ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

I know of a better place, China.

I'm all for that but make sure it is a very remote portion of China far away from civilization. The poor Christians in China already have enough problems.

[Shammu]

I know of a better place, China.

I'm all for that but make sure it is a very remote portion of China far away from civilization. The poor Christians in China already have enough problems.

How about, Idu Mishmi tribe in the remote town of Anini, India, near the border with China. There are no Christians there.

[Soldier4Christ]

I know of a better place, China.

I'm all for that but make sure it is a very remote portion of China far away from civilization. The poor Christians in China already have enough problems.

How about, Idu Mishmi tribe in the remote town of Anini, India, near the border with China. There are no Christians there.

That will work as long as there are restricted to that area.

[Soldier4Christ]

Best of 2005: Interview With A Former ACLU Lawyer
by Jay on 12-26-05 @ 12:47 am Filed under ACLU, War On Terror, 1st Amendment, News
“For God And Country Forever
Surrender To The ACLU Never”

I had the benefit of getting an interview with Mr. Reese Lloyd, a former ACLU lawyer affiliated with the largest Veterans Organization in America, the American Legion. When I called the media relations department there and inquired about their support for Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 , this is the man they referred me to. I soon found out why. This was a very passionate, wise, and well spoken man.

I first inquired of his history with the ACLU, how he became employed with them, and why he eventually disassociated himself with them. He informed me that he had worked two janitor jobs while attending law school. One day the ACLU did some kind of fellowship interview, and he was given an internship with them. He eventually went on to be on their staff. He focused in the area of worker’s rights with special attention to the deprivation of speech in the workplace…such as whistleblowers.

So why did he leave them? He said, “it was in part because around that time they established a separation of Church and State Staff Position.” He informed me that, “This was funded by Norman Lear and several other Hollywood millionaires.” It seems even back then that Hollywood sided with the secular left. He went on to say that, “the very purpose of this staff position was to push “establishment clause” lawsuits against the government.”

At this point he got pretty fired up, and dominated the conversation for a while. I didn’t mind…what he had to say was passionate and cut right to the truth of things.

    “I think it is important that we shouldn’t forget that we had a civil rights movement that was needed in our history at the time. I was around to see segregated bathrooms. There were black and white water fountains. You could sit at a lunch counter next to someone like Charles Manson because he was white, but not someone like Martin Luther King Jr. because he was black. The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due.”

    “But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.”

I don’t think I could have come up with a better more colorful description myself. I think I will be sending him a Stop The ACLU T-Shirt. But wait…he was just getting warmed up! He went on to say….

    “I have done more cases for minorities and civil rights violations myself than the whole bunch of them put together. I was in the trenches of the Civil Rights movement. They can’t tell me anything about civil rights. We did that 40 years ago, and we accomplished that goal. There are now laws protecting people from those things we fought against. The Civil Rights movement has now taken some crazed “Jesse Jackson” turn to the point that often it is now the white people that are being discriminated against.”

I must say that in this world of political correctness this guy was bold, blunt, and to the point. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who fought the battle of Civil Rights, a soldier who fought for them, and an esteemed former Commander of an American Legions post in Banning, California. He continued…

    The ACLU is an elitist organization bent on the social engineering of our Country in defiance of both the legislative and executive branches. What they are involved in is secular cleansing of American History.”

He asked if I were familiar with how Stalin airbrushed people like Trotsky out of photos in order to rewrite history. He went on to compare that to how what the ACLU is trying to do with Christianity in American history. He pointed out many similarities.

Then he got to the good stuff! He repeated….

    “The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.”

    “For example, the Ten Commandments in Court Houses. I don’t think this is an “endorsement” of religion. It is an acknowledgment of our history. I don’t care if it causes discomfort to Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist sympathizers, or Hindus and their holy cows.”

At this point I felt like saying, ….Bwhahahahah! However I restrained myself like the nice guy that I am. I’m glad I did, cause this is when he got the really good stuff.

