ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU probes trooper who nabbed 14 illegals 
Charge 'racial profiling,' insist he had no right to ask for ID

The American Civil Liberties Union is investigating a Rhode Island state trooper who apprehended 14 illegal immigrants during a traffic stop, charging "racial profiling" and insisting the officer had no right to ask for ID.

The Rhode Island affiliate of the ACLU filed the case after the driver and several passengers alleged Trooper Thomas Chabot overstepped his authority during the July 11 traffic stop by taking immigration enforcement into his own hands, the Providence Journal reported.

However, asking for identification during traffic stops is a department procedure, and when the passengers could not provide valid ID, Chabot contacted officials with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division.

The federal authorities eventually determined the 14 passengers entered the U.S. illegally and now face deportation.

The complaint by the ACLU, an advocate of rights for illegals, also alleged Chabot threatened to shoot anyone who tried to escape the van as it was escorted to Providence by federal agents, the Journal reported.

Chabot, posted at a speed checkpoint, stopped the van's driver for failing to signal a lane change. After the driver provided him with a license and ID, the trooper asked the passengers for identification. Only a few could do so, prompting him to ask if any could prove their citizenship, according to his report.

The complainants seeking a probe, Astrid and Wendy Cabrera, charge Chabot engaged in "racial profiling."

"We believe that our van was pulled over, at least in part, because of our ethnicity," their compaint says. "As passengers, we also object that we were required to provide identification and asked about our immigration status, even though we had done nothing wrong. We do not think the trooper had any right to force us to go to ICE headquarters. We believe we were treated unfairly."

Steven Brown, executive director for the ACLU, said his group is seeking an internal review "because we find the incident as described in the complaint quite troubling."

He called the traffic stop "an egregious case of racial profiling, from beginning to end," the Providence paper reported.

The complaint also asks for clarification of state policies regarding how police collaborate with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A preliminary review of the case did not corroborate the Cabreras' account of the incident, particularly with regard to the trooper's alleged threat to shoot anyone who tried to escape the van, the Journal said.

"You should know, we take any allegation, and I stress allegation, seriously but our preliminary investigation did not bear any fruit, particularly regarding these threats," said Maj. Steven O'Donnell, a state police spokesman..

O'Donnell said the preliminary review was based in part on the in-car videotape that was running during the incident.

Chabot remains on duty, O'Donnell said.

"Anybody has a right to file a complaint; it doesn't mean it has merit," he said. "We don't react by disciplining someone where it's an allegation. That is different from, for example, situations where a trooper is suspended from duty pending investigation of a suspect's shooting."

[Soldier4Christ]

NY Terror TV broadcaster arrested, ACLU can’t be far behind


How long before the ACLU argues that this man’s First, Fourth and 14th Amendment “rights” have been violated?

From Reuters: New Yorker arrested for broadcasting Hizbollah TV

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. authorities have arrested a New York man for broadcasting Hizbollah television station al-Manar, which has been designated a terrorist entity by the U.S. Treasury Department, prosecutors said on Thursday.
    Javed Iqbal, 42, was arrested on Wednesday because his Brooklyn-based company HDTV Ltd. was providing New York-area customers with the Hizbollah-operated channel, federal prosecutors said in a statement.

    It did not say how long Iqbal’s company had been providing satellite broadcasts of al-Manar, which the U.S. Treasury Department in March had designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity, making it a crime to conduct business with al-Manar.

    Iqbal has been charged with conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the statement said. Federal authorities searched HDTV’s Brooklyn office and Iqbal’s Staten Island home, where Iqbal was suspected of maintaining satellite dishes, the statement said.

    The U.S. Treasury Department froze U.S. assets of al-Manar in March, saying it supported fund-raising and recruitment activities of Hizbollah, a Shiite Muslim group backed by Syria and Iran that has been at war with Israel in southern Lebanon.

If, as the ACLU argues, the distribution of child porn cannot be interrupted once it’s made, I guess they’d argue that terrorist propaganda is “protected” once it’s produced.

[Soldier4Christ]

The ACLU and “Racial Profiling”: Subverting law enforcement, putting us all in danger


From the ACLU’s perspective, if a “minority group” has become an overwhelming perpetrator of any given offense including worldwide mass murder or disrespect for our nation’s sovereignty, or if an individual of a certain race is being sought as a suspect in a crime, law enforcement and homeland security measures must immediately cease, or at least the common sense portion that deals with identifying the most likely potential offenders must.

Illustrated:

On the Rhode Island cop who nabbed 14 illegals. From Judicial Watch: Officer In Trouble For Catching Illegals

    A Rhode Island state trooper who apprehended 14 illegal immigrants during a traffic stop is being investigated at the request of a renowned “civil rights” organization that claims the officer had no right to ask for identification.

