ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU: Abortion is “necessary medical care”


The ACLU can’t even manage to stick to its own story within a single paragraph in this release. First they claim that inmates are denied “access to abortion care.” Two sentences and another lie later, they acknowledge that an inmate may seek an abortion with a court order!

    ACLU Asks Court to Uphold Decision Allowing Inmates To Access Abortion Care (5/12/2006)

 

    PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union today asked an Arizona court of appeals to uphold a lower court decision allowing inmates access to timely, safe, and legal abortions.

    “Jail officials cannot ignore the medical needs of inmates simply because they do not agree with the decision to end a pregnancy,” said Brigitte Amiri, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “We hope that the court will see this policy for what it is: dangerous and unjust.”

    At issue is an unwritten Maricopa County Jail policy denying inmates access to abortion care. The policy prohibits jail officials from transporting an inmate to obtain an abortion. The only way an inmate can get an abortion is by seeking and obtaining a court order. The jail transports inmates without a court order for all other necessary medical care, including prenatal care and childbirth.

    In August 2005, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, struck down the jail’s policy, holding that it serves “no legitimate penological purpose.” After weeks of being denied access to abortion services, a pregnant inmate filed the case in May 2004 on behalf of herself and future inmates seeking abortion care. Because of the policy, the inmate was delayed seven weeks from the time she first told jail officials she wanted an abortion.

    “The Maricopa jail is putting unnecessary obstacles in the paths of women seeking basic medical care,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona. “Regardless of whether a woman is in jail, she still has a constitutional right to make her own decision – without government interference – about whether or not to have an abortion. ”

    According to today’s brief, the ACLU noted that Joe Arpaio, the sheriff in charge of Maricopa County Jail, has “maintained the Policy throughout his tenure, consistent with his well-publicized stance against abortion and his ‘America’s toughest sheriff’ persona.”

    The ACLU today filed a brief in the case, Doe v. Arpaio, 1 CA-CV 05-0835. Lawyers on the case include Amiri, Talcott Camp, Jennifer McAllister-Nevins, and Charu Chandrasekhar with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.


Since the ACLU failed to include a working link in their own release, you can access the brief here.

Suffering through the entire complaint, the ACLU’s twistedness shines through in its insistence that an abortion is a basic/standard/routine/necessary/no-different-from-removing-a-splinter procedure with no moral implications. The fact is, an abortion, especially if an inmate is asking that state resources be used to obtain one (although in this case the ACLU swears up and down that inmate was picking up the tab) should be weighed with more scrutiny than a regular trip to sick call. I know that there are some onerous Supreme Court rulings out there that create a muddy “undue burden” “standard” (courtesy of Queen Nebulous, SDO’C) in the case of the exalted “right” to in-utero dismemberment of a child that say different, but Maricopa County’s duty is to the taxpayer. How long before the ACLU claims that requiring the inmate to compensate the state for expended resources in pursuit of an elective and morally abominable procedure is an “unconstitutional” “undue burden?”

The dementia continues throughout the brief when the ACLU repeatedly compares pre/post-natal care to butchering an unborn child — as if the state’s effort to ensure the healthy delivery of a baby is morally equivalent to the state ensuring the agonizing death of another. This, my friends, is what the macabre Architects of the Culture of Death have spawned.

Sheriff Joe gets it right (except about whose money it is, but we’ll forgive him) when he says:

    “It’s government money and this is elective surgery. What are they going to ask for next? A nose job?”

Final note: One of the more audacious claims in the brief is that requiring a court order for state resources to be used to provide services and transport an inmate to an abortion somehow violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Would they apply the same claim to the baby being ripped piece-by-piece from the place where she should be most protected?

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Seeks FBI Surveillance Data on California Mosques


I have a question regarding this. Who will pay?

Behind the rhetoric, grandstanding and whining from the ACLU and CAIR’s demand for the FBI to release documents regarding any post-Sept. 11 surveillance of Southern California mosques and Muslims lies the question of who will pay?

Who will pay for the damage of a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim extremists the next time we get hit?

When the terrorists next hit us, and it is found out that they were living here (as they certainly are) and that they were regular attendees of the First Mosque of the Holy Smoking Hole and that IF monitoring had been done someone with a badge and a bit of authority could have stopped the attack, WHO WILL PAY?

CAIR?

Not likely. The “Muslim Civil Rights Group” that refuses to truly fight terrorists and wants to make this country into some mooj paradise will hide their heads in the sand (an action that reminds them of home you know) until the smoke clears and Americans stop waving flags and demanding ubgone86i blood, then stand up and meekly state “we don’t agree with the methods of the people that did this” while continuing behind the scenes to undermine our country and place us in even more danger.

The ACLU?

Nope….they’ll jump up and say “Wow, that sucks dude, but you can’t monitor me or anyone else because we should be free to plot against you.”

I am spitting mad that these groups stand with a straight face and actually hope that people believe their claptrap.