    “This is a Christian Nation! And we ought to be proud it is! Because it is only in Christian Nations where you will find freedom of religion. We are a Christian Nation, and the U.S. Supreme Court said so. The Supreme Court in HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S. that this is a Christian Nation. That is our history. The history the ACLU wants to erase.”

    “Secular Humanism is a religion. Again, the Supreme Court ruled this in Torcaso vs. Watkins. If this is true, then it is being given precedence over other religions in our nation today.”

I finally asked the question that I primarily called for. Knowing that the American Legion is supporting The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 would it affect the ability of a poor person to defend their religious liberty by having to pay attorney fees out of pocket? To this question he answered….

    “Absolutely not! This legislation would only apply to “Establishment Clause” cases. This would help to keep organizations from being paid attorney’s fees in cases such as the ones where the ACLU is fighting to take down our Veterans’ Memorials. It would only affect these kinds of suits. The “Free Exercise” is not affected at all. So someone defending their right to express religion could still collect attorney’s fees.”

    “The ACLU crossed the line when they denied the Boyscouts charter on U.S. Military Bases. People need to stand up on this. The American Legion has a creed we say now…“For God and Country Forever! Surrender To The ACLU, Never!” We have 2.7 million members and we are stepping up. And when we step, we march, we don’t mince.”

What a great man, and a great organization! We all need to stand up, and demand of our representative to “represent” us! Mr. Lloyd is going to keep in touch with me, and I’m sure we will hear more from him in the future. I hope so.

____________________________

(edited for content)

[Soldier4Christ]

Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 2679 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2679
To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 26, 2005
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SODREL, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. PITTS, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. OTTER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. POE, and Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.

(a) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights- Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a)' before the first sentence; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.'.

(b) Attorneys Fees- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.'

More about this located at the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.02679:

[Soldier4Christ]

Here is one to file under ridiculous. Only an organization like the ACLU could sit down with officials and help them draft a law, and then sue them when they enforce it.

Kansas City Star

    David Quinly doesn’t like the war in Iraq.

    He also doesn’t like the $300 ticket that Prairie Village gave him for homemade yard signs that publicly express his displeasure.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri is helping Quinly appeal his citation to Johnson County District Court.

    “It’s clearly a First Amendment issue,” said Quinly’s attorney, John Simpson. “We think … that the Prairie Village sign ordinance is too restrictive.”

    Quinly enlisted the organization’s help in November, after he lost the appeal of his citation in municipal court. The ACLU asked the district to dismiss the case, and Quinly’s trial date is Jan. 3.

    Prairie Village prohibits temporary political signs larger than 5 square feet. The total area of temporary signs displayed on any one property may not exceed 10 square feet, according to city code.
    Signs can’t be up longer than 60 days.

    Quinly has been making signs since he first heard the United States might enter Iraq. His messages change with the news.

    He said he was ticketed Sept. 20, after being warned that two signs in his yard at the time exceeded the allowed size.

Though it wasn’t necessary, I think it was rather polite that the City gave the guy a few warnings. Of course, he didn’t listen to the warnings, and knowingly continued to violate the law.

    Quinly left his signs up despite warnings, figuring he could endure a $20 or $30 citation for his cause. He was shocked when the ticket was for $300.

    Quinly said he found the amount excessive, and unaffordable, so he asked the ACLU for help.

So, in come the ACLU to save the day. No doubt, if they win it will be at the taxpayer’s expense. The real irony is that the law the ACLU are sueing over, is a law they helped write.

    Charles Wetzler, Prairie Village city attorney, said issues surrounding temporary signs don’t usually apply to commercial signs.

    Sign placement and size must be restricted to prevent them from creating traffic hazards, according to the ordinance. The sign ordinance also seeks to prevent “visual clutter” in neighborhoods.

    Wetzler said Prairie Village has revisited its ordinance many times, and the current version was drafted with input from the ACLU.

    “The law changes all the time in this area,” Wetzler said. “There have been new cases that come out, and if we need to look at it, we will.”

