Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Washington, D.C., Feb. 27 - Today, a letter signed by 85 major national and state policy organizations was delivered to Senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The letter warns Senators that any Endangered Species Act reform effort must include strong private property rights protections. The coalition letter was spearheaded by The National Center for Public Policy Research.
"Whatever action the Senate takes on ESA reform should reflect the national, bipartisan outcry for strong property rights protections," said David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research. "Quite simply, when the government takes your property, the least it can do is pay for it."
..."Today, private landowners live in fear of the ESA. Those who harbor endangered species on their property or merely own land suitable for such species can find themselves subject to severe land use restrictions that can be financially devastating," said Ridenour. "This creates a perverse incentive for landowners to preemptively 'sterilize' their land to keep rare species away. Such sterilizations benefit no one - least of all the species the ESA was established to protect."
"Property owners should not be punished for being good environmental stewards, yet that is exactly what the ESA does," said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for The National Center.
In order to fix the ESA's perverse incentive problem, the letter says property owners who are denied the use of their land should be given 100 percent, fair market value compensation for losses. This would bring the ESA in line with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees such compensation ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation").
"Americans nationwide were outraged when, in Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled that government could evict property owners to financially benefit private interests," said Knight. "As terrible as eminent domain abuse is, at least the victims in eminent domain cases are compensated. Landowners who lose their property under the Endangered Species Act don't receive a dime."
Under the current ESA, landowners who apply to the Department of Interior for permission to use their property are often forced to wait years for a response - years during which they often are unable to use the land they legally own, and on which they pay taxes.
The letter suggests that establishing a simple time limit within which the Department of Interior must issue final decisions to landowners' requests could prevent this injustice.
Meaningful ESA reform faces a big hurdle in the Senate, as the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Act is liberal Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI).
The National Center tried to schedule a meeting to discuss upcoming reform efforts with Senator Chafee's staff. However, the prospect of a meeting was immediately rebuffed by the Senator's staff after The National Center made it clear it wished to discuss the importance of protecting property rights in such a meeting.
"Allergy season is just around the corner and 'property rights' are apparently ragweed to the Chafee office," said Knight. "Unfortunately, this strangest of allergies hurts American property owners and endangered species more than it does the Senator and his staff."
A PDF copy of the letter can be obtained online at www.nationalcenter.org/ESAPropertyRights022706.pdf.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a conservative, free-market think-tank established in 1982 and located on Capitol Hill. For more information, contact Peyton Knight at (202) 543-4110, email email@example.com or visit the National Center's website at www.nationalcenter.org.
Great work, and keep up the good fight, NCPPR
I noticed that all of Sen. Kerry's documents have been taken down from his website. This, while not surprising, is a step in the wrong direction. I'm sure that if he runs again, they'll resurface. What I want to see are any documents from his time in the inactive reserve, or anything that explains the circumstances surrounding his discharge.
Join the "Free John Kerry's 180" Blogburst every Tuesday. Details avilable at Cao's Blog.
Friday, February 24, 2006
In the era of James Frey, I wonder if anyone will believe me.
"Tales From the Vendome" is the first installment of my anecdotal biography, published on NEXTLEAV. It is a collection of recollections on my years living at the Vendome, a nondescript 7-floor building in Manhattan, (NYC for those in Rio Linda). Here's what I've recalled so far:
OUT THE WINDOW: TALES FROM 48 W. 73RD STREET (THE VENDOME) 1974
TALES FROM THE VENDOME: INCIDENT AT 72ND & COLUMBUS
BRUCE'S PLEASURE CHEST: A VENDOME TALE
HOW I AVOIDED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AT THE VENDOME: I WAS GIVEN A CHOICE
REBUFFING ANOTHER GAY ADVANCE; WHAT, WAS THERE SOMETHING IN THE WATER?