    The ACLU filed the request under the federal Freedom of Information Act on behalf of individual Muslims and six Islamic groups, including the Shura Council, an Anaheim-based federation of more than 60 mosques, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group whose Southern California chapter is also in Anaheim.
    In January, the FBI acknowledged that agents monitored mosques, Muslim-owned businesses and homes throughout the country for radiation levels.
    After the radiation monitoring was disclosed in December 2005, FBI officials met with angry Muslim and Arab-American leaders in Washington to explain the surveillance program.
    Syed of the Shura Council said he hoped the Freedom of Information Act request would lead to a similar meeting in Los Angeles with local FBI officials.

    ‘The problem is that we don’t know the extent of the surveillance,’ Syed said.

No, Syed, the problem is that is it none of your business!!!!

The ACLU and CAIR, and all of the other “civil rights groups” that demand we reveal the tactics and results of our monitoring programs that are in place in furtherance of national security have proven by their actions that they stand against this country, our government and, at the end of the day, Freedom.

Perhaps the national dialogue is debating about deporting the wrong people.

    In an e-mail, FBI officials said they would ‘address’ the ACLU’s request but did not say whether records would be turned over. ‘The FBI does not investigate anyone based on their lawful activities, religious or political beliefs,’ said Assistant Director J. Stephen Tidwell of the L.A. office.

    He added that FBI officials met with members of several local Middle Eastern communities, including Muslims, last month to address their concerns at an agency-sponsored town hall meeting in Los Angeles.

    Tidwell said ‘open, honest and continuous dialogue is the only way to build and maintain trust and confidence’ between the communities and the FBI.

    But Syed said the FBI had a ‘practice of coming in through the back door to question people based only on the premise of suspicion.’

Imagine that!!! The FBI questioning people on the BASIS OF SUSPICION!!!!

Now, maybe the FBI changed while I wasn’t looking, but I always thought they were a LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUP and that groups such as that made it a habit to question people when they harbored a suspicion about them.

I could be wrong.

    Mathieu Deflem, a University of South Carolina professor who studies law enforcement’s role in combating terrorism, said the FBI’s role in preventing another attack often puts the agency at odds with the Muslim community. ‘The relationship with the religion is very delicate,’ he added.

    But Deflem said the FBI was justified in monitoring mosques because extremists may try to blend in among worshippers.

    For instance, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, who were in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, were virtual unknowns in their community even though they worshiped at a mosque near San Diego.

‘The relationship with the religion is very delicate,’ …..

Well for the life of me I don’t know why the FBI and Muslims have such a delicate relationship. Could it have something to do with the fact that we are at war with muslim extremists all over the world (or so it seems) and the most logical place to look for a muslim extremist is in a MOSQUE!!!!

Nope…that can’t be it.

It must be that the FBI is full of racists that hate Muslims.

Yeah…that’s it.

More on the cozy, “I got your back” relationship between CAIR and the ACLU at Atlass Shrugs. It seems CAIR wants to stop the NSA surveillance too. I can’t help having the question pop in my head…what are they hiding?

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU: Military Chaplains “need to find another career.”


Jeremy Gunn, the ACLU’s “religious liberty” point man was for some reason invited to the Air Force Academy to address cadets and staff to share his view that the attack on public expression of faith is a myth. In the May 11 Colorado Gazette story covering the event exposes Gunn as the condescending anti-faith bigot he is. Feast on the dementia:

    A perceived war on Christians in America is a myth driven by politics, a top official from the American Civil Liberties Union told cadets and professors at the Air Force Academy on Thursday.

    Addressing an issue that has generated controversy at the academy, including allegations of discrimination against non-Christians, Jeremy Gunn said many falsehoods are fueling a pro-Christian backlash.

    “A lot of this is sincerely believed, but it is self-intoxicating rhetoric,” said Gunn, director of the ACLU’s program on religious freedom.

So, the people that actually notice or are directly impacted by the attack on public religious expression led by the ACLU are just making it all up. Mr. Gunn, in case you didn’t know, the ACLU’s record is not what the Venona files were before the fall of your beloved Soviet Union — most is a matter of public record, easily researched…and the facts are crystal.

    Gunn said instead that religion has never enjoyed a time of greater freedom and public discussion in America.

    “If you don’t see it, it’s because you’re too close to it,” he said.

Say what? I think he’s calling his audience idiots again.

    Gunn said evangelicals, rather than seeking freedom to practice their faith, are seeking a government endorsement of their practices, including proselytizing.

    “The question is what role should the government play in supporting, promoting and endorsing religion,” he said.

This is where his abject ignorance begins to shine. One of the first acts in George Washington’s tenure as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (GW was, if we want to get REAL technical, the first American soldier, a true “Army of One.”) was to establish the chaplaincy! I guess the entire history of the chaplaincy has been one long conspiracy created just so the ACLU could swoop in and save us all from a military that actually provides (GASP) religious counselors for service members.

    Gunn challenged the role of chaplains in the military, saying that they need to balance their faith against the needs of the service.