    But for now, Wetzler said, Quinly owes the city $300.

Before being fined for knowingly ignoring two warnings, and defying the law, he had hoped to contribute to the community dialouge about the war with other wonderful messages such as one with “Merry Christmas” above a folded flag and the number of troops killed to date.

[Shammu]

Ex-ACLU attorney: Group [ACLU] 'terrorizing' U.S.

Activist praises bill that would keep taxpayer funds from organization

Posted: December 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

An attorney who once worked for the American Civil Liberties Union has slammed the organization for "perverting" federal law by successfully threatening government officials into getting rid of public expressions of religion.

Rees Lloyd made the comments in an online podcast hosted by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in which the two discuss the congressman's legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square – such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal.

Lloyd, a California civil-rights attorney, is an officer with the American Legion who wrote a resolution passed by the national organization supporting Hostettler's bill.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.

In the podcast, Hostettler explains that the 1976 statute was meant to help "the little guy" who is going up against a governmental entity so he won't be impoverished when working to guarantee the liberty to express or practice his faith. But, says the lawmaker, the ACLU has used the law to enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers and as a means to silence public officials who don't want to be sued personally.

MORE.........

Here is the Petition

[Soldier4Christ]

Here is the Petition

I've already signed it, brother and I am working on getting others to sign it also. Great post, thanks.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge: Ban on prayer stands
Indiana's House speaker sought clarification and vows appeal to 7th Circuit Court

By Richard D. Walton

A federal court judge on Wednesday denied a request to amend his ruling banning sectarian prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives, clearing the way for an appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
   
U.S. District Judge David Hamilton rejected arguments by House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, that Hamilton's ruling was too vague to enforce.
And Hamilton issued a warning:
"If the speaker or those offering prayers seek to evade the injunction through indirect but well understood expressions of specifically Christian beliefs, the audience, the public, and the court will be able to see what is happening. In that unlikely event, the court will be able to take appropriate measures to enforce" the injunction.
Hamilton earlier this month found that the House practice of offering a prayer at the start of each day's session breached the clause of the U.S. Constitution that bars the government establishment of religion. The House prayers, he ruled, were overwhelmingly Christian in content and amounted to the advancement of one religion over others. The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.
The judge ordered that anyone chosen to give the invocation must not advance any one faith. He forbade the person saying the prayer from "using Christ's name or title" or making any other denominational appeal.
Despite Hamilton's intent to also prevent the promotion of non-Christian religions, Bosma had asked for clarification on whether the prohibition "refers to Christendom as a whole, or is more limited and means only that there should be no appeals on behalf of Methodism, Presbyterianism, or Roman Catholicism, for example."
Responded Hamilton in Wednesday's ruling: "This later question seems to reflect almost a willful obtuseness. As is evident through the opinions of this court and other courts . . . official prayers that endorse Christianity in general violate the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is not limited to preferences for particular Christian denominations."
Bosma has said that, if necessary, he will take his fight against Hamilton's ban on sectarian prayer to the Supreme Court.

[airIam2worship]

I signed the petition too.

[nChrist]

Here is the Petition

I've already signed it, brother and I am working on getting others to sign it also. Great post, thanks.

Hello Pastor Roger,

AMEN! - The success of this petition is something that I am praying about and trying to get others to do the same. My wife have already signed it and several others that are related to it. It's far past time to send the ACLU and other groups like it packing.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 12:2-3 NASB  "Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For the LORD GOD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation." Therefore you will joyously draw water From the springs of salvation.

[airIam2worship]

Here is the Petition

I've already signed it, brother and I am working on getting others to sign it also. Great post, thanks.

Hello Pastor Roger,

AMEN! - The success of this petition is something that I am praying about and trying to get others to do the same. My wife have already signed it and several others that are related to it. It's far past time to send the ACLU and other groups like it packing.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 12:2-3 NASB  "Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For the LORD GOD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation." Therefore you will joyously draw water From the springs of salvation.