GERALDO REPORTS ON A FIRE AT THE VENDOME
GETTING ROBBED ON HALLOWEEN, AND CHASING THE CULPRITS TO A PROJECT ROOFTOP
ADOLESCENT PERVERTS! GRABBING ASSES ON THE STREET
LOSING MY VIRGINITY IN A PET SHOP ON COLUMBUS AVE: WE WERE THE ORIGINAL "PET SHOP BOYS"! THANK YOU AL GOLDSTIEN!
MY FIRST BOUT WITH ANTI-SEMITISM: WHY I BEAT UP MY JEWISH FRIEND
FREEDOM, DISCIPLINE, AND 10 MINUTES IN THE BOY SCOUTS: A TALE FROM THE VENDOME
"Forts" and "Dirt Bombs:" From Central Park to Roosevelt Hospital!
Andy Kessler Will Live On: Tales From the Vendome
I have to include another post that is not labeled "Vendome," but relates stories from those years: ON RACE: ARE BAD WORDS REALLY HATEFUL? 06/26/03, which was originally an email rant.
This is heavy stuff, but so is life. I try to give my adult perspective and advice in these anecdotes, while exposing and explaining my youthful perceptions, as I remember them.
I'm not sure exactly how the chapters will be broken down, but I can give a rough outline of the next 20 years after the Vendome chapter..
The Vendome (posted here)
Main St. Cafe (Now occupied by the NUTTY IRISHMAN chain of pubs.)
...The events that lead to my reversion from a crackhead to a productive citizen have yet to be broken down into chapters. Suffice to say that God figures prominently in all chapters of my story, even when He's not mentioned. It will take quite some time before I get to that part, which gives me the next few years to reflect on it. Comments are encouraged, with thanks to WOMAN HONOR THYSELF, who has boldly commented where few have dared to tread.
-Or just sit back and read it, because this outline doesn't give any true indication of where this story will take you. Stay tuned.
He goes on to compare their coverage to the "soft story" (read short and sympathetic) treatment both magazines gave the Vince Foster suicide. That shooting happened in the White House, and was covered up for hours as Clinton aides removed potentially incriminating documents. That those facts didn't come out until much later is attributable to the White House Press Corps' lax attitude toward Pres. Clinton.
The irony is that the MSM in general have reacted to the Cheney incident as they should have reacted to the Foster suicide. Just imagine what some might call a liberal's dream scenario: what if Karl Rove shot himself in the west wing? Tell me that it wouldn't be 10 times the size of the Cheney story; but if the MSM treated Bush as they did Clinton (which they don't), it wouldn't get any more press than coverage than Vince Foster's suicide did.
Read Mr. Bozell's column, it's jammin! Hat tip to Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog, which has a new "old book" look! I like it, as well as continued great posts there. Check out this one about the Canadian mom who fought a 700 pound polar bear to protect her son, and this informed take on the Katrina aftermath. There's plenty more there, so go check it out as well!
Thursday, February 23, 2006
In response to a November ruling by a U.S. District Judge, Representative Mike Sodrel, a Republican, has introduced legislation to prevent federal courts from ruling on the content of speech in legislatures.
Judge David Hamilton (appointed by Bill Clinton) had ruled that any prayer that refers to Jesus Christ, Savior, or Son of God is unconstitutional. Any such reference, he said, "amounts in practical terms to an official endorsement of the Christian religion."
Sodrel and Representative Dan Burton called Hamilton’s ruling “a clear example of judicial activism.”
Sodrel said his bill would provide immunity for content of speech for lawmakers or their guests during a legislative session, excluding witnesses and excluding speech that constitutes treason, an admission of a crime or a breach of the peace. The bill would also prohibit the use of federal funds to enforce a decision like Hamilton’s.
Well, guess who's up in arms about using legislation to rein in activist judges' decisions? Survey says, the ACLU of Indiana. Calling it a political ploy, as if they never engage in such activity, the ACLU is feigning horror at the very questioning of the validity of the American justice system. If any one organization is responsible for America's loss of faith in the judicial system, it is the ACLU.
Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana’s legal director, has been recognized by the ICLU as leading a legal team that accepts one of the most ambitious dockets of any ACLU affiliate in the country. That, of course, means he and his cronies are litigation happy, a trait that most people would find less than admirable. Falk has history, indeed, from suing to remove a monument of the Judeo-Christian Decalogue in front of the Elkhart, Indiana municipal building to convincing the Supreme Court to strike down Indianapolis' drug interdiction roadblocks.
“If you disagree with a court decision, you appeal the case,” Falk said.
The ACLU wants to keep everything in courts that are peppered with their friends, colleagues and former members. Thus, they can continue to pervert the will of the American people. They fear the legislature because on most votes they will lose. And, when they lose, the majority of Americans win and the tyranny of the minority loses.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board.
Thanks to the News-Sentinel.
Friday, February 17, 2006
To my Muslim readers in particular: Before another innocent's blood is spilled, please look at these images that have been created over the years (more by "others," linked in title), and ask yourselves why this recent "cartoon" incident created such worldwide chaos in Muslim nations. In NYC, some Muslims peacefully protested the cartoons, though it got little coverage. Why can't it be like this all around the world? Is the difference in Islam, or the laws of the nation that it's practiced in?
Some Islamic Caliphates allowed images of Mohammed to be made, and even Osama's blown-up residence in Afghanistan had murals of Mohammed on them. This "cartoon story" is the mother of all "red herrings" to justify mindless violence. This isn't even about Islam. It's about evil people, who inflame the masses of Muslims in authoritarian states, and terrorists who seduce spiritually weak individuals.
The modern "Muslim" nations have even less of a leg to stand on when one considers the anti-semitic cartoons routinely published in their state-controlled publications. When a group of repressive nations gather their political will to stifle free speech by private individuals in free countries, all of us must respond.
One expects terrorists to hate Jews and Americans, and the West in general. Why can't majority "Muslim" countries, whether semi-democratic or authoritarian, teach about the age-old time when Islam was tolerant, and embrace that as a new way forward. Without that effort, many of them appear to sympathize with the terrorists. King Abdullah II of Jordan is a notable exception. While condemning the cartoons in a press conference with Pres. Bush, he actually preached tolerance. -from King Abdullah's website:
(Pres. Bush) said that his country believed in the freedom of the press, but that "with this freedom comes responsibility, and responsibility means thinking about others." The two leaders called the violence that has accompanied protests against the cartoons "unacceptable".
"One who wants to protest should be careful... [and] do this peacefully," King Abdullah said.
"When we see protests accompanied by destruction and violence, especially the killing of innocent people, then this is definitely unacceptable." "We should progress one step further in the issue of tolerance so as to accept our common humanity and our shared values," the King added.
The imagery of Mohammed is not going away. The truth is that it's been here throughout history, even in the Islamic world. That's a fact, and all of the protesting in the world cannot change it. When have Muslims protested at the NYC Metropolitan Museum of Art, which displays a Mohammed image?
Hat tip to my bud Magua, for the zombietime link! GREAT SITE! -and a reminder that this "cartoon war" is just a subset of the greater war in our culture, as well as the rest of the world's many cultures. Freedom must win this battle, or we all lose freedom.
Linked at Open Thoughts of a Universal Mind at STOP The ACLU.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Crossposted from STOP The ACLU
We have two recent press releases from the ACLU.
We all know about the ACLU’s lawsuit against NSA, its FOIA request over it, and its constant urging of Congress for full disclosure of what should be classified information.
The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the House Judiciary Committee to adopt several resolutions that would formally request any and all documents relating to the illegal National Security Agency domestic spying program authorized by President Bush.
