder, the town has been reluctant to enforce their law.

This stems from one child. Again it is the needs of the one trumping the needs of the many. Mr. Spock wouldn’t agree with this total lack of logic but that is the principle that the ACLU operates under.

    Under threat of lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, it appears the borough has backed off its curfew ordinance. Neither Mayor Kevin Karazsia nor solicitor Bill Ferraro would confirm or deny if the long-time curfew ordinance is being enforced — but this much is certain: In December, the ACLU contacted Ferraro after the Toocheck family complained to the organization. Attorney David Millstein, a volunteer at the ACLU who handled the case, said as far as he knows the ordinance is not being enforced. If he learns otherwise, he said, the ACLU will sue. Craig Toocheck contacted the organization after one of his sons was cited a second time under the Trafford curfew ordinance. The first incident occurred last summer when the boy, then 15, walked to the 7-11 without his parents’ permission around midnight. Craig Toocheck was asleep in bed when a police officer brought his son to the door. Surprised that his son had gone in search of a Slurpee without informing him, Toocheck agreed to pay the $73 fine and grounded his son — an active Boy Scout who posted a 4.11 grade point average on his last Penn-Trafford report card — for two weeks. The second incident occurred last August when the boy was watching a pre-season Steelers game at a friend’s house. At half-time — and with his parents permission — he left to walk home. The time was 10 minutes after curfew. Craig Toocheck said his son was a half block from his home on Edgewood Avenue when he was picked up by police. A week later, a fine for $98 was in the Toocheck mailbox. Millstein called the fine and the curfew ridiculous. “The whole thing was unconstitutional,” he said. “There’s no question about it.” The curfew violates one of the rights in the First Amendment — the freedom of assembly, Millstein said. “To impose a curfew on a person just because they’re a juvenile… It’s just not constitutional.” Toocheck said the curfew also violates the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments — which protect against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and includes the right to travel. SOURCE

Ok, let me get this straight, the ACLU is claiming that a reasonable curfew of 10:00 pm for what we can all agree are minor children violates the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments? How absurd. Next you will be telling me that a 9 year old has the right to buy a semi-automatic handgun provided they are willing to wait the required waiting period. I won’t hold my breath on that one but it falls in line with the same logic.

Here are the facts folks:

  # Children under the age of 18 are just that - CHILDREN. And are subject to the regulations that the home and society puts on them.
  # Persons under the age of 18 (CHILDREN) cannot legally marry without consent.
  # Children cannot own guns, securities, land, vote, and are not subject to taxation all because of their age.

At which point to we throw caution to the wind and teach youngsters the meaning of law and order? If children are subjected to the same freedoms that adults enjoy, then why is it that no one is standing in line to represent children who are forced to live under their parents’ regulations as false imprisonment? After all, a responsible parent would restrict where and when a child can travel outside of the home right?

If you leave children alone for any amount of time, their inner demons will get the better of them and trouble usually follows. As someone who lives with 2 teenage boys I can tell you, that if left to their devices there would be holes in the walls, broken fixtures, parties 24/7 where all kinds of unspeakable activities would be occuring, and that is just the tip of the iceburg. Teenage children often times need to be restricted more than younger children.

The ACLU will stop at nothing to remove all barriers to free will in order to create chaos. Once that is achieved they will swoop in utilizing their dupes in black vestments to create laws restricting all liberties to restore order and a Communist state will be born.

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one. In this case the needs of Trafford to be safe and secure in their community without an unchecked unregulated youth population roaming the streets causing trouble at all times of the night out weight any presumption that a minor child has to Constitutional rights to travel. And if I remember right, there is no such right in the 4th, 5th, 9th, or 14th Amendments.

The ACLU needs to allow local governments decide what is best for the citizens of their locality. The beautiful thing about a representative democracy, if you don’t like the decisions being made on your behalf, you can vote the decision maker out of office. Hence the terms government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Rewarding Bad Behavior


Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union announced the winners of its Youth Activist Scholarship for 2006.

Using money to perpetuate bad behavior, the ACLU will hand out $4,000 college scholarships to students they deem to have espoused the same radical agenda.