    During a routine traffic stop in Richmond’s Route 95, Trooper Thomas Chabot asked the driver as well as the passengers in a van for identification, a department procedure. When 14 of the passengers could not provide valid identification, the officer called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

    As it turns out, the 14 passengers were found by federal authorities to be in the U.S. illegally and now face deportation. This outraged the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an advocate of open borders and rights for illegal immigrants.

    The ACLU went so far as to accuse the trooper of “egregious racial profiling” and overstepping his authority by taking immigration enforcement into his own hands. The organization’s Rhode Island affiliate filed a complaint this week, forcing the officer to be investigated.

    Perhaps the ACLU would prefer that federal immigration officials man checkpoints in every city so that illegals could be detained on the spot by the “appropriate officials,” as Common Sense and Wonder points out.

    The point, however, is that a local law enforcement officer did his job and now he is under fire. Rhymes With Right asks who, but the ACLU, would oppose a cop who catches lawbreakers and Americans For Legal Immigration reminds us that a state trooper did his job and as a result we have 14 individuals that have no respect for our laws being deported.

From NY Newsday: JFK illegally targeting Muslims, groups say

    Nahgam Alyaqoubi and her daughters, Arwa and Sumia Ibrahim, naturalized American citizens, said 200 other passengers of Arab, Muslim or South Asian backgrounds were detained on Aug. 15 in a roped-off area, days after the London bomb suspects were arrested.

    The family joined officials from the American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups at a news conference in the Manhattan office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations to condemn what they say has been an increase in racial profiling since the London plot was uncovered. They also criticized Rep. Peter King for what they said was profiling.

    Arwa Ibrahim, who along with her sister is enrolled at Rutgers University, said they were born in Iraq and moved to the United States at age 5. She said the experience was disturbing because they were forced to sit on the floor without food or water and were treated rudely when they asked questions of the officers.

    “It was a really humiliating experience — humiliating because we were treated like animals,” she said. “We were treated really horribly by the officers that were there, we were yelled at, we were told to get back, threatened with arrest and threatened to have to stay longer if we complained.”

    The ACLU and other rights groups said they planned to investigate this and several other complaints of profiling.

…sounds like they were waiting on line at customs. 200 people? I’ll have to see how this one shakes out before I believe that JFK herded, or “plucked up” 200 Muslims at once and detained them with only this complaint. “Rights groups” poised to “investigate.” Yeah.

From the San Jose Mercury News: Police data doesn’t rule out bias, ACLU says

    Local NAACP President Rick Callender said the data, however, does show that from Oct. 28 to Nov. 3 — after a shooting near a downtown nightclub — the only drivers being stopped were African-Americans.

    “How can they say they are not profiling when all they stopped are African-Americans?'’ Callender asked.

Gee, I wonder if witnesses at the scene identified the shooters as “African-American.” This comment show how idiotic the race pimps and the ACLU (who driving this witch hunt) can be. If the alleged criminal can be identified by race and has been, why the frig would police pull anyone else over?!?!

We’ve come to a point where no one will ever be able to convince me that the ACLU cares one lick about protecting this country and its citizens, whether it be from Islamist murderers, child rapists, street thugs who terrorize communities or floods of people who have no respect for our laws.

I’ve heard the criticism of this position before: “It’s ridiculous to say the the ACLU doesn’t care about the security of this nation because they would be at risk as well if what you say is true.” Yes they probably would be, but the ACLU lives in a fantasy world in which the ideal environment is chaos and the creation of vacuums which they are convinced they will fill as the vanguard of the revolution. They’ve proven time and again, and have stated publicly, that they have no respect for the Constitution, but use it only as a tattered prop to pull theatrically from a jacket pocket to demonstrate their bona fides as the “guardian” of our liberties. This hysteria over “racial profiling” is an invention of groups like the ACLU who thrive only in a state of discord and tension. You see, if the ACLU doesn’t feed the phony fire…pfft!..they cease to exist. And they continue to show that their continued existence supercedes all else.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU brings another superfluous lawsuit


This was a nation founded on Christian principles. According to research conducted by my senior editor, Rosemary (at Bosuns original weblogs. Rosemary is not affiliated with Stop the ACLU, I am a contributor here), the very first document, the Mayflower Compact, that was signed and witnessed in the United States. So, if anyone tries to tell you this is NOT a Christian nation, refer them to the Mayflower Compact:

    “In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.”

    There followed the signatures of 41 of the 102 passengers, 37 of whom were Separatists fleeing religious persecution in Europe. This compact established the first basis in the new world for written laws. Half of the colony failed to survive the first winter, but the remainder lived on and prospered.

Wish the ACLU would get with the program instead of challenging America with the superfluous “Freedom from Religion” lawsuits.

