Monday, October 31, 2005


If Joe Wilson and CIA operative Valerie Plame were conservatives, operating overtly and covertly in support of the conservative agenda regarding the Iraq war, the reporters that exposed them would win a pultzer prize, instead of instigating a special prosecutor.

If Joe Wilson had been sent to Niger to trash the Kerry (or Gore) Administration's denials of Iraqi WMD by his covert CIA wife in order to get us to go to war with Iraq, would they be portrayed so symathetically in the press after their exposure?

If a CIA operative was exposed conducting an obviously political mission against a Democratic President, would the source of that leak be indicted? Or even mentioned? Would an investigation of corruption in the CIA occlude an investigation of the Administration?

It isn't easy to imagine the way it would play out in this inverted reality, but LEAVWORLD attempts it here.

What if six turned out to be nine? If we hadn't gone to war with Iraq (under a Democrat President), the whole world would still think that Saddam has WMD, but we wouldn't actually know, would we? How would a Democrat administration deal with that fear, after 9/11?

PS, for those who don't know liberal rock history: If 6 Was 9 is the title of a Jimi Hendrix song, with the infamous spoken lines: "white collar conservative walkin' down the street, pointing his plastic finger at me... He's hopin' soon my kind will drop and die." I could substitute "liberal" for "conservative" in the first line, and it would aptly apply to today's world.

Friday, October 28, 2005


This is one highly informative interview! I'd say that Jay does a better job than O'reilly did at interviewing Mr. Sears, but he'd think I'm just kissin' up! LOL! Seriously, though: If you have any doubts about the true nature of the ACLU, or just want more info, read this interview.


On Oct. 19th, the NY DAILY SNOOZE ran two articles about a recently released documentary, "Three of Hearts: A Postmodern Family". One was a three star review, and the other was a gossip piece about the father of one of the men not wanting to see (or be in) the movie.

Why would the father, a jailed mobster, be ashamed to see, much less be seen in this documentary? Well, the movie was made over 8 years, documenting two gay men bringing a woman into their relationship, and calling it a three-way "marriage". She had two children, one from each of them, during their 13 years together. -See where this is going?

First, the gossip column associated the "mobster" father's beliefs with one Rev. Louis Sheldon, of the Traditional Values Coalition. The Rev. has nothing to do with the mob, or the movie. He was just available to quote about it, I guess. This sets up a premise that opponents of the lifestyles documented in the movie are either crusaders or criminals. Sound familiar?

The title of the review was "A likeable (and very mixed) 'marriage'". It didn't mention the (mob) father at all, but did reveal that the threesome ultimately broke up, with the single mother of two looking for "Mr. Straight". Gee, I wonder why?

I have an urge to see this disturbing movie, just so I can review it over at IMDB, as well as here. Movies like this are on the cutting edge of the culture wars, and need to be taken seriously. Euro-liberalism already has too much influence in the USA. Groups like the ACLU not only support this agenda, they spend millions of dollars fighting for it in the courts. How long will it be until they are suing for three-way marriages to be legal? They will cite foreign law, and use this documentary to put forth the argument that "It's already being done" in NYC.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal, or email Jay at You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.


I posted a forwarded email over at NEXTLEAV, which I titled "Seen and Unseen", regarding Katrina. I'll share an excerpt here:


The ACLU setting up a feeding line.
People for the American Way helping in the shelters.
The NAACP doing any work whatsoever.
The American Atheist organization serving meals in the shelters.
Jesse Jackson directing traffic at the gas stations.

I could go on but you get my message. Its the people with love and compassion who do the work.

The gripers in Congress should come on down and get in line to pass the water and the ice. Are you listening Hillary, Chuck, Teddy and all the sorry loafers we call Senators and Congressmen. They don't have a clue as to what this life is all about here on the Gulf Coast."

I have no idea who wrote this, but it's pretty good. Hat tip to JD, for sending me something I couldn't resist posting! Read about what was "seen" over at NEXTLEAV, linked in the title!


So, I was partially wrong in my previous post about Harriet Miers. The Dems didn't need to attack her (though some did), because the conservative pundits took the lead. I was correct in my disclaimer sentence, "barring any one of the aforementioned issues... snowballing into some real bipartisan opposition". Actually, it was a combination of two of the issues I mentioned: "They will charge cronyism ... questioning her qualifications", and "...pols and pundits will be harping on the lack of public policy documentation". Anyway, she's history now. Read all about it at the link in the title, courtesy of STOP the ACLU. They also have an open trackback opinion piece, linked here.

I'm not making any predictions this time, but I hope that Janice Rogers Brown is the next nominee. I like what I've seen of her, and think she'd give 'em hell on the hill!