    Those who put evangelism first, he said, “need to find another career.”

The Apex of Absurdity is not only what Jeremy Gunn calls his winter cabin in the Poconos, it’s what his crescendo of condescension reached with this putrid cherry on top. Please understand that by evangelism, Gunn isn’t talking about forcibly baptizing anyone in the Euphrates, by “evangelizing,” he means a chaplain mentioning his denomination publicly.

Siren blast to Gunn: The needs of the service in regard to a chaplain’s assigned duties ARE a chaplain’s religious faith and training!

In his next seminar with the Marines at Camp Pendleton, I can just imagine Gunn ascending the podium to tell a bunch of SAW gunners that if they put shredding terrorists first, they “need to find another career.” Pink mist.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hey ACLU! Is Banning Hate Speech A Slippery Slope Or Not?


I thought I remembered the ACLU saying, “Even speech that is cruel, distasteful and upsetting is protected by the First Amendment.” I swear they were preaching something along the lines of, “The best answer to this speech is not speech restrictions, but more speech.” I guess this philosphy only applies when disrupting American soldier funerals, and not towards other kinds of hate speech in which the ACLU disagrees with. Either that, or the Boulder ACLU didn’t get the memo.

    Tuesday, the Boulder City Council will take up the matter of allocating public funding for a “hate hotline,” which would give residents an opportunity to report incidents in which Boulderites use tactless language.

    “Our concern—and there are many—is that there is no confidentiality, no legal confidentiality,” explains Judd Golden, chairman of the Boulder American Civil Liberties Union, which has not yet taken an official position on the hate-line. “So it’s potentially chilling if people think they are providing this information in confidence and then that information were provided to the government or the government sought access to it. That would chill free speech.”

Jeff Goldstein nails it as usual.

    Amazingly, what worries the ACLU is not so much that a hotline to report tactless language is being set up by the local government—and that such a hotline might by used to enforce what is beginning to take shape as a municipal speech code—but rather that the person reporting the “speech offense” doesn’t have confidentiality, meaning that the problem is, should any kind of legal consequence proceed from the misuse of speech, the ACLU is bothered by the accuser’s not receiving the equivalent of rape shield law protections.

So, the idea of politically correct thought police doesn’t bother the ACLU at all when the issue is one of their pet causes.

The article continues…

    Golden says the agenda item on the hotline is “extensive” and a “real dilemma” for the ACLU. There are some very “broad standards” laid out in the resolution.

    There is, for instance, the policy statement condemning the usual individual or collective acts of racism and bigotry. Great. But it also condemns those who attack “personal beliefs and values.”

    “Well, for the ACLU, that goes over the line,” Golden says. “You can object to free speech just because someone is a Republican or a Democrat.”

So what is the dilema? If you are going to draw a line on what speech is free, and what speech should be condemned….where do you draw it? Is a psycho cult screaming “God hates fags”, and “Thank God For Dead Soilders” at a military funeral political speech or hate speech? Is burning the American flag protected by the Constitution, while a sexist joke requires a fine or some kind of “sensitivity training”?

    So, it seems that since purifying our thoughts is still beyond technology’s reach, Boulder will now attempt to achieve politically correct speech codes in other ways.

    The council should realize, however ugly it may be, Americans still have the constitutional right to be racist, homophobic, Jew-hating or even to make bad jokes—as anyone who’s heard the one about the redneck who invented the ejection seat on the helicopter can tell you.

    The most serious question, however, is will the hate-line folks forward their files to the Boulder police or City Council?

Once again I refer you to Jeff….

    Precisely. There are no grounds whatsoever on which the ACLU can support this kind of thing, and yet—because they have become an organization increasingly interested in defending groups they feel have been socially marginalized (rather than protecting civil liberties in the abstract)—they are struggling with how to come to grips with Boulder’s “good intentions.”
    Which is rubbish. No one has a constitional right not to be offended. And nothing the Boulder City Council says about it either way should matter in the slightest.

So to the ACLU I ask again, “Is banning hate speech a slippery slope or not?” Why are you not taking a position on this? It should be pretty simple. Are you for the thought police or against it? Are you for free speech, or only speech to hate America and rape little boys? Hypocrits!

[Soldier4Christ]

Still attempting to silence Christians.


Muslim student, ACLU
fight graduation prayer
17-year-old: ‘Terms like Jesus Christ, heavenly father … were offensive to me'


A federal judge in Louisville, Kentucky, granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting a prayer from being said during graduation ceremonies at an area high school after a Muslim student on the planning committee objected and garnered the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Arshiya Saiyed, a senior at Russell County High School, said she was working on plans for the ceremony, scheduled for last night, with the senior panel when the issue came up, according to WHAS-TV in Louisville.

"Terms like Jesus Christ, heavenly father, I talked about the fact I was Muslim and the prayers in the past were offensive to me," the 17-year-old said.