According the KFMB San Diego, the ACLU has just filed a lawsuit against the federal government in regards to Mt Soledad Cross located in San Diego County, California (on behalf of a Jewish Veterans Organization). The ACLU lost the chance to sue the City of San Diego when President Bush signed the bill transferring Mt Soledad to the Federal Government.

So, now the ACLU is mounting a campaign against the Feds to forcibly remove the cross: ACLU Files New Lawsuit over Soledad Cross

    “The controversy over the Mount Soledad cross continues to grow Friday, with the American Civil Liberties Union now suing the federal government over some newly signed legislation.”

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU busybodies now telling NC city how much it may charge for bus fare


How intrusive can one organization be?

From the Greenseboro News-Record: ACLU looking into SCAT fares

    GREENSBORO — Some disabled bus riders, upset over losing their $35 unlimited monthly ride pass, have enlisted the ACLU’s help in getting it back. And “help” translates to the threat of legal action.

    But one member of a task force studying Specialized Community Area Transportation fares says it won’t return. Period.

    “Make no mistake: The unlimited monthly ride pass is not an option that’s on the table,” said Greensboro City Councilwoman Florence Gatten, who next week will attend a task force meeting about alternatives to the monthly pass.

    It’s the latest turn in a debate that’s been brewing since June, when members of the disabled community began protesting increases in fares. The city opted for a 60-ride pass for $72. Those prices take effect in January.

    On Thursday, a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union called the increase “shameful” and said her organization was looking into whether the change violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    The ADA says users of a handicapped bus service cannot be charged more than twice the fares of traditional bus riders.

    If the city is in violation, then the civil rights group could file a lawsuit in January on behalf of riders, according to Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina.

    Attorneys from the ACLU and the Governor’s Advocacy Council for Persons with Disabilities sent a letter to city leaders Thursday. It said both groups are investigating other possible ADA violations by the Greensboro Transit Authority.

No one has the right to the bus fare of their preference in perpetuity, not even the disabled. Sorry, it sounds harsh, but I am sick of the federal government (via blatantly unconstitutional legislation like the ADA) and a Stalinist “legal” organization having ANY say over the affairs not only of state, not only a county, but over mundane city affairs like bus fare. Is this what the Founders intended?

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Lawsuit Targets School Prayers in Tiny Missouri Town


(AgapePress) - A small Missouri school district is staring down a lawsuit over school prayer. The suit alleges that teacher-led prayer during two school assemblies violated the constitutional rights of students.

Two students and their mother have filed suit against the Doniphan School District in southeast Missouri. Filed on their behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Eastern Missouri, the lawsuit claims that on two successive days in May 2005, school assemblies at Doniphan Elementary School began with teachers leading a prayer. The ACLU notes in a press release that the family bringing the suit is "not Christian," while both prayers were "Christian."

According to the ACLU, when the district superintendent was contacted about the matter, he offered to remedy the matter by telling school administrators they should invite a student, not a teacher, to lead school prayers in the future. That response, says the ACLU, demonstrates the superintendent's "lack of understanding" of both the Constitution and the district's own policies.

"Such religious activities are not only inconsistent with the policies of the Doniphan R-I School District," states the lawsuit, "but also constitute an establishment of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States." The suit seeks an injunction preventing both teacher- and student-led prayer during in-school assemblies to prevent what the ACLU describes as "irreparable harm" to students who are "coerce[d]" into participating in "religious exercises."

Liberty Counsel, which is based in Orlando, Florida, has offered to represent the Doniphan School District free of charge in the case. Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, says it is unfortunate, but there is a difference between when the Constitution says and what today's courts are saying about school prayer.

"Under the current interpretation by the courts, right or wrong, the ultimate result would be if you have a mandatory prayer in the public school classroom, then that would be ruled unconstitutional," Staver explains. "If the students, however, had an opportunity for a moment of silence, that is permissible; or if they wanted to voluntarily pray or have a moment of silence among themselves, certainly that is permissible as well."

In this particular case and under the current interpretation, says the Liberty Counsel founder, such prayers likely would be ruled unconstitutional. Staver contends the ACLU is driving "anti-religious bigotry."

"[T]hey're trying to use their legal threats as a bully-club to really silence people of faith and to rewrite our American history," he asserts. Still, the attorney has high hopes for the future. "I believe one good thing, however, is on the horizon," he says, "and that is we have a new Supreme Court -- and that Supreme Court is not going to be as hostile to religion as the courts of past decades."

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU holds form: Threatens KY county over Constitutionally-sound Ten Commandments display

From the AP: ACLU: display likely won’t avoid legal challenge

    ELIZABETHTOWN, Ky. (AP) — Hardin County officials want to model a historical display that includes the Ten Commandments after a Mercer County display that survived a legal challenge.