Thursday, October 27, 2005


I caught a segment of HBO's Real Sports show, dealing with racism by fans of the European Football Association. Apparently, White fans throw bananas at Black atheletes on the soccer field, as well as hurling racial epithets. During Bryant Gumbel's interview with a high-level representative of the association, he asked "what are you doing about this"? The reply came as follows: "WE DON'T BELIEVE IN PUNISHMENT", explaining that they encourage "counseling", and "educating" the fans. No wonder they have such a problem.

Contrast this with Veterans' stadium in Philadelphia, where they put a temporary courtroom in the stadium to deal with fans who break the law. Unruly fans went right before a judge. This strikes me as a logical solution, which has worked in Philly.

Also, it brings to mind the issue of NYC taxis' refusal to pick up Black riders. Danny Glover championed this cause, but then protested when the NYPD started ticketing drivers who practiced this discrimination. What do these liberals want? How do they propose solving these problems, if not by punishment?

It is not possible to legislate what's in people's hearts and minds. All of the counseling and educating in the world may not change some people's feelings. What can be done through legislation is to penalize people's actions, whatever their motivation may be. The EFA is never going to make any progress unless they understand this, and we in the USA must not give in to the liberal European thinking regarding punishment.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005


LEAVWORLD is back online, thanks to getting a friend's PC on the cheap. I have apparently been "tagged" in my absence, with a "meme". I'm not sure what this is, but I think I have an idea. Something about what kind of sign would I put up in front of an ACLU building.

I will think about this at work tonight, and see if I can come up with something to post after work. Meanwhile, it's just good to be back online!

Well, this is some predicament. I don't have any of my programs on this PC, and it only has 2Gigs of space. I'm going to download the Bloggerbot program ASAP, because right now, I can't even put links in my posts, other than the titles. The same goes for all my fun stuff, like bold and color variations. BUMMER!

I also want to mention how my last PC crashed. Twice, it shut down as I deleted a SPAM comment on my NEXTLEAV blog. The second time, the power supply blew up when I tried to restart it. It could have just been old, but I thought it suspicious that it shut down twice while doing precisely the same thing.

First thing I did with the new PC was to delete the whole post over there. I haven't had any problems with SPAM comments HERE since I added the word screening thing, but I didn't think I'd need it at NEXTLEAV, where I post pretty much anything I don't want to put up here. I guess I'll have to reset the comments over there, but I could just be a having a little "tech paranoia".

If anyone knows about this stuff, any advice or reassurances that I'm just "bugging" over nothing are appreciated. LOL!

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

HAREBRAINED AP REPORTS "Sunnis Appear to Fall Short in Iraq Vote"

How twisted does your worldview have to be to come up with a headline that refers to the ratification of the first democratic constitution in Iraq as "Sunnis Appear to Fall Short in Iraq Vote"? The headline writer is obviously convinced that all Sunnis wanted to defeat this constitution. Later in the day, this AP headline appears on my homepage: "Iraqis Probe 'Unusually High' Yes Tally". Am I supposed to think they would have even reported on an investigation into an overwhelmingly high "no" vote? They'd be too busy reporting about "America's defeat" by the Sunnis. Perhaps it would be reported as the Iraqi government trying to change the results after the election. This is not idle speculation, considering today's media culture. Often, what seems to be reported is 180 degrees from the actual events reported on. This kind of worldview leads to headlines like these, from the harebrained editors at the AP

Linked at STOP the ACLU "Middle of the Week Open Trackbacks".

Monday, October 17, 2005


Hey, people! I've entered my Oct.14th post in THE CARNIVAL OF TRUE CIVIL LIBERTIES III, so go check it out! There's alot of other great stuff in the same vein. Linked in the title of this post.

Sunday, October 16, 2005


Rosemary from LOVE AMERICA FIRST has a heartwarming post of an email from a friend. Go read it.

Saturday, October 15, 2005


This is from Friday's NY POST:

"A Long Island official who hung two "God Bless America" signs outside Lindenhurst's town hall vowed yesterday to keep them up despite charges that they violate the Constitution's call for separation of church and state."

The reporter gets it wrong in that statement.The Constitution's call is not for "separation of church and state;" rather, it actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This is an exact example of what I wrote about in my last post. Let's continue with the story:

"Gerry Dantone, of the (Center for Inquiry)'s LI chapter, wrote Bellone (the official), asking: 'Why is it OK to offend nonbelievers?'" (The same reason it's OK to offend believers, or any random person, in the public square-ANYTHING will offend SOME people)

"And Freedom From Religion Co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor noted in a letter that 'more than 14 percent of adult Americans do not believe in a god who blesses anyone.'" (Check out all the qualifiers used in that statistic!)

--Well, isn't that special? Their poor little feelings were hurt by the next little phrase in that first amendment, "- or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," meaning RELIGION! Again, one has to remember the lack of constitutional standing for a "right" not to be "offended" by any display on public property, including religious ones.

