Wednesday, December 27, 2006

ABOVE HIS PAY GRADE: "General" Joe Biden Opposes Increasing Troop Levels in IRAQ

Senator Joe Biden (D) has made it known that he will vigorously oppose any increase in military committment to Iraq.

I have a few words to Sen. Biden, and I'm sure that he won't mind me plagarizing his past comments from an old Senate hearing: "Isn't that a little above your pay grade?"

THEY HAPPEN IN THREES: URI DAN DIES AT 71

With James Brown and Gerald Ford's deaths dominating the headlines, I want to mention Uri Dan, who passed away Sunday in Tel Aviv (NY Times obit.). He was a reporter, and a great one. Eric Fettman has a column about him in the NY POST, which deserves to be mentioned here. I was just a fan, who read his columns every time the Post published them. I had no idea he was sick, because I still would see a column occasionally. He also just published a biography of his longtime freind, Ariel Sharon.

The whole "they come in threes" idea about "famous" deaths is subjective, of course. However, after reading Mr. Fettmans's NY Post column about Uri Dan, I know why I hung on every word of those columns. He was a giant in Israeli journalism. I feel privileged to have read as much of his work as I have over the time he was with the NY Post. He qualifies as a "famous" person to me, personally.

I was struck by the loss I feel over this man whose only image I saw was a tiny b&w photo in my local paper. I feel robbed of a great source of info on the inside workings of the situation in Israel. The NY Post will get another Israel correspondent, but there will never be another Uri Dan.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Palestinian Civil War: Who Does Al Queda Support?

For those who think that Iraq is not part of the war on terror, this post will not mention Iraq. Many of those same people think that our involvement in the war on terror stems from our support of Israel. They usually say that "Hamas is the elected government," and that we should support them. President Mahmoud Abbas is from Fatah, and was also elected. We are supporting him, as Israel is doing as well. However, the Palestinians haven't mastered the "divided government" concept yet. More precisely, they haven't mastered the "civil government" part yet. This is excerpted from the NY POST:

December 20, 2006 -- JERUSALEM - Rival Palestinian factions raised the ante
in their bloody power struggle yesterday, firing rocket-propelled grenades and
mortars at one another and triggering a shootout at a hospital.

At least six people were killed and 19 wounded - including five
schoolchildren hit by gunfire as they took cover, witnesses said.

"It's a real war," said Suleiman Tuman, a 53-year-old shopkeeper trapped in
his Gaza City grocery store by the fighting. "Both sides used to fight the
Israelis together. Now they are directing their weapons toward each other and
we're in the middle," he said.

"This is madness," said taxi driver Adel Mohammad-Ali, 40. "The streets are
divided between Hamas and Fatah gunmen. You never know who is who."

...Also yesterday:

* Two Fatah security officers were executed by a Hamas-led police unit
after they were kidnapped, Fatah said.
* The violence appeared to be
spreading to the West Bank, where four armed men shot and wounded a Hamas judge
in the city of Nablus.
* At day's end yesterday, security chiefs of the rival
factions claimed they had agreed on a cease-fire. But there was no assurance it
wouldn't collapse as quickly as the truce negotiated by Egyptian officials
Sunday. (It's collapsed by the time I'm posting this-Chris)


So there is a civil war in the P.A. Whose side is Al Queda on? Al Queda's number two, Ayaman Al Zawahiri, released a tape today, as reported on CNN:


DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri
released a new videotaped statement Wednesday in which he sided with Hamas'
opposition to early Palestinian elections.

Al-Zawahiri warned Palestinian leaders that "holding elections won't lead
to Palestine's liberation."

"Those who try to liberate Muslim land through elections ... will not
liberate one grain of sand of Palestine," al-Zawahiri said. "Their efforts will
only result in creating a reversion to jihad and will negatively affect the
[current] struggle of mujahedeen," al-Zawahiri said.

Al-Zawahiri also had some words for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud
Abbas, calling the Fatah party leader "America's man in Palestine." And he
obliquely criticized Hamas leaders, asking: "Why didn't they ask for an Islamic
constitution for Palestine?"


It looks like Al Queda doesn't support either of the major factions of the PA. As I've said before, the terrorists really don't give a hoot about the Palestinians, except as a tool to attack Israel, and America. They have been promulgating this strategy for decades, through Arafat. Since his assumption of room temperature, the real battle is becoming evident, in the P.A: democracy, or repression. Fatah seems to support democracy: (CNN) (same story as above link)

Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi -- a member of the Fatah party, which
supports new elections -- said al-Zawahiri should "stay out of it."

"Nobody asked him [for] his opinion," Ashrawi told CNN.

"Palestinians -- including Hamas, including the Islamist parties -- do not
claim any affiliation with or allegiance to al-Zawahiri and his ilk. Al Qaeda
does not have anything do with Palestine, and we would thank them very much to
stay out of it and not to exploit the Palestinian question and not to try to
interfere," Ashrawi said.


And yet, I distinctly remember the cheering and passing out of candy in the PA on 9/11/01. So some there support Al Queda. Perhaps the ones who refuse to accept the democratic process? The ones who are trying to continue the "rule of the gun?" Hamas? I don't know enough to be specific here, but some in every faction are controlled by different terror masters, with different agendas. They are willing to kill indiscriminantly to achieve their goals; that much is certain.

WAR, TRANSPARENCY, and the ACLU

There is no doubt that a certain amount of transparency is essential for a modern democracy to function honestly. However, taken to the extreme, complete transparency would effectively make our National Security impotent and threaten the ability of the democracy to secure its very existence. There is a line that must be carefully walked. We must maintain common sense, especially in times that enemies threaten our very existence. We can not be so transparent that our enemies can see through us, and know our techniques and plans to fight them and protect ourselves against them. We should never cede our security to exist over to a utopian ideological dream of a completely transparent government. It is also important to have government watchdogs keeping an eye on government from abusing and overclassifying information that the public has a right to know. The danger lies in allowing too much liberty, especially to absolutist organizations like the ACLU, in that decision making process.

The Investor's Business Daily bring up some very good points in reference to the recent backing down of the government in trying to obtain a classified document from the ACLU.

"The government blinked," gloated ACLU executive director Anthony Romero.

Judge Rakoff is notoriously liberal, having declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 2002 (a ruling quickly overturned), and earlier this year forcing the Pentagon to make public thousands of pages of information on suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. So it's understandable for prosecutors to not want to fight an unwinnable battle.