One of the issues that has helped acquire a scholarship is the right to not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. This gives you some idea of what is important to the ACLU. There was a time in this country when we would have rewarded a student for an essay on why the Pledge is important, but not now. The ACLU thinks not standing for the Pledge is a good thing; why they think burning or desecrating our national symbol is a privilege deserving not only protection, but promotion. After all, when you are of limited mind and intellect how else can you express disatisfaction with the mainstream of American society? Once you have established that panhandling is a form of protected self expression and a political statement why not see if you can get away with trampling the flag too.

The lunatic logic of the left leaves no stone unturned in its quest to find and promote the basest and ugliest aspects of anti-societal behavior. The ACLU are their sewer spelunkers, attempting to resurrect that which civilized people have flushed away.

[Soldier4Christ]

Christianity Today Jumps the Shark


Stephen Carter’s naive article is a sad reminder of how effective the ACLU propaganda machine has been.

    I would like to say a word in defense of the American Civil Liberties Union. Christians—including me, both in the pages of CT and elsewhere—often criticize the ACLU for advocating separation of church and state in ways that seem less grounded in the Constitution and in history than in an ideological desire for a religion-free public arena. On the other hand, I shudder when fellow Christians blithely dismiss the organization as fundamentally biased against them.

The opening is a farcical self-contradiction. He acknowledges the ACLU’s “ideological desire for a religion-free public arena,” yet “shudders” (in the fine tradition of radical feminist Harvard faculty, I’m surprised he didn’t make a nausea-induced dash out of the building) at the thought that someone would actually say it in public. If the ACLU desires a “religion-free public arena,” what other religion could they possibly target?

    …we seem to mimic the secular world’s conflation of disagreement with wickedness, as if not sharing my worldview places my critic outside the realm of rational discourse.

No, Carter conflates disagreement between honest parties with righteous outrage in the face of truly diabolical activity like, I don’t know, say a lawsuit on behalf of a child molester who openly states his desire to rape children to be able to prowl the park for victims…or support for infanticide…or support for the distribution of child porn (hey, if it’s already made, you can’t impede its distribution)…legal defense of a group that educates perverts on how to get away with child rape…we can go on and on. Whereas Carter is prepared to declare that “The ACLU is not Evil,” I take a more measured approach and say that, if they are not evil, they sure as heck do some evil things.

    As an antidote to the screechy hatefulness, I recommend Christian love.

So Carter’s condescending position is that we must ingotcha11te ourselves and never call a rat a rat lest criticism be ridiculed as “screechy hatefulness.” Pretty hypocritical statement in light of his appeal to stop the “name calling.”

    The next time a fellow Christian disparages the ACLU , try answering with something like this: “Sure, they’re on the wrong side sometimes, but I thank God for the times when they’re right.”

The next time someone disparages Mao for killing 60 million people, try answering with something like this: “Sure that’s a lot of innocent slaughter, but thank God he killed some that really deserved it. After all, Communism is a beautiful idea right?”

The several cases Carter cites as “evidence” of the ACLU’s love for Christianity do nothing to make his point. The ACLU determined from the dawn of its founding that it would take token cases for PR cover. The totality of their record is not mitigated by these few cases any more than Bill Clinton’s perjury could be excused because he didn’t lie about everything.

Interestingly, one of the links he provides is to the Utah ACLU’s list of the ACLU’s battle for “religious liberty.” This is ironic because the former head of the Salt Lake City ACLU office is a plaintiff in the lawsuit that seeks to remove the memorial crosses honoring fallen highway patrol officers from Utah’s roadways. The ACLU is behind the attack on the Mt. Soledad cross, the cross on the LA county seal, the Tijeras seal, the Mojave cross, legislative prayer, graduation prayers by individual students, school board prayer, Christian students that want to opt out of school-mandated indoctrination, public displays of the Ten Commandments and Christmas displays…I’m just getting started.

Either Stephen Carter is delusional dupe…or he thinks you’re stupid. The ACLU’s record of hostility to the Christian faith and to America’s founding principles (from the Communist founder to the current executive director who has stated that the US Constitution is “no longer sufficient” in “protecting our rights”) is too public and too voluminous to deny. Carter does his best to stand on a runway in front of a chaotic heap of burning, twisted metal and charred bodies and ask, “What plane crash?”

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Has Massive Database Of Its Members’ Financial Information


I knew it was only a matter of time before the ACLU would chime in on USA Today’s leaking of classified information about the NSA program. And here it is….