I'm sure the ACLU will enter the picture soon, unless these two groups are fronts for them already. Follow the funding trail, and the links will either be found, or disproved, eventually. There is also no lawsuit, yet. I just hope that the ACLU knows that there is a new sheriff in town, who goes by the name of the ADF, or Alliance Defense Fund, and they've deputized a bunch of regular folks in groups like STOP the ACLU, founded by Nedd Karieva, to keep looking out for this kind of suppression of liberty, and to help them fight it at every turn.

The "Long Island official" standing up for freedom of speech and religious expression is Babylon Town Supervisor Steve Bellone, who put up an 11 ft. long banner proclaiming "THANK YOU TO OUR TROOPS. GOD BLESS AMERICA." The other sign says "GOD BLESS AMERICA." (Babylon Town Hall is in the Village of Lindenhurst.) It takes a "special" kind of atheist to be offended by this. Most of them see these statements as harmless plattitudes, from my personal experience. Go figure.

STOP THE ACLU, PLEASE. Let's also add the CFI and FFR to our list of bad guys. OK, enough with the cowboy analogies! This is linked at the STOP the ACLU "Open Trackbacks" weekend party. Check it out! Jay from STOP also weighs in with God Bless America Signs Offend The Ever So Sensitive Atheists.

Friday, October 14, 2005


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This is the first phrase in the first amendment of the U.S. constitution. That means it is pretty important, and has been for a long time. So if congress hasn't been allowed to pass any law doing this since the nation's founding, how do the courts keep finding it has? Well, they don't, exactly. The courts keep finding that a religious symbol (or act) displayed in a public space (school, court, library, etc...) violates the "establishment clause" cited above. Some of these displays have been around for decades, but only recently have been found to be in violation of the constitution. The courts occasionally find these religious displays OK, or not "an establishment of religion." Now, I'm no legal genius, but it's obvious that something is wrong with this situation. This legal reasoning is also applied to Christmas holidays, praying in public, and most famously in the lawsuit aiming to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

These symbols or actions weren't created by any law of congress (except the Pledge, which is why that one should be an interesting case in the courts), but by local and state governments, who then have to defend them in the courts against the ACLU. Many towns, counties, and cities just remove the "offending" religious symbol or activity, rather than fight a costly legal battle. What's worse, if the local government loses these frivolous lawsuits, they have to reimburse the ACLU's legal fees. Jay from STOP the ACLU has a great post, Stop Paying For The Secularization of America, about this. He republishes a list of the amounts that various jurisdictions have shelled out after being sued by the ACLU, in support of an "offended" party. We seem to be getting farther from the "establishment of religion" in these lawsuits, and more like "that offends me," something definitely not found in the "establishment clause," which is supposedly the basis for the various rulings. This troubles me, as it should everyone.

It's worth noting that the ACLU also fights against any abortion law passed in every state, and they get signifigant revenue every time that they win a case. Supreme Court Justice Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg is a former leading lawyer for the ACLU. Isn't it an apparent conflict of interest for her to rule on any case that they are a party to? Are they really concerned about a woman's right to "choose," more than lining their own pockets with friendly rulings from friendly liberal judges? Not to make it some big conspiracy, but if the ACLU is a "civil liberties" organization, dedicated to protecting the most helpless among us, those with no voice, why aren't they standing up for the rights of unborn children? Just a thought.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005


Sometimes, I see or read something that just stops me in my tracks, and makes me think of things on a different level than I had before. Tonight, I had two such experiences. First, I saw an O'reilly Factor segment with Bill O. interviewing Alan Sears, author of The ACLU vs. America. Later this evening, I read an outstanding post by Jay at STOP the ACLU, with a link to the video of the O'reilly segment.

I couldn't articulate the case against the ACLU any better, and both the segment and the post inspire hope in my heart for everyone in this country. Let me not forget Mr. Sears' book, which would make a GREAT CHRISTMAS PRESENT for any liberal or ACLU supporter.

All of this adds up to the truth being told about an organization that has helped endanger Americans personally, whether soldiers or children, as well as having a major role in the loss of the moral underpinnings of our culture, namely the Judaeo-Christian values upon which this nation was founded.


Saturday, October 08, 2005


Regarding the flap over raising the terror alert in NYC, and the reasons for it: Thanks to the feds for passing along the info, but thanks to NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly even more for acting on it. Shame on the DHS bureaucrats for "pooh-pooh"-ing NYC's reaction.

Especially after Katrina, the DHS ought to be glad that one area takes a warning seriously. My fiance takes the subway through midtown Manhattan every day, giving me a somewhat more personal interest in this story.

It's also interesting to note that the third guy at the press conference, besides Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly, was the NY reigon FBI representative. The DHS comments sound more to me like a turf war, with the FBI being subserviant to DHS. The NYPD, however, is not, in this case. Let's all hope this bureaucratic BS won't stop the DHS from sharing info with the FBI, or local jurisdictions in the future. That kind of crap caused 9/11.