I totally agree with you Brother. Christians must make their voices heard. We have been given authority, and that by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU condemns
Justice leak probe
Asserts Bush should be investigated
for lying to Americans, breaking law
Posted: December 30, 2005
5:00 p.m. Eastern

Accusing President Bush of breaking the law and lying to the American people, the American Civil Liberties Union today condemned a Justice Department investigation into the leak of the National Security Agency's operation to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

The Justice Department announced the investigation today of disclosures to The New York Times about surveillance conducted without warrants on calls between U.S. citizens and terrorists in foreign countries since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Administration officials argue the president had the power to conduct the wiretaps under the Constitution's war powers provision and contend Congress also gave permission when it authorized the use of military force against terrorism in a resolution adopted days after 9-11.

The ACLU, however, called on the administration to drop the newly announced probe of the leakers and, instead, to order an investigation of Bush's program.

"President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

The ACLU wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and took out two full-page advertisements in the New York Times calling for appointment of a special counsel to determine whether Bush violated federal wiretapping laws.

Romero said that "rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss."

"Our nation is strengthened, not weakened, by those whistleblowers who are courageous enough to speak out on violations of the law," Romero said.

The controversy began two weeks ago with a Times story, one day after the Iraqi elections, revealing the existence of the program. The paper said it withheld the story for a year because it needed more time for reporting, but its publishing came on the eve of the release of a book by reporter James Risen on the same subject.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the Justice Department made the decision to investigate the leak on its own.

"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue," he said, according to the Associated Press. "The fact is that al-Qaida's playbook is not printed on Page One and when America's is, it has serious ramifications."

The administration made a legal interpretation of the president's powers that enabled it to avoid requirements under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a new survey found nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the NSA should monitor communications between terrorist suspects overseas and contacts inside the U.S.

___________________________

Yeah, right. Lets go for the man trying to keep us safe and leave those alone that illegally release classified information.
The ACLU does not have even a semblage of logic in fact if given a logic test I would surmise that it would register to the negative.

[Shammu]

The ACLU Loses Commandments Cases

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The ACLU lost several cases at the end of the year that were not reported by the main stream media. The main stream media is for the ACLU and I guess they don't want to acknowledge any of these ACLU loses.

The plain and simple truth is the ACLU LOST several important cases which were not reported by the main stream media in late 2005.

One of the most important ACLU loses came on December 20, 2005 and involved a Ten Commandments display in Mercer County Kentucky. This case involved the same exact display from the McCreary County Kentucky case that was recently ruled against by the US Supreme Court.

However, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals handed the ACLU a significant defeat when they ruled that this same exact display is CONSTITUTIONAL. The difference between the two cases seems to be that Mercer County always included other historical documents in their display and therefore it was more easily determined to have a secular purpose.

The Court said, "Our concern is that of the reasonable person. And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is to ensure that…the government (is kept) out of the religion business, does not embody the reasonable person." The Courts opinion also rejected the ACLU's "repeated reference to the 'separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state," the Court said.

"This case represents a huge victory and may signal the beginning of the end of dangerous, ridiculous rulings in favor of the ACLU. Whether the ACLU likes it or not this nation was founded upon the principles of Christianity. We are better off because of the principles taught in the Ten Commandments," said Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America's Values, aka CRAVE. "The problem with the ACLU is that they do not offer anything concrete for us to pattern our lives after. The Ten Commandments are a pretty simple pattern for us to follow," Swarthout said.

Just as important was a case in the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled that the same exact display as the one in the Mercer County Case was CONSTITUTIONAL in Elkhart County, Indiana. After the loss the ACLU has indicated that they will not appeal this case.

On December 2, 2005 the ACLU also lost its case against New York City where they were trying to stop random searches of passenger's bags who were boarding the subway system.

