ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU says U.S. spying has harmed its clients

Bush officials urge judge to dismiss case for security

The Bush administration and the American Civil Liberties Union slugged it out Monday for the second time in a Detroit courtroom in a landmark legal battle over the National Security Agency's domestic spying program.

Justice Department lawyer Anthony Coppolino urged U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to dismiss an ACLU lawsuit to abolish the program. He said the ACLU couldn't prove the program harmed the ACLU's clients unless the administration divulges secrets jeopardizing the war on terror.

The ACLU argued that the administration has provided enough details about the program to establish that President George W. Bush violated the constitutional rights of Americans and ignored Congress by intercepting international phone conversations and e-mail, without first obtaining eavesdropping search warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Congress created the secret court in the late 1970s.

At a hearing June 12, the judge heard the ACLU's case about issuing an injunction to abolish the NSA program.

Taylor took the case under advisement, but gave no indication as to when or how she might rule.

"The plaintiffs have put directly at issue the lawfulness of an ongoing covert intelligence activity," Coppolino told the judge. "We see no credible alternative to dismissal."

Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director, said the program -- and the administration's decision to invoke the so-called state secrets privilege to try to kill the lawsuit -- threatens Americans' civil liberties.

"By implication, the executive branch could use the state secret privilege to immunize any action that it takes in the war on terror, including for example, the arbitrary detention and torture of Americans on American soil," she told the judge.

The ACLU sued the NSA on Jan. 17 on behalf of itself and a group of journalists, scholars, lawyers and national nonprofit groups whose members communicate regularly by e-mail and telephone with people in the Middle East and Asia. The ACLU alleged that the program has had a chilling effect on plaintiffs' ability to confer with sources, conduct research and engage in other activities.

The Bush administration, which authorized the program after the 9/11 attacks, has insisted the program is legal and vital to national interests. The administration says Congress gave the president authority to conduct the program by passing a resolution granting him the power to combat terrorism.

Administration officials have said the program targets people suspected of having contact with members of Al Qaeda.

The ACLU has offered no proof that the plaintiffs were spied upon, but said the government probably had listened in on confidential conversations between lawyers and clients, and researchers and reporters, or researchers and their information sources.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York filed a similar suit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The New York Times disclosed the program in December, prompting protests from civil liberties groups and opposition from liberals and conservatives.

________________

Yes, it probably is, but then take a look at who the ACLU's clients are.

[Shammu]

I demanded that the U.S. government,  hold the the ACLU accountable for violations of my rights. In fact, I sent off today to Senator John McCain, and Senator Kyl. A letter demanding a full investigation of my rights, being abused by the ACLU because I am a Christian.  Which to me is discrimination, against my Religion. A  violation against my First Amendment. 

[Soldier4Christ]

Boy Scouts v Berkley - Thought Police in 2006

George Orwell wrote in a novel in 1948 a description of society whereby private thought was monitored. People rejected and becoming “un-persons” because they chose to not conform to society. Squads of police monitoring thought crimes and big brother on the wall watching you. The novel was 1984. Is that so far fetched?

Most leftists will say that Orwell was a social liberal yet their side of the political spectrum is following the trail which ends at big brother and thought monitoring.

The Boy Scouts of America refuse to allow homosexual Scout Leaders and atheists into the organization. It is a matter of organizational doctrine which prevents such things. However, the city of Berkley California has presumed to be the thought police and demands that an organization associated with the Boy Scouts of America either abandon it’s affiliation or modify its doctrine to allow the inclusion of homosexuals and atheists. In other words, they are presuming to tell the Berkley Sea Scouts how to think.

The first Amendment to the United States Constitution is very clear on the issues of freedom of assembly and speech yet the city of Berkley with the consent of the California judicial system has asserted a right to circumvent the 1st Amendment in the case of the Sea Scouts without protecting them under the 14th Amendment which the ACLU seems to think applies to everyone. And who is the Most Dangerous Organization in America backing? …The city of Berkley of course.

The Scouts have a right to believe what they believe. And if they are a non-profit and are recognized as such by every civil authority, it is discriminatory to exclude their organization based upon the context of their doctrine.

I seem to recall the ACLU backing a group of Nazis who wished to march in the small, mostly Jewish community of Skokie IL some years back. Their argument was that it doesn’t matter if you agree with their speech, that you must allow equal access to city services and lands for the purpose of expressing their 1st Amendment rights. The courts agreed.

Now we have the flip side. The very liberal community of Berkley in their anything goes atmosphere of the pursuit of personal gratification no matter the social, moral, and ethical damage it does; the very people who claim to be the most inclusive and accepting, will not allow a group of teenagers to continue to berth their boats at the city marina which they (as an organization) have been permitted to do since 1930.