“The need for a comprehensive investigation into the NSA’s domestic surveillance is essential to find out exactly which laws were broken,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “
Notice that while they use the word “illegal”, and insist that laws were broken, they don’t even know exactly what laws were broken. WTF? I thought that in America that everyone was considered innocent until proven guilty, but all of the sudden per ACLU the government is guilty until proven innocent. The way the program is was explained, according to all lawyers that worked in this field, it is completely legal because it falls under the powers of the Executive branch. The President’s job is to protect the Nation, wage war when appropriate, and in this case approve by Congress when they said, “use any appropriate force necessary.” It is also the Executive branch’s authority to collect international intelligence, and the president does not need Congress’ approval. This comes under the “seperation of powers”, despite the fact that Congress does not like this. This is a never ending battle between the Congress and the Executive branch. Congress thinks that everything has to be run past it. When Congress says that it is the Executive branch that is trying to grab power….think….it is Congress that is actually the one trying to grab power for themselves.
If this were the only government effort to protect Americans that the ACLU opposed, one could easily write it off as a misguided pursuit of an absolutist ideaology of liberty. However, the ACLU seems to have a problem with everything dealing with National Security. They oppose the Patritot Act, airline security measures, searches across the board, and much more.
But lets get down to the real agenda.
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 evaluating 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.
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.
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.
Anything that enrages America’s enemies, the ACLU wants on the front pages of all the MSM’s newspapers.
In response to newly released images of abuse at Abu Ghraib, the American Civil Liberties Union today renewed its call for an independent investigation into widespread and systemic abuse in U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.
Despite the fact that this is old news recylcled, the ACLU have pushed for more fuel to the hate America crowd’s fire. I say, let’s release the photos, so that those who rioted over simple 4 month old cartoons can completely destroy themselves. Either the ACLU has no concern over anti-American consequences to further release of an incident that took place over a year ago, or they are seeking anti-American rage to increase. Their position on this is at best irresponsible, and at worse prodding an already raging bull.
The ACLU has sued the Department of Defense for withholding photographs and videos depicting abuse at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities. In September, a federal judge in New York ruled that the government must turn over the Abu Ghraib images, as well as other visual evidence of abuse, noting “the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed.” The decision is currently on appeal by the government. The ACLU said it does not know whether the new photos aired by the Australian “Dateline” program are the same photos being withheld by the government.
Investigations and punishment for these abuses are something we definitely agree with the ACLU on. However, the release of more gruesome photos to the public, running on front pages of magazines and newspapers does not serve any good, other than to further the hate of our enemies. More than 25 people of both enlisted and commissioned rank were held accountable for criminal acts and other misconduct associated with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Several pictures appear to show U.S. soldier Charles Graner, who was jailed for 10 years for his leading role in the Abu Ghraib abuse. Many of these photos are even suspect of being hoaxes.
The Abu Ghraib abuses were discovered by U.S. troops and were being investigated before any of the photos were leaked to the press. None of this matters to the media and ACLU. Congress members have already seen the additional photos, and investigations and prosecutions have been launched. There is nothing positive about releasing these photos to the public, and no productive purpose other than fanning the flames of hate.
While there is major hypocrisy in the MSM response to the Abu Ghraib photos in comparison to the Danish cartoons, both are protected freedoms. While many called for solidarity with the Danish over freedom of expression, this was in response to the savage reactions of riots, and embassy burnings from Muslims. The release of more photos from Abu Ghraib to the general public serves no such purpose. They reveal nothing new or informative that we have not already seen. They have no significance other than anti-American propaganda purposes.
They have refused contributions from some of their most loyal donors because of anti-terrorism specifics.
The ACLU, in every position it takes in National Security issues, proves time and again to be against American interests. When you combine all of these things, is there any wonder why so many Americans question who’s side the ACLU is on?
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
I want to start with two of the blogs linked; FREEDOM IN PICTURES, and DOCUMENTS ON ISLAMIC REPUBLIC'S CRIMES AGAINST THE IRANIAN PEOPLE. Look at them.
Next, I refer you to two posts, in broken English, by Korosh, a contributor at Love America First. A BLOGGER'S BROTHER KILLED BY THE IRANIAN REGIME, and WHAT THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA DOESN'T COVER? Read these, and go to the links on the posts.