Saiyed claimed that almost immediately after objecting to the prayer, she was harassed by a group of students. One student told her he wanted her out of the country, she related to WHAS.

Principal Gary Kidwell, who noted a prayer of some sort has been offered at graduation for years, said he will not tolerate further harassment.

"I'm aware of one isolated incident there was inappropriate conduct I was aware of, and we dealt with those," he said.

The ACLU won't comment specifically on the case, WHAS reported, but a spokeswoman said schools must be careful with graduation speeches.

"The closer it looks like school sponsored, the more likely it's found to be school sponsored," said the ACLU's Lili Lutgens.

Saiyed said she would favor a moment of silence but not a religious prayer.

"We should be able to do that on our own and not at a state-sponsored public school," she said.

Kidwell said he is talking to students and a number of groups to make sure the graduation ceremony is appropriate and legal.

The ACLU contends schools are on safe legal ground if religious prayers or speeches take place in private, voluntary ceremonies outside of graduation.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Upset Over Judge Not Allowing More Classified Information To Be Exposed


Hasn’t the media and the ACLU exposed enough classified information for our enemies? Ha! For the ACLU it is never enough!

    A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a man who says he was an innocent victim of the United States government’s program transferring terrorism suspects secretly to other countries for detention and interrogation.

    Judge T. S. Ellis 3d ruled in favor of the Bush administration, which had argued that the “state secrets” privilege provided an absolute bar to the lawsuit against a former C.I.A. director and transportation companies. Judge Ellis said the suit’s going forward, even if the government denied the contentions, would risk an exposure of state secrets.

The ACLU didn’t really like this ruling.

    Mr. Masri’s lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union had argued that there were no state secrets to protect as his story has been widely reported and officials had even acknowledged the existence of the rendition program. But Judge Ellis said there was an important distinction between “a general admission the program exists and the admission or denial of the specific facts at issue in this case.”

    Ben Wizner, an A.C.L.U. lawyer for Mr. Masri, said, “The idea that the court must close its eyes and ears to common sense and protect the nation from disclosure of information that the whole world knows is absurd.” He said an appeal would be considered.

What is absurd is that the ACLU constantly closes its eyes and ears to common sense when it comes to national security. There is a reason that America has ways of fighting terror that are to our most benefit when the enemy doesn’t know about them. This is the kind of common sense that the ACLU can not understand. The judgement was a sound one. There is no reason that our government should release its secret programs in fighting terror over the claims of this one man. This judge made a good call, and knew his place within the judicial branch was not to undermine America’s efforts to protect itself.

    Judge Ellis said Mr. Masri’s interests in having his rights vindicated in court must yield to “the national interest in preserving state secrets.” But he noted that if Mr. Masri’s account were true, he “suffered injuries as a result of our country’s mistake and deserves a remedy.” He said only the legislative or executive branches could provide such a remedy, presumably in the form of compensation or apology.

He is absolutely right. It is refreshing to see a judge that knows the limits of the judicial branch, something that was obviously shocking to the ACLU who have no regard whatsoever for America’s best interest. One would hope it was like cold water in the ACLU’s face who are used to activist judges overstepping their boundaries. However, I doubt it was any kind of wake up call to the ACLU, and most likely fell on deaf ears to an organization that has much more interest in undermining America’s security and soverignty than it does in America’s security.

[Soldier4Christ]

A.C.L.U. May Block Criticism by Its Board

The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration.

"Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement," the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

Given the organization's longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals.

Nat Hentoff, a writer and former A.C.L.U. board member, was incredulous. "You sure that didn't come out of Dick Cheney's office?" he asked.

"For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can't think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists," Mr. Hentoff added.

The proposals say that "a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position, but may not criticize the A.C.L.U. board or staff." But Wendy Kaminer, a board member and a public critic of some decisions made by the organization's leadership, said that was a distinction without a difference.

"If you disagree with a policy position," she said, "you are implicitly criticizing the judgment of whoever adopted the position, board or staff."

Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.'s executive director, said that he had not yet read the proposals and that it would be premature to discuss them before the board reviews them at its June meeting.

Mr. Romero said it was not unusual for the A.C.L.U. to grapple with conflicting issues involving civil liberties. "Take hate speech," he said. "While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities."

Lawrence A. Hamermesh, chairman of the committee, which was formed to define rights and responsibilities of board members, also said it was too early to discuss the proposals, as did Alison Steiner, a committee member who filed a dissent against some recommendations.

In a background report, the committee wrote that "its proposed guidelines are more in the nature of a statement of best practices" that could be used to help new board members "understand and conform to the board's shared understanding of the responsibilities of its members."

But some former board members and A.C.L.U. supporters said the proposals were an effort to stifle dissent.

"It sets up a framework for punitive action," said Muriel Morisey, a law professor at Temple University who served on the board for four years until 2004.

Susan Herman, a Brooklyn Law School professor who serves on the board, said board members and others were jumping to conclusions.