World Net Daily reports:

    A decision by the California Supreme Court that ended a half century of free use of the Berkeley, Calif., marina by the Boy Scouts of America is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Pacific Legal Foundation announced today.

    Although Berkeley allows nonprofit groups free use of the city’s marina, it prohibits the Berkeley Sea Scouts from participating in this program, because the Sea Scouts are affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, which official excludes avowed homosexuals and atheists from being adult leaders of the boys enrolled in the century-old youth organization.

    Although Berkeley has never identified a single exclusionary act by the Sea Scouts, it is barring the group from its marina program for nonprofits solely because of their ties with the Boy Scouts.

Seems to be a case of guilt by association. Whether you agree with the Boy Scouts of America or not, you must admit that they have a right to teach their doctrine in accordance with their organizational charter. But the city of Berkley, in the best tradition of the ACLU, has resorted to using activist courts and strong arm tactics to pressure an organization into going against its own teachings. Sounds like the thought police to me.

A decision by the California Supreme Court that ended a half century of free use of the Berkeley, Calif., marina by the Boy Scouts of America is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Pacific Legal Foundation announced today.

Although Berkeley allows nonprofit groups free use of the city’s marina, it prohibits the Berkeley Sea Scouts from participating in this program, because the Sea Scouts are affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, which official excludes avowed homosexuals and atheists from being adult leaders of the boys enrolled in the century-old youth organization.

Although Berkeley has never identified a single exclusionary act by the Sea Scouts, it is barring the group from its marina program for nonprofits solely because of their ties with the Boy Scouts.

    In March, the California Supreme Court upheld Berkeley’s policy of denying the Sea Scouts access to the berthing program for nonprofits. The Pacific Legal Foundation is representing the skipper of the Berkeley Sea Scout program.

    “Berkeley is penalizing the Sea Scouts for exercising their First Amendment right of association in ways that city officials don’t like,” said PLF attorney Harold Johnson, co-counsel in the case. “May government punish you, or fine you, or subject you to second class treatment if you don’t pass a politically correct litmus test? That’s the question raised by this case. It’s a question that deserves to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.”

    Starting in the 1930s, Berkeley gave the Sea Scouts free access to berth Scout-owned boats, and the arrangement has continued uninterrupted since then – until now.

Isn’t there something to historical precident? The community has consistantly offered the Seas Scouts berthing at the city marina since 1930. There has been no break in the agreement since then until now. And that break is being dictated by the city over conflicts in organizational doctrine which could be construed as a violation of the organizations 1st Amendment rights of free Speech, free practice of religion, and freedom of assembly.

Personally I have a problem with someone from outside of an organization dictating to the members of an organization how your organization should be operated, under what belief system, and restricting the organization to run it’s own private affairs. And apparently the ACLU felt the same way when it fought repeatedly to get gay and lesbian tolerance groups the right to meet on public school grounds. However, the traditional meeting places for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts has been removed under the insistence of the ACLU as well. Because the organization will not allow homosexuals to be Scout Leaders and atheists to be leaders or members.

The homosexual and secular humanist agendas are paramount on the agenda of the ACLU and have been since Anthony Romero took the lead at the 86 year old socialist organization.

    “In 1998, the Berkeley City Council demanded that the local Sea Scouts admit homosexuals and atheists as members and leaders, or forswear their ties to the Boy Scouts of America, or lose the $500 per dock subsidy that enabled the Scouts to keep three boats in the marina,” explained WND columnist and Eagle Scout Hans Zeiger.

    “Unable to compromise the Scout Oath, the Sea Scouts lost the dock subsidy,” Zeiger added. “And unable to pay the fee, the Sea Scouts have reduced their marina fleet to one boat. The Scouts sued, and now they have lost at the California Supreme Court. It remains an issue of equal access. Two other nonprofit organizations continue to have free berthing at the Berkeley Marina: the Cal Sailing Club and the Berkeley Yacht Club. For holding by character, the Boy Scouts are excluded.”

    The Berkeley Sea Scouts is a multi-ethnic group drawing on all economic backgrounds. “Berkeley’s exclusion of the Sea Scouts has imposed financial hardships on the organization,” says the legal group. “The monthly berth fee of more than $500 that the Sea Scouts must pay has led to cutbacks in programs and less financial assistance available for kids from poor families.”

    “The bottom line is that Berkeley officials are punishing the kids that participate in the Sea Scouts to make a political statement, and that’s a real tragedy,” Johnson said.