    But an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky says that won’t prevent his organization from challenging a Hardin County display of the Ten Commandments.

    “Any county that chooses to put it up is asking for a fight and is fomenting division among its citizens. And it’s an unnecessary divisive fight to have,” said David Friedman, general counsel for the ACLU of Kentucky.

    Members of a county committee were waiting on the outcome of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Kentucky against the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the Mercer County display before making suggestions on the details of the historical document display.

    A federal court decision found the display at the county courthouse in Harrodsburg was constitutional, and a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

    “Why would we want to do anything different than Mercer County?” Hardin County Magistrate Roy Easter said. “I don’t want to put us in harm’s way, where we have to pay for some kind of lawsuit.”

    Friedman said the ACLU would not hesitate in challenging a Ten Commandments display if the action seemed appropriate. He said the best way to avoid a potential lawsuit is to not create a display.

    “That’s the safe and responsible route: Remain neutral toward religion,” he said. “In a pluralistic society like ours, we best protect religious freedom for all of us when government doesn’t take a position favoring or disfavoring any religious view.”

So we have a county modeling a historical display that includes the Ten Commandments on a model that has been affirmed to be “acceptable” according to current jurisprudence, yet it’s still not good enough for the ACLU. This is another example of 1) the ACLU’s demented hostility to the FACT that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that it is appropriate to acknowledge this FACT and 2) the ACLU’s willingness to use legal mafia tactics in order to intimidate everyone into submitting to its iron hand rule.

The ACLU does not demand “neutrality” in regard to the government’s treatment of symbols that carry religious connotation, the ACLU demands hostility to religious references, particularly those associated with Christianity.

[Soldier4Christ]

The ACLU Earns Money on the Backs of Immigrants


The ACLU is upset that New Jersey schools are asking students for Social Security Numbers when they enroll for school. As usual they are upset for the wrong reasons and deceiving the public in the process.

First, the ACLU is at the forefront of litigation and lobbying to prevent the United States from having a national identification card (the kind of thing the 9/11 Commission suggested we do to prevent terrorism). The problem is that we already have a national identification; we call it a Social Security Number. If someone steals that number, they own your identity, it’s just that simple.

Instead of adopting some form of strong identification for citizens, we are stuck with the easy to steal SSNs which have greatly contributed to over $24 billion in compromised assets belonging to US citizens that is available to be stolen at any moment by malicious hackers.

With SSNs being so valuable, schools have no business having them. They simply shouldn’t be spending their money on data protection when our schools are rivaling the third world for the gutter. If we are going to continue to waste money on public schools, at least they should try to spend it on students.

However, the key point of contention of the ACLU isn’t privacy; it is that immigrants will be scared off from sending their students to public schools “both documented and undocumented.” The problem is that all documented students can get Social Security Numbers. If you are in this country legally, you have no problem with the Social Security Administration. They are simply throwing that up there to make the policy sound xenophobic.

The only people who would potentially have problems with this policy is illegal immigrants, or more specifically, the illegal immigrants who don’t bother to steal an SSN for their kid. The sticky part here is that despite both the government of Mexico and the government of the United States refusing to actually enforce their own laws, there is still a group of people who don’t strictly speaking have a legal right to be here.

No politician has suggested we just dissolve the border, or for that matter, abolish immigration law, but they continue to act as if the law doesn’t exist. Amazingly enough, failure to enforce the law has lead to lawlessness and confusion. This case wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the US government deciding certain laws aren’t really laws without bothering with what some of us like to call “the democratic process”.

The ACLU, for its part, is at least open that it believes the United States really isn’t a nation but just a spot on the map where everyone who can manage the trip is entitled the full privileges of citizenship. Despite everything to the contrary in the Constitution and US Code, the ACLU believes every foreign citizen has the full rights to be in this country, regardless of what the law says.

If the ACLU was truly intellectually honest, however, they’d be suing to have the entire body of immigration law thrown out. That seems to be what they really want, no regulations on immigration whatsoever. It’s a rather startling departure from a pro-regulation group.

Instead, they keep the laws on the books and the dyslexic approach to immigration this nation takes so they can continue to file lawsuits. Immigration lawsuits have become an income stream and the ACLU doesn’t want to see that go away because the problem was “solved”. Much of the lawyer industry has adopting tactics that ensure litigation and maximum possible lawyering, why should the ACLU be any different? After all, they are the beneficiaries while the common man picks up the tab.

The biggest deception of the ACLU is thus leveled right on the shoulders of the undocumented workers they claim to support. They don’t try to solve their problems; they simply try to prolong them so they can keep racking up legal fees. Protectors of the Bill of Rights? Hardly.