"No one is arguing that board members have no right to disagree or express their own point of view," Ms. Herman said. "Many of us simply think that in exercising that right, board members should also consider their fiduciary duty to the A.C.L.U. and its process ideals."

When the committee was formed last year, its mission was to set standards on when board members could be suspended or ousted.

The board had just rejected a proposal to remove Ms. Kaminer and Michael Meyers, another board member, because the two had publicly criticized Mr. Romero and the board for decisions that they contended violated A.C.L.U. principles and policies, including signing a grant agreement requiring the group to check its employees against government terrorist watch lists — a position it later reversed — and the use of sophisticated data-mining techniques to recruit members.

Mr. Meyers lost his bid for re-election to the board last year, but Ms. Kaminer has continued to speak out. Last month, she was quoted in The New York Sun as criticizing the group's endorsement of legislation to regulate advertising done by counseling centers run by anti-abortion groups. The bill would prohibit such centers from running advertisements suggesting that they provide abortion services when they actually try to persuade women to continue their pregnancies.

Ms. Kaminer and another board member, John C. Brittain, charged that the proposal threatened free speech. "I find it quite appalling that the A.C.L.U. is actively supporting this," Ms. Kaminer told The Sun.

The uproar their comments produced at the April board meeting illustrates how contentious the issue of directors' publicly airing dissent with policies and procedures has become at the organization.

Some directors lamented that Ms. Kaminer and Mr. Brittain had shared their disagreement with the paper, and Mr. Romero angrily denounced Ms. Kaminer. "I got frustrated and lost my temper," he said yesterday. "In retrospect, that was a mistake."

At the meeting, Mr. Romero did not denounce Mr. Brittain. But board members said he had demanded that Ms. Steiner step outside the meeting room, where he chastised her for the look on her face when he was criticizing Ms. Kaminer.

"Anthony went on to say that because I was Wendy's 'friend' and did not appear ready to join him in 'getting rid of her,' (by, among other things, lobbying her affiliate to remove her as its representative) I was no better than she was, and then stormed off angrily," Ms. Steiner wrote in an e-mail message to the board.

Later in the meeting, Mr. Romero asked another board member, David F. Kennison, to step outside after Mr. Kennison apologized for failing to object to Mr. Romero's attack on Ms. Kaminer.

Mr. Kennison reported in an e-mail message that Mr. Romero "told me that he would 'never' apologize to the target of his outburst and that his evaluation of her performance as a member of this board was justified by information he had been accumulating in a 'thick file on her.' "

When Mr. Kennison asked whether Mr. Romero intended to start such a file on him, "he asked me what made me think that he didn't already have a file on me," Mr. Kennison wrote.

Mr. Romero said Mr. Kennison had provoked him. "I do not have a file on Wendy," he said.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Kennison said his biggest concern was the relationship between the board and the A.C.L.U. staff.

"I think of the board as the brain and the staff as the fang and the claws," he said, "and the brain should govern the fangs and claws rather than the other way around."

___________________

And this is being done by a group that supposedly advocates freedom of speech.

 

[Soldier4Christ]

Earth Charter Invasion

As I reported in FrontPage Magazine last February, the ACLU decided to challenge the decision of a duly elected local board of education in Pennsylvania to end a United Nations-sponsored International Baccalaureate Program in its public schools that is closely linked to the Earth Charter. The Earth Charter is a New Age spiritual declaration of nature-worshipping principles for living in harmony with the sacred Earth.   Its prime sponsors – former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong, one of Kofi Annan’s most trusted advisors and architect of the Kyoto Protocol – have compared the Earth Charter to the Ten Commandments.  The International Baccalaureate Program is run by the International Baccalaureate Organization, which has specifically endorsed the Earth Charter.

Thanks to litigation subsequently instituted by the ACLU and dissident parents against the local board of education in Upper St. Clair, Pennsylvania, and settled recently, the UN’s Earth Charter may soon return to their curriculum.  Faced with mounting legal bills and exposure to personal liability, the members of the board felt they had no choice but to give in to the plaintiffs’ demands and restore the program with an offer of state help to defray its costs.

 

Once again, we witness the well-funded ACLU ramming its political agenda through the courts.   This case is a model of what we can expect to see all across the country as the Earth Charter is given a carte blanche to invade our schools.  The ACLU has fought tooth and nail to keep the real Ten Commandments and any other Judeo-Christian symbols out of the public schools and all other public spaces.  Yet it had no hesitation in going to court to challenge a duly elected local board of education and force the resumption of a curriculum that included a New Age religious component.  Unfortunately, the few courts asked to address the issue of whether teaching New Age type spiritual programs to children with public funding is permissible under the First Amendment establishment clause have ducked for cover.