    When the Sea Scouts declined to sign a statement of policy that would have ended their relationship with the Boy Scouts of America, Berkeley halted its half-century tradition of granting the Sea Scouts a free berth and began charging the group a $500 a month fee.

    Thus, some minority, low-income Sea Scouts members have dropped out of the popular youth program.

    Pacific Legal attorneys argued to California’s Supreme Court that Berkeley’s fee amounts to fining the Sea Scouts for exercising First Amendment freedoms, specifically the Sea Scouts’ right to associate with the Boy Scouts of America.

All this legal maneuvering is stunting the adolescence of many young men who are part of the Sea Scouts. They are losing part of their childhood because of a minority viewpoint in this country. And above all, THAT is the true crime.

    We don’t need no education
    We don’t need no thought control

    Pink Floyd - album:”The Wall” song: “The Wall Part 2″ released 1979

[Soldier4Christ]

CMU settles ACLU lawsuit

Minors suspected of underage drinking won't have to face possible breathalyzer tests following a settlement Thursday between Central Michigan University officials and the American Civil Liberties Union.

But underage drinkers can still be ticketed for the violation.

The settlement stipulates that the university will pay $3,000 in fines and costs.

It also issues a preliminary injunction that will prevent CMU police officers from enforcing a state law that allows police to force a minor suspected of illegal consumption of alcohol to take a preliminary chemical breath analysis without a search warrant. Under the disputed law, a minor can be ticketed for refusing the test and fined up to $100.

"This is the end of the lawsuit for CMU," said spokesman Steve Smith. "One of the reasons we got out is the state is still fighting it. We thought it was financially responsible to let the bigger entity pursue the legal aspects of the case. If the state wins, we can then resume enforcing the law."

Smith also said that settling the case early eliminates the possibility that the university could be forced to pay additional and potentially expensive ACLU attorney fees and costs if the case went to trial and CMU lost.

Attorney's fees for the CMU portion of the lawsuit have risen to $18,000, Smith said, but all but $500 of that amount will be covered by the university's insurance policy. CMU retained Michael E. Cavanaugh of Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap in Lansing to represent the school in the lawsuit.

The settlement comes nearly three months after the city of Mt. Pleasant and the Isabella County Sheriff's Department settled their portions of the same lawsuit. Those settlements required payments of $5,000 each to two Mt. Pleasant plaintiffs.

In May 2003, Cullen Stewart and Samuel Maness, a CMU student, were at a chaperoned graduation party when police officers from several jurisdictions, including the Mt. Pleasant Police Department, Isabella County Sheriff's Department, Michigan State Police and Central Michigan University Police Department, arrived and forced some attendees to submit to breathalyzer tests.

Stewart, who was not a CMU student, was attending an out-of-state university, while Maness remains a CMU student and is registered for classes this fall. Neither Stewart nor Maness could be immediately reached for comment.

An additional case against the city of Saginaw and Thomas Township on behalf of two Saginaw women, Katie Platte and Ashley Berden, is also part of the ACLU lawsuit and has not been settled.

"We hope police departments across the state will follow Mt. Pleasant and Isabella County's example and stop punishing young people who are walking down the street for refusing a breathalyzer test," Michael J. Steinberg, legal director of the Michigan ACLU, said in a previous written statement. "The Constitution is clear - the police cannot violate the privacy rights of pedestrians by searching them without a court order."

Settling the lawsuit, however, will not significantly change the CMU Police Department's enforcement of state law, said CMU Chief of Police Stanley Dinius.

"It is important to note that the police can still enforce the laws that forbid persons under 21 from consuming alcohol," Dinius said. "Our officers usually rely on the facts that the minor is holding a container of alcohol, has the odor of alcohol on his/her breath, fails field sobriety tests, is unsteady on his/her feet and similar evidence to determine that a minor has been drinking; rarely is breathalyzer testing the sole test used on pedestrians."

The ACLU lawsuit also does not challenge the authority of the police to give preliminary Breathalyzer tests to motorists who are suspected of driving while drunk.

Michigan's Attorney General continues to fight the lawsuit on behalf of the Michigan State Police, arguing that the law is constitutional.

A hearing in that cases has not been scheduled.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Doesn’t Want English Signs

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked officials in a Detroit suburb to reject a proposal that would require businesses with foreign language signs to add English translations.

"We write to strongly urge you to abandon the measure as unconstitutional, anti-immigrant and unnecessary," the ACLU wrote to the city Thursday in a letter that was also signed by officials with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Michigan and Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development Inc.

In May, Sterling Heights, Mich., Councilwoman Barbara Ziarko asked the city's attorney to prepare an ordinance requiring businesses with foreign language signs to have identifiers such as "bakery" included, the Detroit News reports.