There is much here that impacts the larger debate about Iran getting nuclear weapons technology. With Ahmedinejad in power, that is a frightful thought. This post is about removing him before that comes to pass, and allowing freedom of political expression in that (once very Westernized) country. It's not just Ahmedinejad, of course. He's just the catalyst that may bring about true change in Iran.
--It can only happen after he is gone, as well as the enforcers of this (phony) Islamic regime.
What say you, Muslim Unity blog? Feel free to comment, especially on the links that are in Arabic. Translations would be helpful, if you comment on those links.
As Rosemary always says, HAVE A GREAT DAY!
Blogging Man 2007 is THE Political
Blogging Man 2007will be the FIRST
national conference for Political Bloggers EVER.
Scheduled for three days in Reno, Nevada, Blogging Man 2007 will set the
standard for Political Blogging Conferences to come.
A Conference BY Bloggers JUST Like YOU.
The developers and speakers for Blogging Man 2007 are bloggers, first
and foremost. They come from all over the country, and all have a passion
for politics, and blogging.
A Conference FOR Bloggers JUST Like YOU.
Blogging Man 2007 is for YOU, if
you love blogging, and love politics.
DON'T Get Left Out Of The First BIG Blogging Event of the Century.
There are opportunities for YOU to participate in BM 2007.
You can promote YOUR BLOG on our Wall of Blogs
, EVEN if you can't attend the conference yourself!
The Wall of
Blogs will be a MAIN Display at the Conference.
Space for the Wall of Blogs
is ONLY $20.
But Blogging Man 2007 for ONLY $20!
Also, for a limited time, Early Registration for
Blogging Man 2007 is ONLY $75.
Registrants get a copy of Hugh Hewitt's groundbreaking book BLOG while
GET YOUR COPY TODAY, ALONG WITH THE DISCOUNTED REGISTRATION!!
Blogging Man 2007 also has a very
limited number of Bronze Sponsorships
available for $500.
Sponsorships includes the benefits of the Blogger Sponsorship, PLUS:
YOUR Logo and Ad in the Event Program,
YOUR logo and ad space on the Event Website,
AND One FREE Registration to BloggingMan 2007.
Get Your Blog on The Wall of
Get YOUR copy of Blog! By Hugh Hewitt with Your Early Registration.
Get Your Logo in the Event Program with Your Bronze Sponsorships!
Don't Get Left Out of Blogging Man
Matthew (Zaphriel) Comprix
Director of Blogger Relations
Blogging Man 2007
Be part of the Wall of Blogs (http://www.bloggingman.org/wall-of-blogs.html)
. It's the most affordable way to be part of Blogging Man 2007.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
I found an interesting site called John Forbes Kerry Timeline. I'll cite this brief passage:
Kerry... traveled to Paris, France and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), the political wing of the Vietcong, and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a "fact-finding" mission.
(U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.)
Why did he do this? Perhaps it was his bourgeois version of the "civil/political disobediance" that was so common in those days. Many have followed in his footsteps, and much more openly; just Google Cindy Sheehan. While John F. Kerry parlayed his anti-war activites into a political career, it may have been built on a house of cards, this event being one of them.
How would "President Kerry" treat the war on terror? In his own words, "as a law enforcement matter." How would he deal with the state sponsors of terrorism (No. Korea, Iran, Syria, the PA, as well as factions in every government in the Middle East except Israel)? It's pretty clear that Kerry favors political expediency over what is right for this nation, so that question gives me a shudder. I hope we never know.
Join the "Free John Kerry's 180" Blogburst every Tuesday. Details avilable at Cao's Blog.
Friday, February 10, 2006
My Allah and Mohammed cartoon has opened me up to a whole bunch of Muslim commentary. Moderate Muslims like the guy at Muslim Unity think I am a clone of Bill O'Reilly or something. Here's where he's wrong: I called O'Reilly a hypocrite openly on this blog, and still can support him on other issues. Try doing that to CAIR, or any "mainstream" or "popular" Muslim spokesman, my friend at the Muslim Unity blog!