Are we nearing the day, however, when the ACLU has our legal system so wrapped around its finger that government secrets can no longer be kept from terrorists? Consider these points:

• The ACLU's Romero called the subpoena battle "a fight not over a document but over the principle that the government cannot and should not be allowed to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing."

But if leftist activist groups or journalists, rather than the freely-elected U.S. government, decide what is legitimately secret and what is "intimidation," there's little that will remain secret.


Indeed, the government did blink. However, they caved in because they had a losing legal argument, not because they have no right to supress secret information from activist groups and the public at large. Before we hand the decision making process of what should or shouldn't be secret or in the public interest to extreme partisan organizations like the ACLU, we should really take a look at just how reckless they have been with such information in the past. Indeed, if we leave it to groups like the ACLU we might as well write the suicide note of our nation on the back of the Constitution.

There is probably no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesn’t seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed. So, let us take a look at some of the extreme examples where the ACLU's absolutist views actually endanger our national security.

In particular let us look at their attitude towards the intelligence community and secret information in general.

When it comes to drawing the line between classified information and national security the ACLU's record has never leaned toward the side of caution or national security. They consistently defend leakers as brave "whistleblowers." Even after the NY Times leaked details about the vital NSA program, the ACLU wanted more to come out in the open. They have even defended leaks on vital programs like SWIFT, in which we track terror finances, where there was absolutely nothing that even suggested government wrongdoing. They have even fought for accused enemy prisoners to be allowed to see classified evidence against them. The fact that our enemies learn and adjust from such traitorous leaks never seems to phase them.

More Points from the Investor's Business Daily:

The ACLU boasts that its legal efforts have made public "more than 100,000 pages of government documents" regarding the interrogation of suspected terrorists. It has posted many of these documents on its Web site in an effort to shut down the program.

But President Bush's policy of tough interrogation has secured information that has foiled numerous terrorist plots, saving thousands of lives. They include jetliner hijacking schemes targeting buildings on both the East and West coasts, another targeting Heathrow Airport in London, plus plots to destroy ships in both the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and Jose Padilla's plan to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the U.S.

Intelligence information key to preventing terrorist acts has also come from the president's other homeland security policies, like the National Security Agency's wiretapping program. But ACLU lawyers are aggressively trying to shut those efforts down in several jurisdictions.


So, let us take a look at the ACLU's real attitude towards the intelligence community.

To the ACLU, CIA means "Controlling the Intelligence Agencies." That's the title they gave to Policy #117. But even that is an understatement of what this particular policy calls for. "Completely undermining the Intelligence Agencies" would be a more appropriate title. It starts out badly and then gets worse.

"Control of our government's intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of "national security" as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas."

Of course, its been obvious for nearly 70 years that protecting America's national security is certainly not something the ACLU favors.

Here are some of the specific controls called for in Policy #117:

Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluatiing foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations.

Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by elimimnating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.

Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries.

Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records by requiring a warrant issued on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Prohibit all domestic intelligence and political information-gathering. Only investigations of crimes which have been, are being, or are about to be committed may be conducted.Twilight of Liberty


Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU spelled out by the Union's Center for National Security Studies.

They wrote:

The ACLU opposes, and has fought in either Congress or the courts, virtually all "covert action," most "clandestine intelligence" gathering (i.e. spying), and in one case aid to an important U.S. ally with a poor human rights record. The net effect of these efforts has been to hinder U.S. opposition to Communist expansion. The ACLU may, at some point, have undertaken some major initiative that advanced U.S. interests and hindered Communist expansion, but our research never turned one up and no ACLU leader ever mentioned one to us.


In other words, strip the intelligence agencies useless.

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU’s absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.”Twilight of Liberty


All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy! This is not the kind of organization one should trust when it comes to secrets that need to be kept from enemy eyes.

The ACLU's extremist position towards classified information can be seen in the very case they have been citing recently, the Petagon Papers.

The Pentagon Papers case shows how extremist the ACLU can be. In that suit, the Supreme Court ruled against the efforts of the Nixon Administration to suppress documents that were a veritable history of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The ACLU, which filed an amicus, was happy with the immediate outcome-the newspapers could run copies of the Pentagon Papers-but was less than pleased with the high court's reasoning. The Union was disturbed that the Supreme Court gave life to the idea that the president and the Congress had a right to restrain the press in bona fide instances of national security. It wanted nothing less than an absolute ban on prior restraint. Alexander Bickel, the brilliant constitutional scholar who argued the case against the government, criticized the unreasonableness of the ACLU stand. He accused the Union of being too ideological, labeling the absolutist position "foolish to the point of being almost unprofessional." Like most students of the Constitution, Bickel was generally opposed to prior restraint but nonetheless conceded that there may be times when not to invoke prior restraint may be disastrous to the well-being of the republic. This is something the ACLU has not acknowledged and will not acknowledge.


In the recent case where the government folded in their attempt to get 'secret' documents back from the ACLU their first mistake was in their approach. Their big mistake that they continue to make is in not aggressively investigating, prosecuting, and punishing the traitors that leak and publish the secret matters of national security for all, including our enemies, to know.

As the lawyers at Powerline have pointed out, in the case of the NSA leak, federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 798, a law that precisely prohibits leaks of the type of classified information disclosed in the story. Subsection (a) of the statute provides:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


Powerline further points out that in cases like that of the NSA leak, the Pentagon Paper case the ACLU loves to cite so much, only applies to prior restraint and not to punishment after the crime of publishing has been committed.

Indeed, in their concurring opinions, Justices Douglas and White cited and discussed 18 U.S.C. § 798 as the prototype of a law that could be enforced against a newspaper following publication of information falling within the ambit of the statute. Justice White noted, for example:

The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases. Section 797 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798, also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint.


Make sure to read the entire analysis.

When it comes to national security and classified information the ACLU has a long record of recklessness. When it comes to keeping our government from wrongdoing there are many suggestions that could be pursued to alleviate the problem. Allowing the press and the ACLU unfettered liberty to make the call on what can and can not be classified is a death wish. The government needs to step up and aggressively investigate and prosecute those that act, participate, aid and protect in the unlawful disclosure of our national security secrets.

The Investor's Business Daily sums it all up well:

The civilized world simply can't win against the forces of Islamo-fascism if we are deprived of the vital weapon of secrecy. Letting the ACLU force us to operate according to its radical ideology of "open government" would be like telegramming Hitler that we plan to invade Normandy.