The ACLU had sued the City of New York after they instituted random bag searches on July 22, 2005 following the bombing of London's transit system. The ACLU's contention was that random searches of passenger's bags were an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

The ACLU seems to favor protecting the rights of terrorists who want to kill law abiding citizens. "The truth is obvious. Terrorists and all others who do not respect the American way of life must be stopped in order to protect the life styles of law abiding American citizens," said Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America's Values.

"The ACLU wants to protect the rights of criminals and terrorists. Why doesn't the ACLU want to protect the rights of law abiding citizens," Swarthout asked?

"The main stream media never talks about these cases where the ACLU loses! They seem to be quick enough to tell us about the cases where they have won, but they will not even mention the many cases where the ACLU loses," Swarthout added.

"We represent a large number of average people from all across America and we are fed up with the unfair treatment we receive from the media and from the ACLU who is a real danger to our nation's well being. Therefore, we have now written to every US Senator asking for an investigation into the activities and agenda of the ACLU. The ACLU was investigated by Congress in 1931 and it is time for that to happen again," Swarthout stated.

[Soldier4Christ]

Darwinism: An Endangered Way of Thinking?

by Barney Brenner
Posted Jan , 2006

Darwinists must be an endangered species. How else does one explain their eighty-year need for court protection to ensure their survival?

In 1925, an ACLU-driven defense team in the Scopes-Monkey Trial wanted a court to declare that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional. In recent weeks, in a courtroom in Dover Pennsylvania, the same organization applauded a judge’s ruling that the teaching of ideas contrary to evolution, in this case Intelligent Design, were unconstitutional.

The same ACLU that once advocated for free and open discussion in schools is working to see it stifled today.

Their website boasts, “Intelligent Design is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is inappropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education.”

Science involves observing nature and producing hypotheses which explain the data – and of discrediting theories which don’t fit new observations. Having judges decide what constitutes science is as nonsensical as scientists issuing judicial decisions.

And the irreligious left, perpetually misusing the First Amendment, can’t identify which religion is being established. Is it that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or of Catholicism? Perhaps Mormonism or Orthodox Judaism? Among many others, these disparate faiths all claim as canon the book of Genesis, where the religious version of creation is found.

But ironically, while no particular religion is being promoted by the teaching of Intelligent Design, there’s a belief system, which has established “churches” in several states, that is being favored by ACLU- and court-imposed censorship: atheism – a worldview that promotes moral relativism and secular humanism.

The left maintains that Intelligent Design is merely creationism – a literal reading of the Bible’s account of creation – camouflaged in scientific language.  But even a casual perusal of ID demonstrates there is no dependence on Genesis for any of its arguments, nor does it teach any biblical doctrine. It merely demands an examination of the evidence – or lack thereof – that uncountable species arose from primordial soup, or that they evolved over time from one to another.

To support Darwin’s theory, the earth should be teeming with myriad transitional specimens, but they are noteworthy, despite incessant extrapolation, only by their absence.

Other modern observations are daunting for Darwinists: digital information – universally a mark of design – in the genetic code and irreducibly complex structures such as miniature molecular machines within the cell that Darwin could hardly begin to imagine. Using the eye as an example, he coined the phrase, “organs of extreme perfection and complication” and recognized his theory’s inability to explain them. New discoveries only exacerbate these shortcomings.

And despite frequent references to “organic chemicals” present on the formative earth, neither Darwin nor modern scientists can demonstrate how to get from these compounds to just a single-cell living organism, or even a virus – let alone the complex life forms. The search for that initial “spark” of life, or an explanation of why it is no longer in evidence, has been forever elusive.

Ironically, the scientific community, which anxiously tries to find evidence of other intelligent life in the universe, blatantly turns its back on the one intelligence we have the most indication of: a creator; a master chemist for whom the DNA code – a puzzle which even our terrestrial species is just starting to grasp – is a simple blueprint.

Even though ID relies not at all on the Bible, it does leave open the conclusion that the designer is the biblical God and this implication of God is what Darwinists seem to fear.

Yet there may still be hope for these folks. The Psalmist says, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” Let’s hope they eventually wise up.