 

Nobody seriously doubts the benefits of a well-rounded, multi-disciplinary global education that stresses critical thinking.  The International Baccalaureate Program has much to offer students in this regard.  However, the program’s connection with the Earth Charter is disturbing.  Its advocates always try to shut off debate by telling us how the Earth Charter teaches such positive non-controversial values as peace, mutual respect for each other, and caring for our natural environment.  Anyone objecting to the Earth Charter, they say, is intolerant, anti-peace, and anti-environment.  I was attacked personally on the liberal Daily Kos website as a "wingnut" for daring to question their self-styled new Ten Commandments for better living.  I am all for peace, respect for our fellow beings and a clean planet, just like the authors of the Earth Charter.   Those values animate Judeo-Christian teachings as well.  But the Earth Charter is being deceptively marketed as a set of universally accepted ethical principles.  In actuality, it contains a seductive message endorsing nature-centered worship, global government and an anti-capitalist agenda that its boosters shamelessly want to use to indoctrinate our school children.  It is too bad that those who decide to incorporate the Earth Charter in their teaching, without any counter-balance, do not apply the International Baccalaureate Program’s purported critical analysis to themselves.

 

The following ‘principles’ in italics are quoted directly from the “EARTH CHARTER Adaptation for younger children," which appears on the website of the Philadelphia Earth Charter Citizens.  I have added my bit of commentary after each one to exemplify the core lesson that the principle is intended to impart to our kids, although the quotes do speak for themselves:  http://www.earthchartercitizens.org/

 

    * “The Earth Charter must be law for all countries and all peoples.” 

       Core lesson for our kids:  Don’t trust your own country’s democratically

       enacted laws and policies if they are in conflict with the global law drafted by

       unaccountable, unelected ‘citizens of the world’.

 

    *  “Those who have the most must be the ones who help the most.”

              Core lesson for our kids:  Don’t rely on people do the right thing on their own volition and decide to contribute to charity or do volunteer work.  You must take from those whom the world government considers ‘rich’ and give to those whom they define as ‘worthy’.

 

    * “You must only desire to have what you need.”

       Core lesson for our kids:  You have no right to keep what you earn and enjoy    the fruits of your labor as you see fit.  Global Big Brother knows better what you should want.

 

As the kids get older the message stays the same, only with bigger words.  The following appears in the EARTH CHARTER Adaptation for young people, which also can be found on the website of the Philadelphia Earth Charter Citizens:

 

“Wealth must be fairly distributed, both within your nation and around the world”.

 

 “International corporations and economic organisations must act clearly for the good of everybody.”

 

“The Earth Charter, a new universal law, must be accepted and, subsequently, respected and put into practice by all countries and peoples of the world.”

 

Notice the use of the word “must” in every sentence.  These are not drafted as aspirational principles.  They are written as commands.  Who gets to decide what fair distribution really means and how it should be implemented?   Who determines what actions are and are not “for the good of everybody”?  No doubt, the United Nations would love to play the leading role as the arbiter of the “new universal law” that we all must obey.

 

The Earth Charter crowd is even trying to de-Americanize our own unique history of freedom.  Believe it or not, for example, high school students in Tampa Florida have formed an Earth Charter Club with the mission of updating the Declaration of Independence to include not only women and people of color but also animals, plants and the Earth itself!  The Earth Scouts, a coed youth organization for 3 - 17 year olds developed by Earth Charter Communities USA, refers to the Earth Charter as the “Declaration of Interdependence.”

 

It is time that we wake up to the invasion of the UN Earth Charter in our public schools and challenge the ACLU in court at its own game.  If the Judeo-Christian values that have formed the foundation of our country’s history cannot be taught in the public schools, there is certainly no place in our schools for their inverse.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Of Indiana Sues Over Indy Sex Offender Ban

INDIANAPOLIS -- The ACLU of Indiana filed suit on Wednesday against Indianapolis on behalf of six sexual offenders over the city's ordinance aimed at child molesters found near playgrounds or in the presence of children.

The group said the ordinance is unconstitutional on grounds that it might violate the 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process.

The ordinance prohibits sex offenders who are convicted of crimes against children from being within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, recreation centers, swimming pools, sports fields or other facilities when children are around.

The ban includes an exception if an adult with no history of sex crimes is with the offender.


The six people involved in the suit include a college student who has joint custody of his 7-year-old son and has completed probation for child exploitation.

The suit contends that the new ordinance is vague, violates offenders rights to vote and attend church, and prevents them from freely traveling on streets and highways that may pass within 1,000 feet of the affected sites. They are seeking temporary and permanent injunctions barring the city from enforcing the new law.

"It is virtually impossible to travel through the streets and interstate highways in Marion County without passing within 1,000 feet of a playground open to the public, recreation center, bathing beach, swimming pool or wading pool, sports field or facility," the complaint said. "Moreover, there is no way for a person to know if he or she is passing within 1,000 feet."

The ordinance cleared the City-County Council by a 25-2 vote on May 15 and took effect immediately. It carries fines of up to $2,500 for violations.

The law includes an exception that permits sex offenders to visit those sites as long as they are with another adult who is not a convicted sexual offender.

The plaintiffs are identified only as John Does in the complaint. The father of the 7-year-old boy attends Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis and said he cannot travel to classes without passing within 1,000 feet of a banned site. He also works in an office within 1,000 feet of a city park with a playground.