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Friday, December 15, 2006

CARTER DEFENDS HAMAS: MURDERERS OF CHILDREN

I get sick when I think of Pres. Carter defending Hamas in several recent interviews. He repeatedly said that Hamas has not committed a terror act since 2002, or some such nonsense. The part that makes me sick is the recent slaying of 3 children of a Fatah political figure. Hamas denied responsibility, but this fits into the pattern of terror that they, Hezbollah, and other puppets of Iran and Syria practice in areas that they are seeking to dominate, as well as the areas that they already do. For a former president to be an advocate for people who target the children of their political foes is a disgrace, but not a surprise from Pres. Carter. He is destroying his post-presidential legacy worse than he did his presidential legacy. I feel pity for a man who sees moral equivalence between leaders that want peaceful political dialog, but must have security, and terrorists who target their political opponents (and their children) for death. Hamas is such a terrorist organization, and Carter should be condemned for his defense of them.

LEAVWORLD: GRAFFITI POLITTI 2nd Blogiversary!

Well, I didn't even realize it this year, but Dec. 11th was the second anniversary of starting my LEAVWORLD: GRAFFITI POLITTI blog. Here's a post from my first day:

Saturday, Dec 11, 2004
MY FAVORITE LIBERAL


Jimmy Carter 1979 (on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan): "Leonid Brezhnev lied to me." Jimmy Carter 2002 (on North Korea's nuclear program): "Kim Jong Il lied to me." He is the personification of good (liberal) intentions gone bad. A shining example of the way not to run the government. Now he is with the "Bush lied" crowd, to no-one's surprise. He's still my favorite bleeding heart, misguided liberal.

More links from my early posts:

LIKE IT IS: MOYERS' HYPOCRICY - A stinging critique of Moyers' speech at a Harlem Church.

Are Songebob and Lincoln Gay? Another "Tinky Winky" story! - FUNNY cultural commentary!

PONZI SCHEME: What is Social Security? - "If the shoe fits..."

CONSERVATIVES ARE THE NEW PROGRESSIVES - Education is the example in this one.

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM: Conservatives are the New Progressives Pt. II

...Also check out KWANZA VS. FESTIVUS! -for a good laugh!

Thursday, December 14, 2006

U.S. Subpoenas ACLU Over Possession Of Secret Document

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Via the ACLU we find out the U.S. government is finally being proactive against the ACLU in protecting classified information from being leaked for our enemies to know.

The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has asked a federal judge to quash a grand jury subpoena demanding that it turn over to the FBI "any and all copies" of a December 2005 government document in its possession.

The ACLU called the subpoena, served on November 20 by the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, a transparent attempt to intimidate government critics and suppress informed criticism and reporting.

"The government's attempt to suppress information using the grand jury process is truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in the ACLU's history," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "This subpoena serves no legitimate investigative purpose and tramples on fundamental First Amendment rights. We recognize this maneuver for what it is: a patent attempt to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing."

The three-and-a-half page document, issued in December 2005, is marked "Secret" and apparently is classified. The ACLU received the document, unsolicited, on October 23, 2006.


Apparently a document marked "Secret" is classified? You don't say! Quite a scary thing that such a dangerous organization like the ACLU has its hands on classified information. I think the ACLU has already demonstrated how reckless they can be with secret information. You can bet there would be no regard to National Security.

The ACLU think that exposing government wrongdoing is exposing to the enemy the governments efforts and techniques to secure our nation.

In legal papers, the ACLU said that while release of the document might be "mildly embarrassing" to the government, the ACLU's possession of it is legal and its release could in no way threaten national security. To the contrary, the ACLU said, the designation of the generally unremarkable document as "Secret" "appears to be a striking, yet typical, example of overclassification."


So who elected the ACLU to determine what should or shouldn't be classified? And if the document is so "unremarkable" why are they fighting so hard to keep it? The ACLU then goes on to justify having classified information by stating that some of the biggest news of the past year came from leaks of classified information, like the NSA surveillance program, SWIFT, etc. I think we all remember how the ACLU handled these leaks. When it comes to National Security, the ACLU has created a dangerous reputation. I don't think they should have any say so in what remains classified or not.

Rob at Say Anything sums it up:

So, basically, the ACLU is claiming that the Bush administration is trying to “suppress information” by getting some leaked classified documents back. But isn’t the government supposed to suppress classified information? Isn’t that the reason it is classified in the first place? I mean, if the government isn’t supposed to be suppressing classified information, then why are we classifying it in the first place?

And how does the government requesting leaked classified documents back violate the ACLU’s first amendment rights? Surely the ACLU isn’t suggesting that first amendment rights extend to illegal leaks of private information, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to stop someone who obtained my bank records from somebody at the bank who illegally divulged them from putting my private information on the internet.

I sometimes wonder if the ACLU even takes its own arguments seriously.


Although the ACLU has been told that it is not a target of the investigation, which I think it should be, it is interesting that the the subpoena refers to the Espionage Act. That is too bad. The FBI have their own concerns over the ACLU. Between the shady business of their funding issues, helping America’s enemies, spying on their own members, and FBI concerns; there are many reasons besides illegally obtaining classified information that the ACLU should be investigated.

I'm just glad to see the government being proactive to prevent classified information from falling into the hands of our enemies. If the ACLU has its way that is where it will end up.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

ACLU NATIVITY SCENE!

A belated blogburst, and I'm having a problem uploading images. See them at the links below.

Via STOP THE ACLU:

The Young Conservatives of Texas - University of Texas Chapter announced today that they will be displaying an “ACLU Nativity Scene” on the West Mall of the University of Texas campus on Monday and Tuesday, December 4th and 5th. The group’s intent is to raise awareness on the extremity of the ACLU, and bring to light its secular-progressive efforts to remove Christmas from the public sphere. The display, the first of its kind in the nation, will feature characters that are quite a bit different than the standard crèche.

“We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Chairman Tony McDonald. “The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism. The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America.”

The scene will also display a terrorist shepherd and an angel in the form of Nancy Pelosi.

“The ACLU and other left-wing extremist groups are working diligently to destroy American’s rights to the free expression of religion,” said Executive Director Joseph Wyly. “We’ve already seen in Chicago an attempt to censor the nativity by a city government this week. It’s just more evidence that there is a War on Christmas being waged by the far-left in this country.” (source)

Lots more photos here.