Fire Chief John Childs supported the move, arguing that people passing by the site of a fire or other emergency could inform dispatchers about the location more easily if they could read the signs.

He maintained that the issue has nothing to do with race.

 "This is about response time," he said.

The city issued a statement Thursday defending the proposed ordinance.

"Any assertion that the city's public safety effort is intended as a restriction on the expression of cultural diversity is categorically denied," the statement said.

According to the News, Michael J. Steinberg of the ACLU said the proposal is unconstitutional "because it singles out businesses with signs.”

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Says Town Needs To Keep On Supporting Illegals


In an effort to reduce the economic and social costs of illegal immigration, the town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania passed a measure to deny a business permit to anyone hiring illegal immigrants, imposes a $1,000 fine on any landlord who rents to illegal immigrants, and establishes English as the town’s official language.

What does the ACLU think of this common sense measure:

    “A coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents U.S. Latinos on immigration issues, say they will sue Hazleton in federal court.”

I wonder if the ACLU would simply chip in and provide cash re-imbursement to Hazleton for the towns expenses in dealing with illegal aliens? No, I didn’t think so.

[Soldier4Christ]

NAACP Announces Lawsuit

The NAACP announced on Friday a lawsuit opposing efforts to require photo identification at voting polls.

The suit is being filed in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and other ethnic and anti-discrimination groups, Local 4 reported.

The ACLU said requiring a photo identification card at the poll is a violation of the 14th Amendment and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

City Clerk Janice Winfrey said it is necessary that voting continues to be easy and accessible for everyone and the law would not allow that to happen, according to the station's reports.

A Georgia Supreme Court ruling prevented a similar law, involving the requirement of photo identification at the polls, from taking effect.



___________

Yep, don't want to stop people from being able to vote more than once.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU: ‘Always Corrosive, Loathsome and Unhinged’


Barbara Simpson writes an excellent article at WND on the latest idiotic actions of the ACLU. This one really makes me scratch my head in wonder. What is the ACLU thinking on this one. They’ve really lost it here.

    The American Civil Liberties Union has too much time on its hands.

    The organization is like a pesky flea, jumping around uncontrollably, able to draw blood and fully capable of driving you crazy, if not killing you.

    The ACLU is at it again and this one takes the cake! No doubt, over the years its taken up some questionable causes, but this latest one proves its lost it.

    It not only has too much time to fill but also too much money, so it needs to divine ‘’injustices'’ where none exist just to keep its army of lawyers busy.

    It touts the fact it litigates nearly 6-thousand cases a year. And it keeps finding new ones.

    This organization has been around for 76 years. It claims to be non-profit (the ACLU Foundation is tax deductible, ACLU membership isn’t) and non-partisan. That many of the current efforts are aimed at the Bush Administration and its efforts in the War on Terror – including shutting down Guantanamo – might lead one to question the definition of ‘’non-partisan.'’

    Be that as it may, it’s no accident most of its projects deal with clearly liberal/progressive/socialistic views: women’s reproductive health, a support of sex education in schools, homosexual discrimination, a moratorium on federal executions, and equal rights for everyone, including illegal aliens.

    So what’s the ACLU up to now?

    Consider the city of Sterling Heights, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. Given the population changes in that state over the past 30 years, it’s not surprising that 30 languages are spoken among the 125,146 who live there. That certainly represents the effect of immigration on this, and indeed, many cities across the country.

    Sterling Heights has, over the years, been conscious of the multiculturalism in the community. In line with that, it has made efforts to meet the needs of its residents.

    To quote from the city website: ‘’The city of Sterling Heights has long valued and fostered the cultural diversity of its residents and businesses …'’

    So concerned was it, that it was one of the first cities in Michigan to have an Ethnic Community Committee with residents as members who serve as advisors to the elected city council.

    In other words, it’s an American city that bends over backwards to accommodate and consider the needs and wants of people who are not native to the country and who seek to maintain their native language and customs while in the United States.

    Given all that, what did Sterling Heights do to get the attention of the ACLU and cause the organization to send town officials a pointed letter charging a proposed ordinance is ‘’unconstitutional, anti-immigrant and unnecessary'’?

    Unnecessary? Since when is the necessity of laws in this country within the purview of the ACLU? If that were the case, they’d be handling thousands more than 6,000 cases a year!

    The only thing the city did was prepare an ordinance requiring businesses with foreign-language signs to also have signs in English identifying what kind of business it is – for example ‘’bakery'’ or ‘’clothing.'’

    The ordinance was drafted by the city attorney in May, at the request of Councilwoman Barbara Ziarko. It wasn’t an arbitrary request.