Another plaintiff, a convicted rapist, attends a church that recently opened a recreation center. Both he and a third plaintiff say the new law prevents them from attending their polling places on Election Day.

The Associated Press left a message with the city's legal office seeking comment on the lawsuit.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU raps new law banning state-paid travel to terrorist nations

Tallahassee, Florida  (AP) — A civil rights group criticized a new law that Gov. Jeb Bush signed today which restricts colleges and universities from using state funds for travel to countries classified as terrorist states by the U.S. government.

Legislators passed the bill in May. The countries on the terrorist list are Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

A spokesman from the Florida American Civil Liberties Union says the law will stifle research in countries that Americans need to know about in order to improve security. He also says the new law could get in the way of academic and humanitarian projects in other countries.

[Soldier4Christ]

How did I know the ACLU would be involved…


Convicted Killer Seeks Sex-Change Surgery

    “We ask that gender identity disorder be treated like any other medical condition,” said Kosilek’s attorney, Frances Cohen.

…and this conscienceless, brutal murderer’s counsel is a volunteer attorney for…drum roll…

THE ACLU of MASSACHUSETTS!

Shocking! See pg. 13. I just KNEW my simple inquiry would bear the fruit I sought! The more twisted it gets, the more likely it becomes that the ACLU is involved somehow. Call it Glib’s Law.

So let me get this straight, the ACLU’s position is to prevent even a penny of taxpayer money from going to prison ministries (which BTW, have been shown to be the top recidivism prevention tool…what happens to the ACLU’s plea for rehab and not retribution if GASP! God may be a part of that rehab…”compassion” for the “victims” of the “system”…POOF!). But hold on folks, their attorneys think it’s AOK that the same hard-working Americans have their day’s pay raided to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars to surgically mutilate a mentally ill killer?

Any ACLU-o-philes care to defend this latest freakazoidally frivolous piece of litigation?

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Sex Offender Visitation Case, ACLU Disappointed


If you are a pedophile, the ACLU is looking out for you. The argument is old hat for the ACLU, who believe not only that pedophiles and sex offenders should have the right to live next to playgrounds and elementary schools, but that they even have the right to instruct their perverted buddies on how to rape little boys. These positions are quite disturbing to most Americans, especially those of us with children. It is even scarier when there are loony judges out there that actually rule in favor of these twisted views. Luckily, the Supreme Court shot the ACLU down this time.

    The American Civil Liberties Union-Indiana, suing initially on behalf of a female inmate, had filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the policy.

    The Indiana Department of Correction imposed the policy in 2001, stating that inmates with a record of sex offenses involving children “shall not be permitted to receive visits from minors.” The agency amended the rule a year later to allow some visits under certain conditions, including one that the intended visitor had not been a victim of the offender.

    The DOC justified the restrictions by arguing that sex offenders are at high risk of repeating the crime and often know their victims.

    According to court records, visitations occur in areas with 25 to 30 tables and as many as 100 people often supervised by a single guard. The agency knew of past incidents when children were sexually abused in visiting areas.

    DOC Commissioner J. David Donahue said the policy was aimed at protecting the public, and it will remain in effect.

    “The Supreme Court’s review supports the policy,” Donahue said.

    The ICLU argued the policy violated prisoners’ constitutional right to maintain family relationships and that it was cruel and unusual punishment.

    “We’re very disappointed,” Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU-Indiana, said Tuesday.

Before long, they will be supporting things like this in America.

    Cut the age of consent to 12, and eventually get rid of it altogether, on the grounds that restricting sexual relations with kids “just makes children curious.”
    Allow private possession of child pornography.
    Allow daytime pornography broadcasts.
    Provide sex education for toddlers.
    Make adolescents aged 16 and up eligible to be prostitutes and appear in porno films.
    Legalize sex with animals.
    Legalize going naked in public.
    Legalize all drugs.
    Provide taxpayer-financed “free” train rides.

Don’t doubt it, they already support the legalization of child porn distribution, and possession. They also already support legalizing all drugs. Dan Rhiel thinks Peta may be on board with it too.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Against New Law Banning Taxpayer Funded Travel To Terrorist States


    A civil rights group criticized a new law, signed Tuesday by Gov. Jeb Bush, that restricts colleges and universities from using state funds for travel to countries classified as terrorist states by the U.S. government.

    Legislators passed the bill in May. The countries on the terrorist list are Cuban, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

    “This will be another embarrassing mark on Florida’s reputation,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida American Civil Liberties Union.

    The law will stifle research in countries that Americans need to know about in order to improve security, Simon said. He said it also could get in the way of academic and humanitarian projects in other countries.

    One of the measure’s sponsors, Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Melbourne, said the law will protect Americans.