Via ACLU Website:

    In a story released today in USA Today it was revealed that the NSA has been collecting call information about millions of American residents and businesses served by Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth. One industry insider referred to it as the “largest database ever assembled in the world.” The American Civil Liberties Union strongly condemned the Bush administration’s most egregious abuse of power to date.

    In April, ACLU leaders met with White House officials, asking for a review of whether federal agencies working to combat terrorism are targeting innocent citizens or other lawful residents. Today’s USA Today report confirms that this is the case, despite White House assurances that innocent Americans are not the target of electronic surveillance.

    “Once again, it is clear that the president and the attorney general have lied to the American people,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “The NSA spying program is not only focused on terrorists or international calls. The government is clearly tracking the calls and communications of millions of ordinary Americans and that’s just plain wrong. This news serves only as further proof of how far we have slid into an abuse of power that undercuts the values Americans hold dear.

    “Congress needs to analyze what intelligence is gathered, who is responsible for gathering it, and what actions will truly keep us safe,” Romero added. “We can no longer accept hollow, government assurances while they stubbornly refuse to answer questions about the NSA operations. These latest revelations should serve as further proof that this administration does not have satisfactory answers to these vital questions.”

    The ACLU noted that there has never been a more urgent need to preserve fundamental privacy protections and our system of checks and balances than the need we face today. This latest transgression transcends the bounds of law and our most treasured values in the name of national security.

    “Today’s revelation about the NSA’s data-mining program only further proves our point that Congress must fully investigate the Bush administration’s illegal NSA wire-tapping program,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “This warrantless database violates the constitutionally protected privacy rights of all Americans. This latest revelation serves as a clear signal that the administration’s no-holds-barred approach to ignoring the law governing electronic surveillance has reached new levels. The ACLU has urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate NSA spying before attempting to legislate blindly on the issue.

While Congress is investigating that, maybe they should also take some time to investigate the hypocritical practices of the ACLU delving into its own members’ private financial information. After all, that is much more intrusive, and has nothing to do with national security.

    The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders’ commitment to privacy rights.

    Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization’s frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Yes, a mockery indeed.

    The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.

    He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”

After spending 23 years on the ACLU board, the “defenders of free speech” issued gag orders to him, not to speak about the issue.

    The people who are trying to gag my speech and Wendy Cabman’s (ph) speech, they are the enemies of freedom. They are the enemies of free speech. And we’re not going to concede the control of the ACLU to these renegades who are trying to hijack the ACLU.

Talk about compromising your values. This is the most hypocritical organization out there! Can someone please gag their whining? I’m tired of hearing about it. The ACLU have absolutely no room to talk on this issue. Perhaps they should practice their right to remain silent.

Definitely the biggest two faced hypocrites I've seen.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU defends rabid anti-gay minister’s protests
Ky. lawsuit makes for strange bedfellows



The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky is challenging new restrictions on protests staged at funerals, memorials and burials.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Kentucky, the organization alleges the ban unconstitutionally restricts free speech. The lawsuit asks the court to suspend the law for the duration of the case, and ultimately overturn it.

The ACLU, which is led by openly gay Executive Director Anthony Romero, filed the lawsuit May 1 on behalf of Kentucky resident Bart McQueary, who has protested three times at funerals and other events in Kentucky during the last three years.

McQueary is identified in the lawsuit as a supporter since 2001 of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, a congregation led by the anti-gay Rev. Fred Phelps.

Lili Lutgens, a staff attorney for ACLU of Kentucky, said the state’s new restrictions unfairly prohibit non-disruptive, non-disorderly speech and signs.

"We cannot prohibit free expression because we don’t like certain activities, nor can we suppress the speech of groups or individuals simply because we find their message distasteful," she said. "The First Amendment applies to everyone."

Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps’ daughter and a lawyer, said the lawsuit is notable because it aligns the pro-gay ALCU with Westboro Baptist Church.

"It makes for strange bedfellows," she said with a laugh. "It almost makes you speechless."

But she said Kentucky lawmakers went too far when they prohibited pickets, demonstrations or disruptions within 300 feet of memorial services.

"They are no better than the Taliban in Afghanistan," she said. "They’ve violated every clause of the First Amendment."

Dan Pinello, a City University of New York government professor and author of "Gay Rights & American Law," said the case deserves to be heard.