Again, I cite the tolerance of the west as a testament against the face of Islam in the public square. Muslims need to help reform their own religion, as we work on keeping ALL religions working together in harmony. PEACE BE WITH YOU, BROTHER.
PS: The above cartoon is published here to provoke moderate Muslims to act against the ticking timebomb in their midst. --Or has it gone off already?
United States met to discuss changes in the Articles of Confederation. What
resulted was a complete redrafting of the Constitution under a Federalist
system. The new document contained 7 Articles outlining the duties and
responsibilities of the federal government. It was written very specific on
certain issues to clearly define the duties and restrictions of the federal
government. It was written vague on other issues as to leave enough uncertainty
that the matter should be defined by the individual states.
Some of the original signers of the Constitution actually refused to sign it.
When a guarantee was made that if they would sign the document to be referred to
the people for ratification, the first order of business would be to write a
"Bill of Rights" defining individual rights of the people.
It then it became a responsibility of those who were stressing the federalist
government to sell the American people on the idea. From this came the
Federalist Papers which were written in order to be reassurances to the people
that they would have specific rights and the government would be limited in
Then as promised, the first Congress took up the matter of adopting a "Bill of
Rights". Ten Amendments were written into our founding document which outlined
specific rights and limitations on the government. The catch all of these
rights as defined by our first Congress was the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
In opposition to this new "Bill of Rights" was our first Secretary of the
Treasury, author of several of the Federalist Papers, and member of the
Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton. He said in Federalist 84,
I...affirm that bills of rights...are not only unnecessary...but
would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers, which
are not granted; and on this very account, would afford colourable pretext to
claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done
which there is no power to do?
I doubt that Hamilton would fully understand exactly how prophetic this actually
And everything was fine until the Civil War. In the wake of the war, while it
was still being fought as a matter of fact, several more Amendments were added
outlawing slavery within the Union and conferring the full rights and benefits
of citizenship to the newly freed slaves. The most prominent of which was the
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their
respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State,
excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the
choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or
the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such State, being twenty-one years of age,4 and citizens of the United
States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other
crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male
citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of
President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the
United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a
member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any
State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to
support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the
United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred
in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and
claims shall be held illegal and void.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.
Fast forward to the twentieth century and Justice Hugo Black and other liberal
activists on the court under the spell of the newly formed American Civil
Liberties Union. It then became fashionable to attempt to apply the
restrictions and requirements that the Bill of Rights holds the federal
government to on the states.
Robert S. Sargent, Jr wrote in his es
say about Hugo Black the following:
In 1868, in order to protect ex-slaves, the 14th Amendment did apply
certain rights that the states couldn't intrude upon: "Nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws." Somehow Hugo Black, in his dissent in Adamson v. California (1947) found
this to mean that all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights applied to the
states: "My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth
Amendment...persuades me that one of the chief objects that the provisions of
the Amendment's first section were intended to accomplish was to make the Bill
of Rights applicable to the states." One must ask, if this was one of the "chief
objects," why didn't they put it in the text? (For a scholarly, devastating
refutation of this interpretation of "the original purpose," see Raoul Berger's
book on the 14th Amendment, "Government by Judiciary.")
This concept of "Incorporation Theory" goes against the idea of federalism
envisioned in the Constitution. Now that Justice Black's dissent is accepted
jurisprudence, state laws can be reviewed in federal court, which means that the
Supreme Court now decides what our rights are. The 9th Amendment in its original
sense is now irrelevant.
And the culmination of this happens in 1973. In the Roe v Wade decision, the
court decided that a medical procedure regulated or banned under state law was
not valid because it did not protect a woman's right to privacy in what happens
to her body. In other words, the Warren court decided that a state law, in a
state matter, was invalid because it did not protect the privacy of the
Privacy - I can't find it in the Constitution anywhere. The ACLU claims that
it's there. Some liberal Senators would have you believe that it is there, but
I can't find it. The words right to privacy do not exist in any of the 7
Articles or 26 Amendments of the Constitution. Neither is federal regulation of
medical procedures. But under the Hugo Black mentality and approach to applying
the restrictions and powers of the federal government to the states and making
state laws subject to federal review, has now greatly expanded the reach of the
And if we can expand the federal government to so that states laws are
reviewable in the federal judiciary, why not expand the reach of the
Establishment Clause. And as such, the ACLU in its arguments have consistently
tried to apply the restriction on the Congress of the United States to the
individual states and local governments.