    John Bambenek is an academic professional for the University of Illinois and a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. . He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Wants Suspected Terrorists Allowed Back Into U.S.


From the NY Times we learn that once again the ACLU either doesn’t care or doesn’t have a brain when it comes to keeping the country safe. Whichever is the case they are actively undermining our security on a daily basis. This is just the latest example.

    Federal authorities have prevented two relatives of a father and son convicted recently in a terrorism-related case from returning home to California from Pakistan unless they agree to be interviewed by the F.B.I.

    It is unclear whether the men, Muhammad Ismail, 45, and his son Jaber, 18, have a direct connection to the terrorism case or if they have been caught up in circumstance.

    The United States attorney’s office in Sacramento declined Monday to answer questions about the Ismails beyond confirming that the men had not been permitted to fly into the United States and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to question them.

    The United States attorney, McGregor W. Scott, reiterated a comment he had made to The San Francisco Chronicle, which reported Saturday about the Ismails’ troubles.

    “They’ve been given the opportunity to meet with the F.B.I. over there and answer a few questions, and they’ve declined to do that,” Mr. Scott said through a spokeswoman, Mary Wenger.

    The Ismails live in Lodi, Calif., a small farming town south of Sacramento, where their relatives Umer Hayat and his son, Hamid, were arrested last summer as part of what federal prosecutors said was an investigation into terrorist links.

    The Hayats are the only people to have been charged. Hamid Hayat, the nephew of Muhammad Ismail and the cousin of Jaber, was convicted in April of supporting terrorists by attending a training camp in Pakistan. Umer Hayat, in a deal reached with prosecutors after jurors deadlocked on terrorism charges, pleaded guilty in May to lying to the authorities about carrying $28,000 to Pakistan from California.

    The Ismails discovered they were on the federal government’s no-fly list of people not allowed to enter the United States after they were refused permission to board a connecting flight in Hong Kong on April 21; they had been trying to return to California after several years in Pakistan, said Julia Harumi Mass of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (in bold for a commenter who has a hard time reading), who is representing them.

Oh my! The Ismails just go on vacation to Pakistan for several years and all of the sudden end up on the terrorist watchlist? This must be some kind of discrimination right? Or perhaps it was because in an interview with FBI agents the self admitted terror supporting cousin Hayat informed them that his cousin Jaber Ismail had also attending a Pakistani training camp.

    Hamid Hayat mentioned Jaber Ismail in a marathon F.B.I. interrogation before he was charged, according to transcripts. He said his cousin had attended a camp in the past couple of years, but he was not sure if it was the same one he had attended.

Surely we can not reasonably suspect that this was why the Ismails were in Pakistan! The ACLU, an organization claiming that they are for a “safe and free” America, have no doubt it is the right thing to do in allowing these men to come back to America. They seem to think that having a self professed terrorist point the finger at his cousin for attending terror camps in an FBI interview is not a good enough reason to take extra precautions before allowing him back into the U.S. I feel safer already having the ACLU comfort us in such a way, how about you?

Federal authorities are saying that the men will not be allowed back into the United States unless they agree to answer some questions subject to a polygraph test. Jaber has since met with authorities while his father refused completely. Jaber has now refused further interrogation without a lawyer and has declined to take a polygraph test.

Brother blog, Ban the ACLU says:

    Now lets get one thing straight… this is not a case of profiling. The FBI received information that Jaber had attending a Pakistani Terrorist Training camp. Now here comes this young man trying to return to the United States after being in Pakistan for 4 years doing “religious study”. I applaud the FBI and Department of Homeland Security for denying him access to this country until he submits to a polygraph test to determine if he has indeed attending a terrorist training camp.

    The ACLU on the other hand believes “They want to come home and have an absolute right to come home,” according to Julia Harumi Mass a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. An absolute right?? The term absolute right reflects rights that cannot be taken away, such as Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion. Suspected terrorists DO NOT have an absolute right to enter this country, even if they are US citizens!

So do these guys have something to hide? Did they attend a terrorist camp in Pakistan? Why refuse to submit to a polygraph test? Are they coming back to the U.S. with intentions of killing innocent people? Nobody knows the answers to these questions. But you can all feel safe and secure in allowing these guys back to the U.S. because the ACLU says they have an “absolute right”. Thank goodness we have the ACLU answering these tough calls and keeping America “safe and free”.

Seriously, when the inevitable day comes that someone the ACLU fought for to be here sets off a bomb killing thousands…..what kind of double sided talk will we hear from the ACLU? Don’t expect apologies.

[Soldier4Christ]

OH citizens pray for school during weekend, ACLU threatens school…shocking!!!