"The ACLU and other civil rights groups have most notably represented people who are out of the mainstream, whether it be criminal defendants or unpopular groups," he said. "We have the right in this country to legal representation."

Kentucky’s restrictions, which became law March 27, were enacted after Westboro Baptist Church protesters targeted funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq.

The lawsuit says such funerals were targeted because protesters "claim U.S. soldiers are dying because God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality."

Westboro Baptist Church protesters had previously targeted funerals of gays and people who died from AIDS.

Pinello, who is gay, said politicians waited to enact the restrictions for a simple reason.

"Gay people are dispensable, politically," he said. "That’s just the cold, hard reality of having 4 percent of the voting population that identifies as gay or lesbian."

Phelps-Roper said Westboro Baptist Church knew it was inviting controversy when it started protesting at military funerals one year ago.

She said the protests attack America’s "three major idols"—the United States flag, the dead and the military.

"We knew they were not going to take this lying down," she said. "I distinctly remember thinking ‘They’re going to start passing laws.’"

This year, lawmakers in 25 states reacted to the funeral protests by introducing legislation to ban or limit protests at funerals and other memorial services. Five of those proposals had become law by March, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Kansas enacted a law in 1993 in response to Phelps’ picketing at the funerals of people who had died from AIDS. The law was overturned in 1995.

Lutgens said ALCU of Kentucky hopes to follow that precedent and overturn the new law.

"Mr. McQueary clearly has the right to express his message in a non-disruptive manner, even if others disagree with him," she said. "That’s what the First Amendment is all about."

Restrictions too broad?

Lutgens said Kentucky’s restrictions are problematic in part because they’re too broad and vague.

She said it’s now illegal to whistle while walking down the street within earshot of a funeral, or stop for conversation on a public sidewalk near a funeral home or church while a memorial service is under way.

Violators can be charged with first-degree disorderly conduct, punishable by up to a year in jail.

Pinello, an ACLU member, said he doesn’t begrudge the ACLU taking the case.

"I may disagree with the message the client is communicating. I do with Fred Phelps. I think it’s abhorrent," he said. "But that doesn’t mean he and his followers don’t have constitutional rights, just as I do."

Phelps-Roper said although Westboro Baptist Church isn’t a party to the case, and won’t support the ACLU’s efforts, she said Kentucky lawmakers must stop restricting American rights.

"They’re dismantling the crown jewel of all her freedoms," she said. "It’s the brightest star in our constitutional galaxy."

Phelps-Roper said Westboro Baptist Church protesters are planning to continue their funeral pickets, but will obey state restrictions.

She said the ACLU lawsuit is insignificant compared to the church’s mission.

"Frankly, whatever happens, I don’t care," she said. "We’re going to do our job, and the Lord our God is going to watch our backs."

[Soldier4Christ]

Robertson claims church-state group co-opted by communists, ACLU
 

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson is once again making waves with comments on his "700 Club" television broadcast -- this time criticizing a church-state watchdog group he frequently battles.

Robertson, who has made worldwide headlines several times in recent months for other controversial comments he's made on the show, attacked Americans United for Separation of Church and State and its chief executive during the show's May 11 broadcast.

According to a transcript of the show provided to Associated Baptist Press by Americans United, Robertson accused the organization of being taken over by the American Civil Liberties Union and under communist influence.

He also repeated an accusation he has made before: That Barry Lynn, the group's executive director, opposes providing even the most basic municipal services to religious groups.

"Barry Lynn is so extreme, he has said that if a church is burning down, the city shouldn’t bring the fire department and trucks to spray water on the church because that violates separation of church and state," Robertson said.

Robertson said the ACLU "pulled a secret takeover" of Americans United, which he claimed was originally founded by Baptists and intended as a Protestant religious-liberty organization.

"The goal of the ACLU is to strip all religion from the public square. Why? Because the goal of the Communist Party was to weaken America, and they thought that they could weaken America if they took faith out of our public life," Robertson said, according to the transcript. "That's where it all came from, ladies and gentlemen."

A spokesman for Americans United said May 11 that Robertson's accusations were factually incorrect in several ways.

Jeremy Leaming said Lynn has never called providing basic city services to churches a violation of the First Amendment's religion clauses. "That's just ridiculous to suggest that government can't provide that kind of protection without violating the establishment clause -- we've never said anything like that, Barry's never said anything like that," he said.