    The proposed ordinance is part of a complete updating of the city Fire Code. According to Fire Chief John Childs, as reported in the Detroit News, the new ordinance is needed to improve response time for emergency crews.

    He explained that people reporting fires or other emergencies would be better able to describe the location to dispatchers if they knew what kind of establishment it was.

    In other words, more people would be able to read the signs – in English!

    The chief says it has nothing to do with race.

    He stresses it’s all about response time and safety.

    Clearly, the ACLU thinks otherwise since one of the accusations in its letter is that the ordinance is ‘’anti-immigrant.'’

    Does it surprise you that co-signers of the letter were officials from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Michigan and Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development, Inc.?

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Attempts To Indoctrinate Your Children


It has been the mission of the American Civil Liberties Union to make the United States into a Communist state modeled after the former Soviet Union since its founding by self professed Socialists in 1920. So much so that Roger Baldwin didn’t even hide the fact that “Communism is the goal.” Now, they aren’t even being subtle enough to do it behind the scenes like they have been for the past 86 years.

It seems that the ACLU is so enamored with the Communist experiment in Cuba, that they are attempting to teach it in the Miami-Dade County School District. They have filed a lawsuit in federal court attempting to force the district into permitting the use of a book called “Vamos a Cuba” (A Visit To Cuba) in school libraries.

    Critics say the book’s pictures of smiling Cuban children and bland generalities, meant to teach 5- to 7-year-olds about life on the island, distort the harsh realities of food rationing, one-party political rule and other facets of life under a brutal communist dictatorship.

    “The book teaches our kids that Cuba is a paradise,” said Julio Cabarga, president of the exile group Cuban Patriotic Council. “We want to make sure our community knows that we are against the pack of lies, half-truths and deceit that this book is projecting to our kids and our grandkids.” SOURCE

The ACLU is joining the fight over the issue along with a student organization claiming that it’s banning is a violation of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment protections.

Here’s the truth people and I don’t care if you agree with me on it or not. The fact remains that it is the truth.

This book is attempting to white-wash a Communist dictatorship. A failing dictatorship at that. It’s goal is to brain-wash children into the socialist mentality. This is indoctrination of 5 - 7 year old children in hopes that they grow up to be good little liberal voters.

The left cannot win by playing by the rules. They run to the courts in order to further their ends. The elected officials of the school board who represent the property owners and parents in the district have made the decision. If this is the wrong decision, the people have the right to vote onto the board the individuals who would reverse this decision. But the ACLU cannot take the risk that the people of Miami-Dade County School District would actually do that. Chances are they wouldn’t anyway.

Cuba under its current leadership isn’t well liked in Miami. Miami has the highest concentration of Cuban people living its school district. Most of these people either escaped the Communists or are the children, grandchildren, and even great grandchildren of someone who did.

Like North Korea now, China and Russia before them, Cuba was a starving nation. A victim of the laziness caused by apathetic workers, over planting of agriculture in the name of crop production. Communist governments have failed each time that they have been tried.

China isn’t fully Communist. Oh no. They have learned to play the capitalist game, but instead of allowing private business take advantage of it, the state owns all the industry. Vietnam is even promoting it’s nation as a vacation spot to Americans. Russia is a flat out mess. They were on the right track until they elected a former KGB officer as President. Now they are slipping back into their failed ways.

But now the ugly head of Communism isn’t being hidden anymore here. It is out there in front and still they fight to get it into the hands and then into the minds of your children. And the reason is to make good little lemming leftist voters out of them.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU challenging Missouri’s Voter ID Law


The Kansas City Star

    Democratic officials from St. Louis and Kansas City sued the state Monday, trying to block a new Republican-backed law requiring voters to show photo identification from taking effect for the November election.

    Republican Gov. Matt Blunt signed the law about a month ago, praising it as a way to build public trust in elections. The measure requires voters to show a photo identification issued by Missouri or the federal government, such as a driver’s license, to cast a regular ballot.

    Those lacking such IDs this fall can cast provisional ballots, which would count if their signatures matched those on file with election authorities and they’re in the right polling place. In future elections, only the elderly, disabled and those with religious objections to carrying photo identification could vote without one, and only by provisional ballot.

    The lawsuit, filed Monday in Cole County Circuit Court, the seat of state government, claims the law violates a state constitutional provision against imposing costs on local governments without providing state funding, commonly referred to as the Hancock amendment. It seeks a permanent injunction blocking the law from being enforced and class-action status.

    “Our overall concern is that the new law is going to leave people out who want to vote, who deserve to vote and who are qualified to vote,” Anthony Rothert, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, said in a written statement.