From the Columbus Dispatch: Blessing of school draws protest

    About 180 members of four local churches surrounded a public middle school yesterday to bless the building and those who use it, despite objections from the American Civil Liberties Union about the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

    Led by a minister from Epworth United Methodist Church, members of Epworth, Karl Road Christian Church, Karl Road Baptist Church and Ascension Lutheran Church joined hands and circled halfway around Woodward Park Middle School at 5151 Karl Rd. In unison, they asked the “great divine one, creator of us all” to bless each “student … teacher, staff and administrator” entering the building.

    “Rain or shine, ACLU or not, nobody can stop those who have spirit-filled hearts,” said Patricia Miller, who led the ceremony.

    The nearby churches have an ongoing relationship with Woodward Park, providing supplies and other support. Miller said the ceremony at first was planned for inside the building and had the approval of the school’s principal, Jill Spanheimer.

    Last week, Spanheimer said she didn’t remember that conversation and that the ceremony would have to be outside. Yesterday, she watched the ceremony from her yard, which borders the school grounds. She would not comment afterward.

    The ACLU of Ohio sent a letter to Spanheimer and Superintendent Gene Harris last week, saying that permitting the event would violate the constitutional requirement that public schools remain neutral on religious matters. District officials responded with a letter stating the event was constitutional according to a U.S. Supreme Court case from New York state. In Good News Club v. Milford Central School, the court ruled that any group is permitted to rent and use public-school facilities.

    “Anyone can walk onto the school grounds during the weekend,” said Columbus Public Schools spokesman Greg Viebranz.

    Gary Daniels, litigation coordinator for the ACLU of Ohio, said this event differed from the renting of school buildings, even those rented for a religious use.

    “There’s not that appearance of endorsement by the school,” he said. “There are worse scenarios that can be presented as far as being problematic from a church-state perspective, but this by no means is something that in my mind would pass constitutional muster.”

The key point is in bold. I remember as a kid, we would regularly use school grounds for pick-up football, basketball and baseball games and sometimes just to hang out. I assume that this ACLU attorney who’s quoted did similar things…come to think of it, ACLU-types aren’t normally of athletic pedigree…but anyway…

If ANYONE is permitted on school grounds during school hours, why would the ACLU want to single out people who choose, on their own, to go to the school to pray for the school? Did the ACLU expect the school administration to marshal the local police to barricade the school grounds, loose hounds on anyone carrying a Bible and fire bean bags at the pastors? How could this gathering of private citizens not “pass constitutional muster?”

Once again, the ACLU demonstrates a pathological aversion and hostility to the free expression of faith, even by private citizens in their individual capacities. How many more examples like this do we need before ACLUophiles (like the ones who’ve decided to make criticism of this site a career) acknowledge that the ACLU is NOT the grand defender of religious liberty they claim to be?

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge Hears Argument In Another NSA Case


The ACLU’s suit against the NSA is not the only one. The Center for Constitutional Rights is pursuing another case challenging the program in New York.

Adam Liptak writes about this case in the NY Times. There are several interesting points in this particular case.

One of the main arguments of interest to me is whether the plaintiffs have any standing.

    One preliminary issue is whether the plaintiffs, the Center for Constitutional Rights and several of its lawyers, have standing, the requirement that they demonstrate a concrete injury from the program. The plaintiffs represent people accused of terrorism, and they say their ability to conduct their work has been affected by the possibility of surveillance. The government says such speculation is insufficient to show standing.

In my opinion the plaintiffs can not show any evidence that they have been injured by the program. I admit it is a catch 22 in that being a secret program this is impossible to prove. It seems to me, however, even if lawyers representing terror suspects were obstructed from conducting that business it would not be by the existence of the program itself as much as the illegal actions of the classified program being revealed. Perhaps the lawsuit should be against the NY Times instead.

Another interesting development is a shift in strategy by the government.

    In a move that surprised Judge Lynch and lawyers who have been following the debate over the surveillance program, a government lawyer seemed to shift tactics to bring one more legal question within the scope of the privilege.

    It has been widely assumed that the government has acknowledged that the surveillance program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a 1978 law that requires the government to obtain a warrant from a secret court before wiretapping the international communications of Americans for national security purposes.

    “We don’t agree,” the lawyer, Anthony J. Coppolino, said, “that the government has specifically conceded that point.” He added that the question could not be answered without endangering national security.

    Statements from government officials that seemed to make the concession, Mr. Coppolino said, “may not be fully complete, as they have all indicated.”

    Judge Lynch was taken aback by the shift in tactics. “This is the first time,” he said, “that I have understood that the government is taking the position that it is a contested issue whether this violates FISA.”

Judge Lynch was very questionable towards the government’s arguments, and at many points found them unconvincing. It is hard to say which way the judge will rule on this, but he does narrow down what the deciding factors will be.