Wild Bill was so inspired he created his own ACLU nativity scene.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

PS FROM LEAV: Congrats to Jay, and all of the fine people at STOP THE ACLU, for getting credited as the source for this photo on Britt Hume's Special Report. His "Political Grapevine" segment is one of my favorites. I'm sorry my blogburst was delayed, but I published it before Thursday on Gather, where some moonbat flagged it for "offensive" content. I was so ticked off, I forgot to post it here on Thurday. On the bright side, I get to post the image from FOX NEWS now, with the STOP THE ACLU accreditation!

Thursday, November 30, 2006

About Those Christmas Cards For The ACLU

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Its that time of the year again. The time when the intolerant grinches like the ACLU start trying to fill their stockings with your tax dollars in their attempts to secularize Christmas. The ACLU try their best to deny their attacks on Christmas. They call those defending Christmas the well organized extremists out to make a buck in the guise of defending Christmas. This is of course false. The Alliance Defense Fund, just like last year, are offering their services to defend Christmas completely FREE!

However, the lies continue again this year as the ACLU denies their attacks on Christmas. However, their actions speak louder than their words.

Already the ACLU have began their attacks. They have already been successful in bullying the Berkley City Council into moving their Christmas nativity scene off public property. This, despite the fact that the display also included other religious and secular elements including a Star of David, Christmas trees, a Santa Claus figure, a Santa’s Mailbox, and a “Seasons Greetings” sign.

In their latest attempt to censor Christmas they have sued the Wilson County School System outside of Nashville, TN. because their Christmas program includes "Christian themes and songs."

The plaintiffs and the ACLU allege that several kindergarten students role-played a nativity scene of the birth of Jesus—and had the audacity to sing “Away in the Manger” and “Joy to the World.” According to the ACLU, these songs are exclusively Christian in nature because they celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and are, therefore, inappropriate.


The ACLJ is defending the school in this case.

The ADF has a long list of attacks on Christmas from the ACLU and its allies dating back from 2002 to the present.

Yes, its that time of the year again. The season that I get bombarded with emails encouraging people to waste their money on a stamp for a Christmas card wishing the ACLU a merry Christmas. Don't get me wrong. I understand the sentitment behind the whole thing. I was all on board last year. If you really want them to have a Merry Christmas, or just feel like throwing your money away I won't discourage it. It will be about as effective as barking at the moon. Your Christmas cheer will be tossed in the mail room shredder and never reach any those you intended to send a message to.

I propose that your money could be spent in a much more efficient manner. Save the money you would throw away on the stamp for a message destined to fall on deaf ears. There are many organizations out there fighting to protect Christmas and the expression of its true meaning. Why not take the money you would be throwing away on a noble yet ineffective gesture, and put it to real use as a gift to the organization of your choice that is out there fighting the ACLU?

Sign the ACLJ's Petition here. Contribute Here.

See the Alliance Defense Fund's educational on your rights here. Contribute Here.

See the Liberty Counsel's free legal memorandum here (pdf). Contribute Here.

Contribute to Thomas More Law Center here.

Buy from the Bulldoze the ACLU store for great Christmas gifts. Contribute to Stop The ACLU's efforts with the donation button below.











This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

GIULIANI As Hitler: Know Him By His Enemies!

According to "Al" AP (lol), "Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani ... filed papers to create the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc." This is going to bring out the anti-Giuliani crowd, big time, which is the subject of John Podhoretz' latest column, THE BEST ENEMIES, linked here from the NY POST. An excerpt:

THE negative line on Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid is that he's too
liberal for Republicans. When GOP voters find out he has a record of being
pro-choice and has supported domestic-partnership rights for homosexuals, the
line goes, their favorable opinion of Giuliani will take a nosedive.

But there are other things most Republicans don't know about Giuliani - and
when they find out some of those, chance are their fondness for him will grow.
And for that boost, it appears, Rudy will have only his enemies to thank.

The Post's David Seifman reported yesterday that some New York lefties are
seriously considering an effort to attack Rudy in the manner that the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth attacked John Kerry in 2004 - to reveal the "unvarnished
truth" about his mayoralty and deflate his status as an American hero.

Among those Seifman cites is
Norman
Siegel,
the Rudy-era head of the New York Civil Liberties Union. Siegel said he "represents
some families of 9/11 victims who he says 'have lots of questions in regard to
what Giuliani did' and are prepared to express their concerns." And he wants
America to know about Rudy's run-ins with New York City's "civil rights"
community, which sued him and City Hall on a constant basis during his time as
mayor.

I won't go into the specifics; this paper, this columnist and everybody
else in New York covered them exhaustively for years. But Siegel did say his
group won 23 out of 27 lawsuits brought against the Giuliani administration for
First Amendment violations. What he didn't bring up is the 30 attempts to use
the courts to dismantle Rudy's efforts to use zoning laws to rid family
neighborhoods of porn shops - every one of which failed.


Podhoretz hits the nail on the head. Those of us from the NYC area know well how Mayor Giuliani was demonized, and I do not exaggerate to say it was worse than what President Bush has endured. He countered it better, becoming a celebrity in his own right, doing cameos on some sitcoms, as well as appearing on SNL in drag. He also fought the good fight, and got results that people could see.

Some of you may not believe how bad it was, so here are some quotes from Robert Lederman, the artist who has created a gallery of Giuliani as Hitler paintings:

Is Giuliani Really Like Hitler? (source)

...That Giuliani has not created concentration camps as yet is hardly a
refutation of this analogy. The constantly expanding New York prison system now
filled beyond capacity with non-violent minority prisoners could be compared to
a concentration camp.

...Like Hitler, Mayor Giuliani is an outright enemy of free speech.
According to a 4/13/99 Newsday article, Mayor Giuliani has just won a Thomas
Jefferson Center for Protection of Free Expression lifetime achievement award
for having done "grievous harm" to free expression.

...Hitler, like Mayor Giuliani, was highly regarded and had many supporters
and admirers in the U.S. Expert administrators from around the world visited
Germany as they now visit New York City to view for themselves the cleansing of
"undesirables" that Hitler in his time and Giuliani today have accomplished and
to implement it in their own cities.