    Plaintiffs include the city of St. Louis and Mayor Francis Slay, St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley, Jackson County and its executive, Katheryn Shields. All the elected officials are Democrats. The ACLU is representing the local governments and officials.

One official noted that they anticipated a lawsuit and that they thought those filing it were struggling for an issue. Scott G at Ah, Shoot tells it like it is:

    The fact that Missouri “law provides for free photo IDs that voters can obtain before Election Day,” negates any charge that the poor or minorities are disenfranchised by this law. Laziness is no excuse for failing to acquire ID.

    Predictably the Dem leaders whine and cry: “‘Our overall concern is that the new law is going to leave people out who want to vote, who deserve to vote and who are qualified to vote,’ said Anthony Rothert, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, whose group announced the lawsuit.” Yeah, “people who want to vote” can go get a free ID, people “who deserve to vote” can go get a free ID, people “who are qualified to vote” can go get a free ID. Oops, I forgot, illegal aliens, felons, and the dead can’t get ID now can they?

I guess we know which party the ACLU roots for in this supposed “non-partisan” lawsuit. In my opinion it is quite disingenuous how the ACLU is arguing this, however it is also a crafty little loophole that just might work. It will be interesting to see how many different state ACLU’s sue similar attempts to stop voter fraud and how many other dishonest arguments they will use for it. It most certainly is not out of concern for disenfranchised voters when they are providing mobile ID distributers going to elderly homes, and providing other means for those without IDs at voting time. It sure seems to be an attempt to protect voter fraud.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU questions student searches

PORTSMOUTH -- The American Civil Liberties Union is concerned that parts of a search and seizure policy under review by the city's School Board are unconstitutional and said it would consider a legal challenge if the board adopts the policy as currently written.

Claire Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire chapter of the ACLU, questioned the legality of two sections of the proposed policy: that students can be searched while "in transit" to school events and that students can be searched if in possession of property "that may reasonabl(y) be disruptive" of school operations.

"If this policy is adopted as it sits on my desk, I will certainly bring it to our panel of volunteer attorneys and our staff attorney to determine (how) we could address what we perceive to be constitutional flaws," Ebel said Monday.

The School Board last week approved first reading of the policy, but said it would like further discussion before the final vote on Aug. 8. The draft is an expansion of current rules, warning that students' persons, desks, lockers and cars can be searched and that police canines may be used.

Assistant City Attorney Kathleen Dwyer, who helped write the proposed rules, said she thinks "it is a perfectly well-drafted, defensible policy."

"There's a much lesser expectation of privacy in a school ... because we own the property," Dwyer said. "A search and seizure policy -- it's not crime prevention in the police sense; it's to maintain a safe building for students and staff."

Ebel agreed that officials have the right to search school property, but said the "in transit" and "reasonably disruptive" sections are too broad and leave the door open to unlawful searches that violate student privacy.

She said "in transit" means that students walking, biking or riding cars to events could be searched. She said specifying buses could be OK because they are school property.

Dwyer said students walking, biking, etc., could be subjected to searches, but school officials would need reason. She noted the policy says there needs to be "reasonable suspicion" for any personal search, but added that each situation is different.

"Reasonable suspicion could just be hearing something about a student," Dwyer said.

Ebel said she strongly disagrees with other aspects of the policy, including the use of police canines and searches of student vehicles, but does not think they were illegal per se.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Written by ACLU
 

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the House of Representatives to reject a discriminatory proposal to amend the Constitution to deny marriage protections to gay and lesbian couples and their children. Both houses of Congress overwhelmingly rejected an identical proposal in 2004, and the Senate in June failed to limit debate on the measure, effectively killing it. The House is expected to consider the amendment later today. "The House must reject this discriminatory proposal," said Caroline Fredrickson, the Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Just last month, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on this unnecessary and unfair measure. The House rightly rejected it in 2004, but election year politics have resurrected this mean-spirited amendment. The Constitution should not be used to score cheap political points."

The Federal Marriage Amendment, offered by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) would amend the federal Constitution to deny states the ability to define marriage, a right they have had since the founding of the republic. The amendment requires that marriage be only between one man and one woman, and would deny all protections of marriage to all unmarried couples.  It is identical to the proposed constitutional amendment that was considered - and rejected - by Congress in 2004.

If adopted, the amendment's broad language would attack marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships and other legal protections for gay and lesbian American families. Similar state-level constitutional amendments have already been used to undermine important protections for gay and lesbian couples and their families, such as health insurance and other benefits.

The ACLU noted that with the Senate's failure to limit debate and vote on the proposal, the House vote has become irrelevant. Even if the House were to adopt the amendment, it would be a purely symbolic vote, as two-thirds of both chambers of Congress must adopt a constitutional amendment for it to be ratified by the states.