    At the beginning of yesterday’s argument, the second to consider the legality of the program, Judge Lynch said he would “devote little time to the First and Fourth Amendments.” Judge Taylor’s decision relied heavily on arguments based on them.

    Judge Lynch confined himself, instead, to questions about his ability to rule on the merits and, if he can, on whether the program violates the constitutional separation of powers.

So it seems that this particular case boils down to a few questions. Does the government have standing in their claims toward state secrets to have the case dismissed? Does the plaintiffs have standing to claim injury without concrete evidence? And questions on the seperation of powers. At this point the decision could go either way. Of particular interest and concern to me is the question of whether the plaintiffs even have standing. Can the entire case be built on hypotheticals? We will find out soon.

Regardless of how this particular judge rules we can count on the case being appealed. We will see this controversy find its way to the top courts where these same questions will be pondered once again.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Accuses Bush Of Gutting Geneva Conventions Enforcement and Undermining Due Process For Terror Detainees


It isn’t suprising that the ACLU was quick to react to Bush’s jaw dropping speech admitting to secret CIA prisons and pushing Congress to pass legislation that would put captured terror suspects under the rule of a military tribunal.

Via ACLU:

    America is a nation dedicated to upholding the rule of law. However, President Bush’s draft proposal for military commissions fails to meet the standards recognized by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The court held the President’s initial military commission scheme was illegal because it violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the most basic standards regarding treatment of detainees. The new proposal has nearly all of the same problems, and will eventually be found to be illegal. For example, it would allow a person to be convicted based on secret evidence and would allow the use of evidence obtained as the result of horrific abuse.

Of course the ACLU automatically accuse the U.S. of using horrific abuse to obtain our evidence without any evidence whatsoever to back that claim up. You can also bet that if one of their terrorist plaintiffs were to go before our court system they would make the claim that any evidence we have against them was obtained through such procedures and argue it was inadmissible. This is only one of hundreds of reasons that Congress needs to pass the legislation the President is requesting so these terrorist creeps, several of which are in the top Al Qaeda chain of command, need to go before a military tribunal. They are not American citizens and we can not afford the dangers involved in allowing them to be represented before the U.S. courts, in all probability represented by the ACLU.

    “The president should have listened to the current Judge Advocates General for the four military services, all of whom have urged close adherence to the court-martial procedures, and all of whom oppose the use of secret evidence and coerced evidence. By contrast, Senators John Warner (R-VA), John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are reportedly following the advice of these top generals and admirals and supporting due process protections that are more in line with the time-tested courts-martial procedures.

    “The president also proposes to gut enforceability of the Geneva Conventions by amending the War Crimes Act to completely immunize from prosecution civilians who subjected persons to horrific abuse that may have fallen short of the definition of ‘torture.’ As a result, government officials and civilian contractors who authorized or carried out waterboarding, threats of death, and other abuse would get a ‘get out of jail free’ card under the president’s bill. The nation’s soldiers and sailors would remain liable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but civilians would be immune from prosecution under the only statute that applies to many of these acts. That is simply wrong.

No, what is “simply wrong” is that cowards committed to terrorism and jihad against America that do are not signatories of nor abide by the Geneva Conventions should be afforded the protections of it. The sickening fact that the ACLU would steep low enough to represent an enemy of our nation to sue a military member for doing their job in capturing and interrogating these killers. This is exactly what the President is asking Congress to keep from happening. The President is asking Congress to make it clear what our protectors can and can not do and to protect them from prosecution of being sued by the very scumbuckets they protect us from.

    “The new Army Field Manual avoids some of the worst problems with earlier drafts and clarifies that those held by the military or at military facilities must be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, it then creates loopholes for so-called ‘unlawful combatants’ by depriving them of the same protections–and specifically authorizes holding persons in isolation. And, the new manual does not apply to those held by the CIA. The Bush proposal is lip service unless the executive branch actually holds people accountable for violating it.

“So called” unlawful combatants? If you are not abiding by the rules of being a lawful combatant then you aren’t one. It is that simple. The ACLU are the ones looking for loop holes in the system, and the very reason they are so up and arms on this is that it closes them up. What the President is asking is for Congress to make the definitions clear. In the Hamdan case, which the ACLU played a major part in, the door was left wide open for Congress to clarify and create legislation making military tribunals the main process for due process dealing with terrorists caught on the battle field. What does the ACLU have against bringing these murderers to justice?

The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.

    In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.

    “The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”

    The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.”

They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, to stop what they call profiling (we will never see a Protestant white middle-aged woman as a terrorist working with an extremist Islamic organization) by race, sex and religion, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations.