Here are links to a few of Lederman's "Giuliani as Hitler" images:

Arrest Them All
Enemy of Art
Gestapo Guiliani
Jailiani
Police State

Rudy's been married three times, and has Bernie Kerik, his disgraced former employee (in both public and private sectors), hanging around his neck. He lived with a gay couple, during his second divorce. These are talking points which will become familiar, if he runs. All this in addition to the "Nazi" attacks cited above, regarding his "civil rights" record. It's funny that those critics never count the thousands of people who have not been deprived of their right to life because his actions. The number of murders in NYC started dropping after he came into office, from 2,420 in 1993, to 960 in 2001. It has continued to drop under Mayor Bloomberg (who will NOT be running for president, BTW).

Mr. Podhoretz wraps it up nicely, from a NY conservative's perspective:

On issue after issue of concern to America's conservatives - the misuse of
the welfare system, the destructive effects of bilingual education, the
disastrous misuse of public monies by municipal unions, the need for tax cuts,
the essential requirement of supporting the city's police against unjust attack
as they risked their lives to secure civil peace - Rudy fought.

He fought The New York Times and the liberal establishment - and gave them
no quarter. They despised him - and the relentlessness of their expressed
displeasure only seemed to push him to greater action.

Conservatives nationwide don't know any of this. But thanks to Norm Siegel
and others, they may hear about it from exactly the sorts of people whose
loathing of Rudy will enhance his stature and burnish his credentials.

Rudy's appeal to GOP primary voters can and will go beyond his peerless
handling of 9/11 and his brilliant record on crime. Voters will learn that he
was a liberal-slayer.

Norm Siegel doesn't dislike Rudy because he's pro-abortion and pro-gay
rights. He dislikes Rudy because he thinks Rudy is an evil right-winger; that's
why the Times hated him too.

By his enemies shall ye know him. One of the reasons conservatives like
Rudy is that they believe he is one of them. Liberal attacks on him may convince
many of them that this is even truer than they thought.

One reason they mistrust John McCain, despite his mostly sterling
conservative voting record, is that they sense he isn't one of them at all.
Certainly, the more he campaigned for the presidency in 2000, the less he did
seem like one of them.

So here's the conundrum for 2008: Do social conservatives vote for the
conservative they just don't feel is truly a conservative, or the moderate whom
they correctly sense is actually a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger?


If Rudy Giuliani runs, he's got my vote.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Democrats Out To Fulfill ACLU Agenda

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

When the Democrats had their victory in the elections the ACLU cheered! So did our enemies.

Leading up to the elections the ACLU did not hide the fact that they wanted the
Democrats in charge. The ACLU have a lot to cheer about. They know that the
liberal left will help them further their agenda. We are already seeing it
happen. The Democrats are the ACLU's best vehicle towards shaping America into
their vision.

The ACLU rely on activist liberal judges as their avenue of enacting their
goals. It violated its own policy in order to stymie the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court.
It led the fight to defeat the confirmation of Robert Bork. It fought against
John Roberts, and fought hard to keep Samuel Alito from
joining the Supreme Court. They definitely have a preference for what type of
judges they want on the Supreme Court. No doubt, one of their strongholds is
having one of their own on the bench. With the current rumors on John Paul Steven's
health
, I'm sure they are thrilled with Schumer's latest proclaimation.

More than the inability to influence Iraq policy or the President’s
tax cuts, Chuck Schumer says that the single greatest failure of the Democrats
as an opposition party was allowing Samuel Alito to join the Supreme Court.

“Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer, who orchestrated the
implausible Democratic takeover of the Senate last week. “One more justice would
have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t
happen.”


Schumer seems to be on a roll too.

The ACLU have much more to cheer about. When it comes to the war on terror the
ACLU consistently choose the wrong side. Despite recent polls indicating that
most Americans do not feel civil liberties have been harmed by the war on terror, they have made a mantra over over the NSA surveillance program. They have
called on their Democrat friends in Congress to shut down any attempt by the lame duck Congress to
pass legislation that would further this program. They have reason to cheer
once again as the Democrats have every intention to
block NSA legislation.
The Democrats have the ACLU talking points down pat.

There are a lot of bad bills that the Republicans may try to ram
through, but here’s the worst of the worst - a bill to legalize the President’s
warrantless wiretapping program. The White House is desperate to enact this
bill, which allows the government to spy on American citizens, on American soil,
without a warrant.

If we want to show people that we have what it takes to govern, we need to start proving ourselves right now, from day one.

Proving ourselves means standing up for Democratic values, and stopping the
worn-out Republican agenda that Americans just rejected at the
polls.


The ACLU expressed outrage when
President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 allowing us to
harshly interrogate captured terrorists. Now that the doors of Congress have
been opened up to the ACLU's buddies in CAIR, the ACLU have more
reason to cheer. Sen. Patrick Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of
the new law in an effort to create habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants.

The ACLU has opposed searches of all kinds whether they are profiled, random, or
across the board. I'm sure they are applauding the recent words of Pelosi, our new Speaker of the House.
Read in full at Sweetness and Light.

"Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to
searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national
origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal
conduct," Pelosi continued. "Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally
un-American and we must make it illegal.


Rumsfeld's resignation was not enough for the far left at the ACLU. They smelled blood and wanted more. They applauded but called for an immediate
investigation into direlection of duty.

The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded Donald Rumsfeld’s
resignation from his post as Defense Secretary, and called on Congress to
investigate the gross abuse of power committed under his watch.

“Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation is a step in the right direction,” said Anthony
D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. “Rumsfeld is responsible for the torture and
abuse of detainees in U. S. military custody and must be held accountable for
the failures that occurred on his watch. He has placed the blame on junior
military members and has been nothing but derelict in his duty. Congress must
initiate an immediate and exhaustive investigation into his six-year-long record of unlawful activity, violations of the rule of law and
complicity in the executive branch abuse of power.”


No wonder the ACLU cheered the Democrat victory. They have much to be happy
about. The ACLU rode into town on the back of the donkeys. While things have
changed in their favor, the reality of the treat we face has not. It is more
important now than ever for the Republicans, despite being the minority, step up
to the plate and fight against this far left agenda.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU
Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to
our mailing list and blogroll. O
ver 200 blogs already on-board
.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

ACLU Cheers Election Results

Crossposted from
Stop The ACLU


So, America voted for change? They should be careful what they ask for because
they will get it. For those that voted or stayed home in order to send the
Republicans a message on election day...congratulations! Your all important
"lesson" will now backfire in your face. You just cut off your nose to spite
your face. Not only have you helped to give both Houses over to the left, put
Nancy Pelosi in as the Speaker of the House, and completely destroyed any chance of getting a Constitutionalist majority
in the Supreme Court, but groups like the ACLU seem to think this election was a mandate for their
insanities.
Look, you can't say we didn't warn
you.