Opposition to the amendment has come from a ideologically diverse spectrum, including prominent conservatives: Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA), the author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Senator John Danforth (R-MO), columnist George Will, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and others have all spoken out against the measure.

"Congress should reject attempts that push divide and conquer politics," said Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Americans deserve better than this discriminatory vote."

[Soldier4Christ]

City's curfew proposal draws ACLU fire


The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is suggesting that Yakima's proposed juvenile curfew is in questionable legal territory by unfairly restricting the movement of young people.

In a letter released Tuesday by the Seattle-based group, legislative director Jennifer Shaw urged the City Council to reject a curfew proposal that a council committee is still considering.

The proposal raises concerns about unconstitutional limits on minors' ability to move freely about the city, Shaw wrote. Those issues led the state Supreme Court to strike down a curfew ordinance approved by the city of Sumner, she said.

The city would be better off giving youngsters more to do and work on improving law enforcement in general, rather than spending a bunch of money to fight a legal challenge, Shaw said.

"It would be a mistake to channel those resources into a juvenile curfew that would ultimately be struck down at great cost, while providing only an illusion of safety while it exists," Shaw wrote in the letter, which was dated last week and received by the city Tuesday.

City Manager Dick Zais said city attorneys would need to review the ACLU's concerns before he could comment on the letter.

City officials have said that the curfew is necessary to reduce crime and improve public safety.

The city's proposed ordinance was modeled after one crafted by Tacoma. It has yet to be tested in court.

Tacoma tried to address legal concerns by exempting a series of activities, including transit from jobs and errands for parents.

"We're not trying to criminalize anybody," police Chief Sam Granato said.

The city proposed curfew would apply to those younger than 18 and carries a fine of up to $250 per offense.

Under one proposal, the curfew would extend from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight to 6 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Another version runs from midnight to 5 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 1 to 5 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Both proposals are being reviewed.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Encouraged by U.N. Questioning of U.S. Government


ACLU Website:

    GENEVA, SWITZERLAND — A United Nations human rights body expressed grave concerns today about the record of human rights in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union with a delegation of 10 and working with a broad coalition of other groups is in Geneva to monitor the examination of the United States the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC).

    In a two-day session that concluded today, the committee members pressured the United States for answers on the following issues:

    The sentencing of children to life without parole and the disproportionate incarceration of minorities;
    The militarization of the border;
    The failure to prevent human rights violations and respond in a non discriminatory manner to Hurricane Katrina;
    The failure to end racial profiling practices, specifically the profiling of South Asian convenience store employees in Georgia;
    Warrantless spying on ordinary Americans;
    The abuse of women in prison; and
    The indefinite detention, rendition and torture of non-citizens.

    “The U.S. should be ashamed of itself,” said Ann Beeson, Director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “The review by the Human Rights Committee was a stark and all too accurate condemnation of the state of rights in America.”

No, the ACLU should be ashamed of itself. The review by the Human Rights Committee which includes member states Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China ,and ensures that violaters are included, is a joke and nowhere near accurate.

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

And this is the organization that the ACLU want to hold the U.S. accountable to? The ACLU, and the U.N. are the two 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 judgement on America in that area.

The ACLU, who provided the list called “Dimming the Beacon of Freedom”, to this corrupt organization that can’t even clean up its own human rights violations are an embarrassement to this great nation. It is shameful that their list included our efforts to spy on the enemy, protect our borders, and several other accusations without evidence. I also wonder if their accusation to “abuse” of women in prison would be not providing them with abortions at the expense of taxpayers.

Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation’s sovereignty and national security.

    For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “With today’s action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations.” Source

Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.

All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn’t directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU’s embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.

    In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the UNHRC’s discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a “showdown with religion,” clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source

The ACLU’s actions are a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, religious exercise, security, and soverignity. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.

If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs…why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America’s freedoms, and our very soverignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU’s vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churchs and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them. To many Americans, these sound more like human rights violations than anything on the ACLU’s list.

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]

ACLU Seeks To Expose More On Spying Programs


The ACLU Website:

    In an effort to determine the breadth of the Bush administration’s massive surveillance programs, the American Civil Liberties Union today filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with several government agencies seeking details of financial tracking efforts not only with regard to the SWIFT program revealed in June, but also several other financial organizations that ACLU research indicates are likely targets.

    “The American public has a right to know just how many spying programs this administration has created without Congressional authorization or judicial oversight,” said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. “We hope these official requests will help answer that question – and if illegal spying is taking place we will demand an end to it.”