They tried to kill the Patriot Act because they see the rights of an individual who may or may not be an American citizen as more important than the safety of the nation at large. They want the borders open because they see that as an infringement of the rights of non-Americans to become Americans however they can manage it. They want to have military and intelligence sources, activities, and planning revealed to the public so they can “watch dog” and ensure freedoms of individuals and/or groups are not being compromised, but in doing so will enable those very individuals and/or groups under surveillance the ability to avoid surveillance and possible capture before they do something destructive to American citizens.

When it comes to America’s enemies you can count on the ACLU to be there to defend them.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Disappointed That Child Molester Can’t Prowl Park

Journal Gazette:

    A convicted child molester has no fundamental right to visit a public park, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

    The decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upholds a ruling by a federal judge in Hammond, who found a Michigan City ordinance banning Robert E. Brown from city parks did not violate his constitutional rights.

    City officials adopted the ban in 2002 after they said Brown visited Washington Park almost daily, staring at children through binoculars and taking photographs from his van. Brown denied the allegations.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana represented Brown in the lawsuit, arguing that the law deprived him of his 14th Amendment due process rights. After the federal judge ruled against him, Brown appealed to the 7th Circuit.

I guess the ACLU feels that all of those people who felt threatened and freaked out by his behavior should just leave the park or deal with it? It always comes back to the same argument in these “child molester’s right to hang out in public parks all day” cases. Those in favor of allowing freak perverts to get their kicks by staring at children in public parks will argue that they have already paid their dues for their past crimes. Those that actually care about children and their safety think that once someone has done such a sickening crime that they should never have the public trust again. I think we could solve the whole problem by just locking the monsters away for good….and that is my merciful solution.

Fortunately the ACLU went up against some judges that actually had common sense and slapped the ACLU down.

    But the three-judge panel found that it was reasonable of the city 30 miles west of South Bend to specifically ban Brown, though it acknowledged there was no evidence that he was looking for children.

    “As a practical matter of ensuring public safety, Mr. Brown is not just another patron of the public parks,” Judge Kenneth Ripple wrote in the ruling. “He is a convicted child molester whose frequency of attendance and atypical behavior while in the park justified the concern of those public officials charged with ensuring the safety of members of the public who visit the recreational site.”

Of course this probably sounded like a foreign language of gooble de gook to the ACLU since they used such terms as “practical” and “public safety”. These words are not within the ACLU vocabulary or comprehension. Of course the ACLU were down and out that they couldn’t get binocular boy his “right” to innocently study the birds and the bees at the public park.

    “We’re obviously disappointed,” Falk said of Tuesday’s decision.

And while most of us cheer the victory of common sense, I’m sure in the twisted mind of the ACLU this was somehow a devasting blow to civil liberties everywhere.

[Soldier4Christ]

Of course the ACLU opposes common sense in defending the nation from attack
by Glib Fortuna

From CNS News: ACLU Opposes Updates to Foreign Agent Wiretapping Law

    Congress is reviewing several bills aimed at updating the law regulating wiretapping of foreign agents, including suspected terrorists and their supporters, within the United States. Many lawmakers hope those updates will maintain their oversight of President Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, but the American Civil Liberties Union opposes the proposed changes to the current statute.

Shocker!

    “FISA doesn’t need to be updated,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “We hope that lawmakers will act to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    “The Republican leadership is recklessly pushing legislation based on an election strategy, with no regard for how these bills undermine our fundamental freedoms,” added Fredrickson.

…and what is YOUR plan Ms. Fredrickson? She sounds like the Democrats standing in front of FDR’s statue bleating that Social Security is just fine as it is despite the disaster staring them right in the face.

    Robert Deitz, general counsel for the NSA, disagreed.

    “Changes are needed, I believe, in order to recapture the original congressional intent of the statute regulating the electronic surveillance of persons within the United States as the government engages in electronic surveillance,” Deitz explained.

    Much has changed, Deitz argued, since FISA was enacted in 1978.

    “Communications technology has evolved in the 28 years between 1978 and today in ways that have had unforeseen consequences under FISA,” Deitz said.

    Also testifying before the committee was Robert Alt, a fellow in legal and international affairs at Ashland University. Alt said the current process “remains cumbersome and subject to bureaucratic delay.”

    But, Alt noted the importance of the program to the nation’s security and also called for the law to be changed.

    “By reforming FISA to permit the necessary and constitutional use of warrantless foreign surveillance renewable for fixed periods of time, Congress can assure that the executive branch has the tools it needs to address 21st Century threats,” Alt said, “while providing the oversight necessary to assure that the program is not abused.”

This makes sense. The ACLU doesn’t.

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger,

I am more and more convinced that the ACLU wishes to destroy all morals in America and then destroy America. They have already done more damage than any foreign enemy could have.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Timothy 6:12 NASB  Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.