Yesterday voters nationwide rejected candidates who failed to uphold
civil liberties and rejected ballot initiatives that undermine fundamental
freedoms of all Americans.

"American voters have reinvigorated our system of checks and balances essential
to stopping the abuse of power," said Anthony D. Romero, American Civil
Liberties Union Executive Director. "Voters finally had enough of the 109th
Congress that repeatedly rubber-stamped legislation that violates our basic
rights. Voters also rejected many state ballot initiatives designed to restrict
civil liberties and meddle in our personal lives. The 110th Congress should take
note - voters rejected political scare tactics and government power grabs in
favor of civil liberties and policies that keep us safe and free."


Ah, the old "Safe
and Free" banner!
Since when did the ACLU care about us being "safe"? So
now the ACLU is promoting itself as a champion of both safety for our citizens
and of freedom. What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take
to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to
ensure our safety; in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of
terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were
located in prisons on foreign soil.

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, and to stop the
government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have
ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations. That is
just naming their actions off the top of my head. The fact is that the ACLU is making America less safe.

If what the ACLU means by political scare tactics are the warnings about the NSA surveillance program being
put into jeopardy and other liberal techniques of surrender and stupidity then I must disagree. Perhaps the
American people fell for the scare tactics of groups like the ACLU. It isn't a
scare tactic to state the truth about the threats we face from our enemies, and
the threats still remain. The beat goes on.

In several congressional races voters rejected the strategy to paint
national security as a polarizing issue. In Ohio, incumbent Senator Mike DeWine
was defeated. DeWine sponsored legislation that condoned the president's
warrantless wiretapping program.


Looks like that is exactly what the ACLU is saying. America voted against
effectively listening in our enemies plotting to destroy us. "Safe and Free"
once again. Pundits and talking heads take note...it wasn't about Iraq, the
ACLU say it was civil liberties stupid!

As a non-partisan organization, the ACLU takes no official position
in any race for elected office.


....except when they want to. Then they take out full page political ads opposing candidates that
they do not like. They didn't hide the fact they wanted a Democratic
controlled Senate to kill the NSA program.


"The American people have spoken," said Caroline Fredrickson,
Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The lame-duck session
should not be used to ram through proposals that the American people have
clearly rejected. The rule of law has been seriously compromised over the past
five years, and lawmakers must now seek to reaffirm our commitment to
fundamental freedoms."


Oh, that isn't the message you meant to send by staying home and pouting over
overspending and the lack of immigration reform? Well, that is the message the left received as you
handed them the power to speak on behalf of the majority. Their beloved ACLU
says you clearly rejected the kind of proposals they wouldn't like. You wanted
immigration reform? Ha! You just kissed that goodbye to hell. Say hello to
amnesty.

As Ace says so
simply:


"Punishing" politicians doesn't make sense when you wind up enacting
the very policies that caused you to want to lash out in the first
place.


Sure, the GOP are to blame for their many mistakes but the reaction to that
was up to the individual voters at the end of the day. It looks like some
Conservatives decided to punish themselves by punishing the GOP. The left's
voting I can understand. What doesn't make sense to me that so many were
willing to shoot themselves in the foot by empowering and emboldening the very
party that will make sure the policies they were protesting continue and the ones they want will never happen. Well, the
fight continues and now it we just have to fight that much harder.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU
Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to
our mailing list and blogroll. O
ver 200 blogs already on-board
.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Americans Endorse Democrats: Terrorists Hopes Fulfilled!

World Net Daily interviewed senior terrorist leaders who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance. Excerpt:

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a
withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would
prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until
America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to
enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of
the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002
siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank
town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel
"proud."

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the
policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right
strategy against the occupation."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by
those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first
time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they
should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu
Ayman.

The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America's
war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most
Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating
staying the course in Iraq.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay
there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected
her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the
resistance will stop."
Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark
the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in
Vietnam."

While the terror leaders each independently urged American citizens to vote
for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry
out a withdrawal from Iraq.

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a
withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain
electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw
from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have
bases."


So there it is. Terrorist leaders endorsed Democrats, as did a majority of American voters. Full story linked above.

The NY Republican Massacre 2006: POST MORTEM

Alas, all of my NYS Republican Massacre 2006 predictions have come to pass. Hillary, Spitzer, Cuomo, and Hevesi have prevailed, in a Democrat sweep. Here's the breakdown:

Senate: Hillary(D) 66.63%, Spencer(R) 31.30%
Governor: Spitzer(D) 69.12% Faso(R) 29.05%


These were expected numbers, with Hillary said to be leaving coat-tails around the state. I'm not sure how Spitzer feels about that report. The Attorney General and Comptroller races provide some valuable insights.

Cuomo beat Pirro 57.56% - 40.04% in the AG race, while Hevesi beat Callahan 56.54% - 39.23% for Comptroller. This shows that corruption was overlooked by the voters in NY, taking a back seat to partisanship. Notice that Pirro got a higher percentage than Callahan, and the Attorney General's race should be more sensitive to scandal allegations.

However, as I noted in my last NYRM 2006 post (pt. 5), Hevesi is gone, buried in scandal. The election result only confirms that the Dems will pick his replacement, probably NYC Comptroller Bill Thompson. Pirro should not be charged with any crime, but the people who leaked the federal wiretap of her conversation with Bernie Kerik should be found, and prosecuted; that was a demonstrable federal offense. I don't have high hopes for that to happen, though.

Excerpt from pt. 2: "I wish she had stayed in the Senate race, to be honest. All of the stuff they could throw at her about her hubby Al would be deflected by comparisons to Bill's philandering and impeachment, as well as Hillary's own scandals (Rose law firm billing records, cattlegate, etc...). It might not be as big an issue." I believe that she would have done better against Hillary than Spencer did, though still losing.

Governor Spitzer is the big dog on the block, now. If he honestly tries to fulfill his promises to "clean up" Albany, I will support him. If he makes the slightest dent in that cauldron of corruption, I'll be surprised.

Excerpt from pt 1: "The Republican Party in NY is a joke."

Previous NY Republican Massacre posts:

A Series on GRAFFITI POLITTI: The New York Republican Massacre 2006

The New York Rebublican Massacre 2006, Pt. 1: HILLARY VS. WHO?