Without any kind of court verdict in regards to legality on the NSA surveillance program, the ACLU continue to stomp their feet, consistently labelling it as “illegal” when there has been no official ruling of any kind. When the NY Times revealed the SWIFT program to our enemies even they saw nothing illegal about it. However, the ACLU have their panties in a twist over it, and obviously don’t think the NY Times revealed enough secret information to our enemies.

    The ACLU’s request for information was filed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Treasury Department, including the Secret Service and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or “FinCEN.”

    In addition to SWIFT, the ACLU’s FOIA request asks for information about data collected by the government from several financial institutions that are likely targets of such monitoring:

    Bolero The Bill of Lading Electronic Registry Organization is an electronic exchange of trade for documents such as bills of lading (descriptions of shipped goods that control ownership of property when it is in transit). Owned in part by SWIFT, Bolero counts many of the world’s largest corporations as customers.

    CHIPS The Clearing House Interbank Payment System, another financial transfer service, is privately owned by the New York Clearing House Association. It primarily handles international funds transfers denominated in U.S. dollars for banks and their large customer transactions. Customers include most of the major U.S. banks.

    Fedwire A wire transfer service run by the Federal Reserve, Fedwire allows U.S. banks to transfer funds to other participants on behalf of each other and their customers.

I’m not sure what the big deal would be if we are monitoring these financial institutions. If they are dealing in international transactions, I hope they are. In my opinion the ACLU’s suspicions of “research” have no bearing into whether more information should be revealed. The ACLU’s whining about American’s “right to know” secret spying programs sounds alot like the Bill Keller excuse of “public interest.” Hopefully, since this program is supposed to be classified and therefore exempted from FOIA, the ACLU’s request will be refused.

    “Congress supposedly killed the ‘Total Information Awareness’ program,” said ACLU Legislative Counsel Timothy Sparapani, referring to the all-encompassing data-surveillance program once headed by Admiral John Poindexter. “But it’s clear that this administration has never abandoned its misguided emphasis on mass, suspicionless data spying. We will do what we can to shed light on these activities, but it is also more important than ever that Congress and state and local authorities undertake a comprehensive investigation into just what this administration is up to.”

This is absolutely irresponsible and reckless as usual. Without any regard to danerous consequences in revealing our terror fighting programs to everyone, including the very enemies they are designed to target, the ACLU hopes to “shed light” even more. It is obvious that the ACLU, like many other moonbats out there, can not are deluded into making our president the enemy instead of recognizing the true enemy and the real dangers posed at America. Heck, the defend those folks!

They are also very upset that Bush blocked a Justice Department inquiry into the NSA program.

    The American Civil Liberties Union today strongly rebuked President Bush for his direct involvement with the suspension of an investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into the warrantless surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

I’m not sure what they are strongly rebuking, because the president had every right to do this.

Macsmind:

    Moonbats are going nuts (well, they can’t go where they already are - but I digress), but the fact is that Gonzales is correct: The President does “make that decision”, and it was a good decision to make. Just because “outraged democrats and civil libertarians” scream for disclosure doesn’t mean they are entitled to it, nor do the “lawyers” involved in the ‘probe’. Fact is as we have found out in such stories as Fitzgerald GJ and other stories, that DOJ lawyers “who are close to the investigation” have a problem with keeping their mouth shut. That’s what the DOJ determined and therefore didn’t issue them clearances they needed.

    In any case the program is legal - it has never been determined otherwise despite Spector’s dreaming - and as such, the President has a right to protect it as the valuable tool in the War on Terror that it is.

And still touting out the tired ” no on is above the law” argument, they got really upset over the Specter/Bush NSA compromise. They seem to think that touting out Bob Barr wearing the “conservative” label loudly will somehow convince people that this issue is a bi-partisan concern. But as, Macsmind says, Bob Barr is living in fantasy land.

    When Spector announced the compromise, some conservatives had a “WTF” moment, but I told you, “I see a smirk”. The fact that both the ACLU and Bob Barr are bugged just confirms my original diagnosis. Notice that all of the ACLU and Barr’s objections are “hypothetical” and quite frankly insulting to the character of President Bush.

    Again, for the hand-wringing going on, no one has yet to come forward and say, “I’ve been harmed!” by the very effective NSA program. The fact is the program works, safegards are in place, and the socialist ACLU and Bob Barr should take a powder and get over it.

I still hold out the challenge for someone to provide me with one national security project that the ACLU has not objected to. They have objected to every effective government program designed to protect us all the way down to metal detectors in airports. I’m sure they have their intelluctual arguments for all of their anti-American behavior, but what ever happened to common sense?