    “We are at war,” he said. “A lot of people don’t like to admit it, but we are at war. We don’t want to put Americans - especially not using taxpayer money - in harm’s way where they can be held hostage, a multitude of things.”AP

The ACLU are suddenly interested in improving security? This law is straight up common sense, and if the ACLU were truly concerned for the security of Americans they would be applauding it. The law does not prevent anyone from actually travelling to these countries, it only prohibits taxpayer funds from paying for it. If professors and students want to travel to these dangerous countries they can do it at their own risk, and their own dime. Perhaps the ACLU are disappointed that the taxpayer will not be paying their fare to visit their clients? If so, I’m sure they have plenty enough duped supporters that would gladly donate.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Applauds EU Court Decision Striking Down US-EU Data-Sharing Pact


Today the unelected black robes in the European Union have struck down an agreement that requires the EU to share information on European citizens flying to the United States:

    Europe’s highest court struck down an anti-terrorism agreement that allows the European Union and the U.S. to share information on airline passengers, giving authorities four months to resolve conflicting rules.

    The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg today said the 2004 accord was illegally adopted, upholding a challenge by European Parliament lawmakers. Authorities have until Sept. 30 to come up with new regulations, the court said.

    Today’s ruling may mean that carriers such as Air France-KLM Group, Europe’s biggest airline, and Deutsche Lufthansa AG will have to choose between violating EU or U.S. law, facing fines on both sides of the Atlantic, according to Eduardo Ustaran, a lawyer specializing in information technology. The European Parliament had argued the rules violated EU protections on personal data.

    “This is an extreme example of a conflict of laws between two jurisdictions,” Ustaran said in a phone interview from London. The decision puts the negotiation “back to square one,” he said.

Of course this is a vital tool in keeping America safe. Without this kind of information sharing that provides a mutual benefit to both countries, America has no way of knowing who flies into our country from the EU. As Charles Johnson says: “If the US insists on having this information (and if we don’t, we’re in bigger trouble than I thought), it could mean that no EU citizen will be able to fly to the US.”

This is definitely a step backwards in our war on terror, catering to the politically correct mindset in a reckless manner that takes no regard for common sense or the safety of millions. Of course, this is the kind of decision that the ACLU applauds.

    Today’s historic decision by the European Court of Justice striking down a data-sharing agreement between the United States and the European Union is a striking rebuke for the United States, and shows the need for the U.S. to reassess its plans for airline passenger profiling, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

    “The United States needs to get into the orbit of reality when it comes to airline passenger data sharing and prescreening,” said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. “This decision shows that our Homeland Security officials cannot keep fantasizing that they can create a massive, all-encompassing global system for collecting data on travelers by running roughshod over not only basic privacy protections but also the laws of other nations.”

    The court ruling came about after the United States pressured the EU to share the private data of its passengers with U.S. authorities as part of the US effort to collect identity and other information on every person who flies. That agreement was reached while DHS was attempting to establish its passenger prescreening program, then called CAPPS II, which has since been modified and renamed Secure Flight.

    “Europe has done what the United States should and must eventually do: create enforceable laws to protect personal data,” said Tim Sparapani, Legislative Counsel in the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. “This decision strikes another blow at the administration’s over-reaching passenger screening proposals. Perhaps the Transportation Security Administration will finally learn that programs like Secure Flight and Registered Traveler are fatally flawed and should be abandoned.”

Put your tin foil hats on moonbats! The ACLU are telling the U.S. to get into the orbit of reality? Once again, the ACLU show their true colors on American security. One might could cut them some slack if there was any effort by the U.S. to protect us from terror that the ACLU didn’t oppose. And the solution that the ACLU offers us to this dilema? Abandon the programs. Right? I mean, what could we ever need information sharing for? We should just be absolutely clueless who we let into this country. I think its the ACLU that need to get into the orbit of reality.

[Soldier4Christ]

Local Sheriff Steps on Feds Toes, ACLU Angry


From an AP article do we get today’s tale of the ACLU’s idiocy. (I swear I could write this as a daily column and never run out of stories…..what is it with these morons???)

In Hamilton, Ohio deputies responded to a call about a fight brewing between “Mexican and American construction workers last week” and ended up detaining 18 men who were “suspected of being illegal aliens”, said Rick Jones, the Sheriff of Butler County. Jones added that none of the men had valid identification papers and that some were carrying obvious forgeries.

The ACLU is claiming that the Sheriff overstepped his bounds and infringed upon duties reserved for Federal Immigration Authorities. You know, the last time I checked it was illegal to have forged documents.

I know this is an old argument, but would the ACLU come to the defense of a bank robber that was caught by local authorities? (Wait…never mind…rhetorical question, as I am fairly certain they would since bank robbery is also a federal crime and the ALCU would probably state that the bank robber was illegally detained by the local cops and denied some right or other.)

What I would like to know is why were these criminal aliens released? They should have been turned over to ICE and deported.

The fact is when local authorities enforce federal law the ACLU gets in a snit, and anytime the ACLU is in a snit you can be sure of two things; Someone somewhere has done something right by America and there is an ACLU lawyer whining.