The New York Republican Massacre 2006, Pt.2: PIRRO VS. CUOMO

The New York Republican Massacre 2006, Pt. 3 Teflon Hevesi Vs. Callahan

The New York Republican Massacre 2006, Pt. 4: FASO'S FUTILE FIGHT AGAINST SPITZER'S CORONATION

The NY Republican Massacre 2006, Pt. 5: Hevesi Gone, Democrats Still Win

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Thursday, November 02, 2006

ACORN Accused of Voter Fraud Again, MSM Silent Again

After some searching, I found some background on the ACORN voter fraud scandals. ACORN stands for "The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now," a liberal group that represents "low to moderate income people." They have a group on Gather, owned by someone named ACORN ! (he/she uses the space and exclamation point, as my buddy BRUCE ! does.), as well. Links to both ACORNS are provided, so you can see the good things they do.

This post focuses on the pattern of voter fraud allegations against this group. Charges were not only dismissed, but defamation charges were brought against a disgruntled ex-ACORN employee in a Miami case from 2004.
The Volokh Conspiracy blog documented it in detail at the time . This still leaves accusations of fraud in 2004 in Ohio, Minnesota, North Carolina and Virginia, and in 2003 in Missouri. I haven't found out much about the resolution of those cases, except that in Missouri,

"No one appears to have been prosecuted in that case, although (the prosecutor's) office has obtained convictions regarding fraudulent
voter-registration cards turned in by people working for other, now-defunct groups."


Currently, they are again in trouble in St. Louis, with allegations of

"at least 1,492 'potentially fraudulent' voter registration cards - including three from dead people and one from a 16-year-old - among the thousands pouring in before today's voter registration deadline for the Nov. 7 election...The (St. Louis Election) board says all the questionable cards were turned in by one group - the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, commonly known as ACORN." (source-StLouisToday)

There is more, from the Associated Press (via
Belleville News Democrat: also see Legal Soap Box' similar, but fuller report accredited to Andrew Welsh-huggins , Associated Press Writer, dated 10/02, or a day earlier than Belleville's edited version. ) :


"Philadelphia's municipal voter registration office has rejected about
3,000 cards submitted by ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- since April because of missing information or invalid addresses.

Denver County election officials forwarded about 200 cards to the secretary of state's office after finding similar handwriting on signatures.

Ohio prosecutors are looking at almost 400 cards that the Franklin County elections board says included already registered voters or listed the wrong address.

In Ohio, election officials in three of the state's largest counties have
cited problems with hundreds of voter registration cards. ACORN is accused of submitting cards with nonexistent addresses, forged signatures and, in one case, for someone who died seven years ago."


I not only see a pattern of voter fraud here, I see a pattern of public officials' mis(or mal)feasance in prosecuting this organized effort to disenfranchise legitimate voters, and the democratic process. ACORN seems to stay just below the radar of the MSM, and wider public exposure.They cloak themselves in the vestments of a "do-good" organization, but they are not. I found some info on the '04 lawsuits, as well as some other critical info, on Wikipedia, which I consider a semi credible source. Scroll down to the bottom of the wiki entry for the "criticism" section.

Voter fraud is a serious problem, and public officials have a hard time proving it on an organized level. They prosecute some individuals, but groups that sponsor and employ them get off scott-free, from what I can see. If ACORN is sponsoring voter fraud nationwide, at the grass roots level, they need to be brought to justice.

Tell me that if a conservative organization (the NRA, for example) was accused of these offenses, it wouldn't be a huge, and on-going headline story right up to election day. The media would be looking into who was behind this corruption. Unkown people in the NRA leadership would become household names, associated with Republican corruption. Their every contact with Bush administration officials, or Republicans from the hill would be exhaustively reported, and investigated.

...Please excuse my liberal fantasy. The reality is that Claire McCaskill may end up not benefiting from ACORN's efforts, since they got caught before election day. No-one will prosecute ACORN, and no-one wants to look at the links between ACORN and the McCaskill campaign, except the
Gateway Pundit , who has video and some info, which points to the Missouri Democratic Party.

Either way, ACORN claims to be a "non-partisan" group, which is a joke, to be frank. If, like the ACLU, they have tax-exempt status based on that claim, they should be re-evaluated, investigated, and ultimately regurgitated from that status! (I used to be a Jesse Jackson fan, in the '80's!)

The biggest disgrace is the lack of MSM coverage; the only link I found to a TV network was a story fron a
local ABC station , reporting that ACORN was cleared of the charges in Miami.

ACLU Seeks Non-Discrimination For Illegal Aliens In The Workplace

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

I was going to talk about the dishonest argument the ACLU made in its attack on Hazelton, PA for trying to crackdown on illegal immigration problems. They argued that it was not the
place of small communities to create laws fashioned to their own unique problems
on illegal immigration, but the Federal government's responsibility. Of course
this argument does not reflect the ACLU's true beliefs on the topic. If the
Federal government created a similar law as Hazelton the ACLU would find a
different argument to oppose it. The argument was, however, good enough to
convince a Clinton appointed judge to temporarily block their ordinances.

I was going to show the ACLU's real agenda for illegal immigrant. Well, they
just showed a lot of it themselves in press release.

ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Employment Law
Project and the Transnational Legal Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania
School of Law today filed a petition urging the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights to find the United States in violation of its universal human
rights obligations by failing to protect millions of undocumented workers from
exploitation and discrimination in the workplace.


The ACLU is basing its argument on stating the United States has violated a
vague International Human Rights Treaty signed in 1948 called the AMERICAN
DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN
. This treaty states that,
"Every person has the right to work, under proper conditions, and to follow his vocation freely,
insofar as existing conditions of employment permit." As I said, the treaty is
vague. Nowhere in the treaty does it define what proper conditions are, however
another section does state that the duty of every person to obey the law of the
country in which he may be.

Current
immigration law
provides criminal sanctions for employers who hire illegal
aliens. In other words it is a crime to hire an illegal alien...period. The
ACLU tries to hide this fact by omitting the word "illegal" and replacing it
with "undocumented". Illegal aliens are criminals and hiring a criminal to work
is a crime also. In essence the ACLU is attempting to grant the same rights and
benefits that a law abiding citizen enjoys to international criminals.

“The most poorly paid and least desirable jobs in the United States
are filled by undocumented immigrants, yet the government increasingly limits the safeguards available to this population, leaving
them vulnerable to exploitation and workplace discrimination,” said Claudia
Flores, an attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “The United States
government has an obligation under universal human rights norms to protect
vulnerable populations, such as immigrant women, and has failed in this regard.”