A funny footnote: The local FOX broadcast station got hoaxed by a guy claiming that a bomb was recovered on the subway. When asked "what kind of bomb." he replied "Howard Stern's ballsack." The anchor reportedly asked him more than one one follow-up question, before someone in the studio realized it was a prank. Ya gotta love those TV anchors, just as sharp as a tack. NOT!

(Hat tip to Jasmine for the footnote, and to Anna for passing it on to me.)

Linked at Columbus Day Open Trackbacks at STOP the ACLU


Thursday, October 06, 2005


In my experience, Catholic school students have been targets for abuse in NYC, on basketball courts, buses or subways, since at least the mid '70's. when I started going to and from school on my own. The uniforms (I wore a tie that said SPAS, for St. Paul the Apostle School - If you don't get it, SPAS is short for "spastic."), most of all, made us singled out for bullying, though race and class were also factors.

Thirty years later, the current perpetrators of these abuses are sometimes charged with "hate crimes" (sometimes NOT, creating more controversy). As much as I sympathize with the victims, I am still opposed to the "hate crime" designation, especially for minors. I was picked on for being white by my Catholic classmates, as well as outside of school, without my SPAS uniform on. Part of me is glad to see "hate crime" laws applied equally, because this will logically end up with these laws being moot, or overturned. Logic, though, does not always intersect with the application or evolution of law and legal precedent.

What I am curious about is the NYCLU and ACLU's position on the recent spate of "hate crimes" against white Catholic students in NYC. Since they are supporters of "hate crimes" legislation, why aren't they out in front on these cases? It depends on which context one puts the question in: Regarding race, the ACLU believes that blacks can't be racist, or guilty of "hate crimes," because "they don't have the power" to be; a preposterous proposition, considering the power of the black (or any other "disempowered") students to assault the white Catholic students. Regarding class, the elite ACLU view is that Catholic school students are "priveledged," and can afford to segregate themselves from these situations, having no business on public property (or transportation), which is reserved for "the underclass." Regarding religion, the ACLU performs the legal equivalent of these kids' bullying tactics against the Catholic church, Catholic (and Christian) organizations, showing the same contempt for their display in the public sector, so why would they oppose this on religious harassment grounds? (I googled this six ways from Sunday, and found nothing about the A [or NY] CLU opposing hate crimes against whites or Christians)

I have some links below to commentary and news stories about these attacks, but I must make it clear that HATE WILL NEVER GO AWAY, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT LEGISLATES ABOUT IT. People can hate the look on someone's face as easily as the color of that face. The sooner that the liberal groups like the ACLU learn this, the sooner they may change their distorted missions, or just cease to exist. The progressive view is to charge all crimes as what they are, with motive providing one factor in considering punishment.

If the ACLU refuses to defend all Americans' civil liberties equally, they don't deserve to use the words "civil liberties" in the title of their organization.

This was a production of the Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join just go to our Protest The ACLU Portal and register. You will be added to our mailing list, and we will send you further instructions. Also see the weekend trackback party!

RELATED LINKS: LaShawn Barber, Village Voice, American Renaissance (read the comments on LaShawn's page, and the A.R. comments. The V.V. article doesn't have any reader comments, but has a definite opinion on how to view this issue.)

Tuesday, October 04, 2005


I'm not widely read enough for anyone to claim I'm giving the Dems ammunition, so read these predictions, after the first day of watching the MSM and conservative blog reactions to Harriet Miers' nomination:

They will attack heavily on abortion, claiming she is against a woman's right to choose. Unborn babies will not be mentioned.

They will charge cronyism, comparing her to former FEMA director Michael Brown - "in robes," questioning her qualifications.

"61 and never married?" will be said on some MSM outlet, followed by speculation about her views on gay marriage.

All Dem pols and pundits will be harping on the lack of public policy documentation, playing conservative fears like a fiddle.

The race card has already been played (by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund - AP story), and it will be again by other groups.

Now, I don't know about any of this for sure. I am willing to put these ideas out as predictions because some are obvious, and some are stretches. After one day (and I missed Rush today!), these are the tacks I expect the Dems to take.

She will still be confirmed, barring any one of the aforementioned issues, or something else snowballing into some real bipartisan opposition. It more likely will be a repeat of the Dems braying at the moon on national TV, with "a little old lady" (pardon the expression, but that is how she appears on TV) running circles around them, just as Judge Roberts did.

Me, I've got my fingers crossed, and will for a long time, regarding both of this President's SC appointees. (Hat tip to Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog, and legal redux)

UPDATE: After reading more about Ms. Miers, I do not think she will be "running circles around" the senators. She is nowhere near the intellect that Justice Roberts is. I'm still crossing my fingers that she will do the "right" thing, if confirmed.