Hamilton was right.
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 150 blogs already on-board.
Stop By Stop the ACLU and Wish Jay a
Happy 29th Birthday and Stop The ACLU a
Happy 1 year Anniversary
FROM GRIBBIT! LEAVWORLD SALUTES
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Today I turn 29 years old, and Stop the ACLU turns one. We started out on blogsnot. Here is our first post. Enough about that...on with the blogburst.
Top Ten Myths of the ACLU:
10. The ACLU is non-partisan:
The Truth: Not only were they founded on Communism, they are about as liberal an organization in existence. The public saw first hand in 1988 how the ACLU was involved in politics. "The portrayal of the ACLU as a radical liberal lobby reached its climax in the 1988 presidential campaign when George Bush used ACLU membership as a black mark against his opponent Michael Dukakis. The perception had taken root that the ACLU of 1988 has about as much to do with civil liberties as the AT&T of 1988 has to do with telegraphs."
"Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality, is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization."William Donahue
They may take a token case here and there for the other side to bolster its non-partisan claims, but those cases are far outweighed by their numerous other cases that are clearly intended to further its partisan agenda. They even keep scorecards on Congressmen and Representatives. Their claim of non-partisanship is what gives them their tax-exempt status, and nothing is further from the truth. They have split their organization into two in order to lobby their causes to the legislative branch.
9. The ACLU Cares About Your Privacy Rights:
The Truth: Despite all the rhetoric over the current NSA program, where the ACLU opposes the U.S. listening to traitor's having conversations with terrorists, the ACLU has no room to talk when it comes to violating privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.
Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.
Daniel S. Lowman, vice president for analytical services at Grenzebach Glier & Associates, the data firm hired by the A.C.L.U., said the software the organization is using, Prospect Explorer, combs a broad range of publicly available data to compile a file with information like an individual's wealth, holdings in public corporations, other assets and philanthropic interests.
The issue has attracted the attention of the New York attorney general, who is looking into whether the group violated its promises to protect the privacy of its donors and members. NY Times
8. It is a patriotic thing to support the ACLU.
The Truth: If you think the ACLU represents the average American values, then you are sadly misguided. Their absolutist views of liberty go far beyond what most people could ever support. They support the legalization of child porn distribution , and un-regulated prostitution. They are far from the traditional thoughts of patriotism, constantly defending Americas enemies, and fighting efforts of military recruiters.
7. The ACLU Defends The Bill of Rights.
The Truth: The ACLU defends the parts of the Bill of Rights that are in line with its agenda. What about the second, ninth, and tenth amendment?
ACLU POLICY "The ACLU believes that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."ACLU
And they certainly don't believe in States rights, constantly attempting to override the will of the people via the judicial branch.
6. The ACLU Defends Religious Liberty
The Truth: The ACLU claims to be the great defender of liberty, but the truth is that their definition of liberty is limited to what alligns within their agenda. As a matter of fact, the ACLU is the foremost religious censor in America. Despite the fact that this nation was founded upon the ideals of religious freedom, the ACLU has succeeded in manipulating the very founding principles through the corrupted judicial branch to repress the religious expression of America, and continues to work daily at erasing our National religious heritage from the pages of history.details
5. The ACLU's Slogan of "Keep America Safe and Free":
The Truth: 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, to stop what they call profiling (we will never see a Protestant white middle-aged woman as a terrorist working with an extremist Islamic organization) by race, sex and religion, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations.
They say they are for a safe and free America. Yet their actions speak very loudly the opposite of the lip service they give in this banner for a safe America.