In fact, Leaming added, Robertson has made the same accusation against Lynn in the past, and the group has asked him to stop doing so. "We sent a letter to Robertson a long, long time ago saying, 'Quit saying that, because that's not true.' We wish he would quit doing that," he said.

Leaming also said that, while Baptists were involved in Americans United from its beginning, it was never a Baptist group, per se. "We had several different denominations involved in the founding of Americans United," he said. "He's getting his facts wrong. It proves he either doesn't care about the truth, or he just doesn't know his facts."

The group was founded in 1947 as Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Its founders included Louie Newton, who was president of the Southern Baptist Convention at the time, and Bromley Oxnam, a Methodist bishop. In 1972, it shortened its name to its current form to reflect the fact that its supporters also included Catholics, Jews and those of other faith groups or no faith at all.

CBN's media-relations office did not immediately return a phone message requesting comment for this story.

Robertson's comments followed a CBN news segment about Americans United and its involvement in an Iowa lawsuit aimed at preventing government funding for a Christian prison ministry that focuses on proselytizing and converting inmates.

The incident is the latest in a series of dust-ups over statements Robertson has made on the show, which airs daily.

In August, Robertson caused something of an international diplomatic crisis by calling for the assassination of Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez. He later apologized for the remark after coming under heavy fire from the Venezuelan government, the Bush administration, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention and others.

Robertson has also suggested a debilitating stroke suffered by former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was divine retribution for Sharon's concessions to Palestinians.

Robertson also said disaster could befall Dover, Pa., because its citizens had "voted God out of their city" by unseating a group of school-board members who had pushed for the teaching of "intelligent design" in high-school science classes.

In March, Robertson lost his bid for re-election to a seat he had held for 30 years on the board of directors of the National Religious Broadcasters. Many observers said at the time the CBN founder's repeated controversies were causing the NRB and its evangelical supporters to back away from him.

[Soldier4Christ]

Compromise Proposed in Jesus Painting

 New developments in the controversy over a picture of Jesus at Bridgeport High School.

The Harrison County School Board has proposed a compromise to the American Civil Liberties Union. This comes several months after a concerned parent threatened a lawsuit.

The parent says the picture of Jesus that hangs next to the principal's office violates the separation of church and state.

The proposed compromise would create what some are calling "a wall of inspiration." The school board has approached the ACLU with it and is waiting for a response.

The compromise would keep the picture *inside* the school, but just move it to another location. Right now it's unclear exactly where, but some potential additions to the wall would be other inspirational figures throughout history such as Martin luther King or Gandhi.

Superintendent Dr. Carl Friebel admits it's a difficult to decide who makes the wall.

"There would be a set criteria that we would consider to add other people to the wall. Obviously, there would be certain individuals throughout history that might be undesirable to put on the wall," Friebel says.

West Virginia's ACLU did not return 12 News' calls Friday. Someone at the office said the executive director was out of the office.

[Soldier4Christ]

Veterans, ACLU Disagree About How To Protect America

Veterans and the American Civil Liberties Union; they both fight for freedoms, but that's where some say the similarities end. In fact, the South Sioux City American Legion says they're not against the organizaiton, just opposed to how it spreads its message.

Legionn members in South Sioux City, Nebraska want to educate folks about what they believe the ACLU is doing.

They don't think it's right that legal fees resulting from lawsuits filed by the ACLU are paid with tax dollars. Specifically, lawsuits that try to remove symbols of religion from traditional places. They are symbols they say they fought so hard to protect.

David Rasmussen, American Legion says, "The ACLU is trying to destroy our Pledge of Allegiance, our prayers, American memorials, and at the same time they're getting paid tax-payer money."

Legion members are afraid that could mean the removal of religious symbols in national cemeteries, such as Arlington National Cemetary, but the ACLU says that isn't the case.

Eric Aspengren, ALCU of Nebraska says, "The ALCU is not pursuing, nor has it ever pursued the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family member, not the government; the ACLU celebrates this freedom to choose the religious symbol of your choice."

The American Legion is hoping to drum up support for a bill that's currently in Congress. Called the Public Expression of Religion Act, it would keep organizations like the ACLU from getting attorney fees or damages for any lawsuits.

The Legion hopes the signing of that bill will be brought to a public vote this fall.