Undocumented immigrants make up nearly five percent of the U.S. labor force.
However, employment and labor protections under state laws have been either
eliminated or severely limited for undocumented workers in some states. These
include such basic workplace protections as freedom from workplace
discrimination and entitlement to hold an employer responsible for a workplace
injury.


The ACLU ignores the fact that these "undocumented workers" don't have a right
to work here in the first place, and that those hiring them are breaking the
law. The United States can not enforce or provide protections for criminals in the work place. They can't even enforce laws against hiring them in
the first place. If any illegal immigrant is being exploited it is from an
employer that is providing them with much more of an opportunity than they could
ever find in their own country and at the expense of American jobs and law. The
real way to stop the exploitation is to stop the illegal hiring.

“International human rights law requires the United States to apply
its workplace protections equally and without discrimination based on
immigration status. We bring this petition to cast a global spotlight on the
U.S. government’s poor human rights record in protecting undocumented workers
from discrimination and to demand accountability from states and the federal
government, all of whom are obligated to protect and defend human rights,” said
Chandra Bhatnagar, a staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights
Program.


What a load of bull! The ACLU goes on to list the individuals on their petition
which includes illegals that want handouts for injuries in jobs they acquired illegally
instead of accepting the responsibility they knowingly took upon themselves by
breaking our laws.

The ACLU fights every effort the U.S. attempts to
secure its borders and enforce illegal immigration laws. Their hostility towards the Minutemen's efforts to enforce the border is all too telling. They align themselves with open border advocates and even help illegals get into the country.

The head of the ACLU is also an adviser to the IFC and of course,
ACLU is among the most important and dangerous members of the open borders combine, using
its considerable resources in support of causes that will encourage illegal
aliens to enter the US and facilitate their remaining here: granting them
drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens, granting instate tuition to illegals,
welfare and free health care etc. The ACLU has even opposed rules to speed the
deportation of illegals convicted of violent felonies.


Front Page Magazine has a lot on this issue. Here is more on the ACLU's opposition to fighting the illegal immigration
problem.


The ACLU has opposed any Department of Justice plan to fingerprint
and track immigrants and foreign visitors to the United States. “The ACLU has
long opposed immigrant registration laws, saying that they treat immigrant
populations as a separate and quasi-criminal element of society and that they
create an easy avenue for surveillance of those who may hold unpopular beliefs,” read a press release, “The
fingerprinting and tracking proposal is only the latest Bush Administration
action targeted at Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent since September
11. Other discriminatory measures have included round-ups, dragnet questioning,
the detention of more than a thousand young men and the targeting of Middle
Eastern communities for heightened enforcement of minor immigration law
violations.”[20] The ACLU also opposes the use of immigration law violations as
the means for holding or deporting suspects with ties to terrorism, and the use
of secret or classified evidence in deportation hearings.


The ACLU is attempting to circumvent our current laws with a vague international
treaty all in the name of granting criminals rights and benefits at the expense
of law abiding Americans. If you think that illegal immigration is a problem
now, just imagine how it will increase if the ACLU is successful. In the
process the ACLU is threatening our very sovereignty.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

ACLU: The Anti Christian Liberals Union

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:

Liberals always act shocked and astonished that conservatives believe that an organization claiming to be the guardian of religious liberty is actually is actually America's number one religious censor. They will spout off token cases where the ACLU veered from its normal path of hostility toward Christian religious expression to defend free speech. They have a handful of cases they try to convince us with. However, the ACLU's history can easily be looked at and the cases against religious expression far outweigh these token cases. If the ACLU were consistent in its positions on religious liberty despite the religion their defense on the issue would be much easier. However, many cases point out that it isn't religion in general the ACLU fight, but the Christian religion in particular.

When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be erected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. And of course we are all familiar with the ACLU's crusade to eliminate the Mt. Soledad war memorial because it is a cross that might offend some atheist.

It has become a tradition for the ACLU to attack Christian nativity scenes every Christmas. They has already Ten Commandment displays across the nation. The ACLU sue city counsil after city counsil over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsil meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick.

If the ACLU were consistent to oppose all religions in its seperation of church and state quest it would be one thing, but in all too many cases it is Christianity that is targeted while other religions get a pass. The cases of double standards are numerous. A few blatant examples are how the ACLU fought to revoke the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church while fighting for a tax exemption for Wiccans and how they fight against any Christianity being exposed to school children yet are found absent when Islamic indoctrination is going on. In fact they were involved in creating the rules to allow such indoctrination to take place.

There is no doubt that the ACLU are overzealous in their quest to secularize America and erase its Christian heritage. The good news is that there are organizations out there fighting them, and people standing up to protest against them. Currently they are attacking Lakeview Elementary School for promotion of a Prayer at the Flagpole event, a National Day of Prayer event, the activities of a "Praying Parents" group, teacher-led voluntary classroom prayers, and a Christian theme and overtly religious songs at a Christmas program. The school is not denying these charges but asserting that Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu students have "a constitutional right to pray or to read their scriptures at school as well. They did not cave in to the ACLU's threats but gathered a group of over 600 people to protest the ACLU in a prayer vigil.

The prayer rally, organized by two Mt. Juliet commissioners, drew hundreds, with about 200 stuck in a 1.5-mile traffic jam. The event, which also attracted some local politicians and pastors, took place outside the school recently named in a lawsuit for alleged constitutional violations.


It is encouraging to see people standing up to the ACLU in defense of their rights that they feel are being threatened. However, this will not stop the ACLU from proceeding with its attacks. On the other hand it will ultimately be the power of the people and their desire for freedom that will have to put a stop to the ACLU's attempts to criminalize Christian free speech through the courts. One effective way to assert this power is to get out and vote for people that oppose the ACLU's anti-Christian agenda.

Everytime the ACLU wins a case against these small schools and local governments they are awarded massive money in attorney's fees through your tax dollars. Often this is used to threaten these cash strapped schools and local governments to surrender before the case even goes before a court. There is current legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, that seeks to put a stop to this extortion. It has already passed the House and will be up for vote soon in the Senate. It is very unlikely it will pass if liberals take control. Put an end to this abuse. Get out and vote for people you know will support this much needed legislation. Cut the ACLU off from the government teat.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.


PS: Congrats to Jay, Gribbit, and all of the fine folks at STOP THE ACLU.COM, for getting mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh show this week! Way to go!