4. They Defend the Oppressed and Helpless:
The Truth: If you count terrorists, child molesters, and murderers as oppressed and helpless, then you may think this one is true. The truly defensless are the very children being harmed by these perverts the ACLU defend. The ACLU don't believe children have any rights, unless it is to murder their own children without their parents ever knowing.
3. The word "American" in their name truly reflects what they are:
They are constantly stepping outside the bounds of America, reaching out to help the very enemy. They fight every effort by our government to protect us, and sue them every chance we get. For the ACLU, the mighty checkbook takes precendence over America's security, and many think they are rooting for the enemy. It isn't hard to believe when theytry to get admitted terrorists off the hook.
2. The ACLU Was Founded On Noble Intentions:
The Truth: One of the great myths of the 20th - and now 21st - century is the belief that the American Civil Liberties Union was an organization that had a noble beginning, but somehow strayed off course.
That myth is untrue. The ACLU set a course to destroy America – her freedom and her values - right from the start.
From its very beginning, the ACLU had strong socialist and communist ties. As early as 1931, the U.S. Congress was alarmed by the ACLU's devotion to communism. A report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated
The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.
Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.
Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:
I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
1. The ACLU Does Not Collect Taxpayer's Funds:
The Truth: The Civil Rights Act, intended to help poor people who could not afford to defend their rights, grants judges the right to award attorney's fees in civil rights cases. The ACLU have turned this on its head, often using it to threaten small schools and local governments that can not afford to defend themselves from the ACLU.
Take it from a former ACLU Lawyer, Reese Llyod:
Stated Lloyd: "The ACLU has perverted, distorted and exploited the Civil Rights Act … to turn it into a lawyer-enrichment act."
Lloyd says the American people are "oblivious" to how many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are going to the ACLU each year.
The attorney pointed out many attorneys in cases brought by the ACLU are volunteers, so the fees the group is awarded normally do not go to reimburse an attorney but rather directly into the organization's coffers.
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 150 blogs already on-board.
PLEASE GO TO THE POST LINKED IN THE TITLE, AND WISH JAY A HAPPY BIRTHDAY! ALSO WITNESS WHAT HAPPENS TO MOONBATS, WHEN THEY BECOME PINATAS!
ROCK ON, STOP THE ACLU!
Bill O'Reilly is a hypocrite regarding the Mohammed cartoons. I respected his decision not to show them, but then came last night's segment on the issue. He was talking with Jim Pinkerton, from Newsday, and a gentleman from Editor and Publisher magazine, making the point that the NY Times hypocritically refuses to publish the cartoons, while publishing Chris Ofili's "dung" Mary painting again this very week. So far, so good.
As he was saying this, HE SHOWED THE OFFENSIVE IMAGE! (and I don't mean the Muhammed cartoons)
I'm a big fan of Mr. O'Reilly's, as most who read LEAVWORLD know. That remains true, but I have to take him to task on this one. He states that the NY Times should explain why they will run only material that is offensive to Christians or Jews, but not Muslims. I now have to ask him the same question.
Mr. O, you got some 'splainin' to do. I should have asked to get on the "bloviate with Bill" segment in my email to him about this. Hopefully, someone over at the Factor reads this and invites me, because I would nail his ass to the wall on this one. Every argument he made about the NY Times now applies to him, except the secularist angle. He's scared to publish the cartoons, just like the Times
There is a further disturbing aspect to his showing that image. It is clearly pornographic, with cutouts of actual photos of women's derrieres and spread vaginas. I can picture some kid saying "Are those butterflys, Daddy?." It turns my stomach more than any religious offense I take at the image.
The man is not looking out for children when he shows that image without any warning. He, like most of the MSM, are either blinded by the "art" label on this trash, or they've overlooked the pornography because of the elephant dung. Either way, bad job on that one, Bill.
Run the Mohammed cartoons, or stop running the anti-Christian pornography. Just don't make me compare you to the NY Times again!
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
...and what's up with dissin' Pres. Bush 43 right in front of his face? Please, give the man a break, liberals! Didn't you learn from the Wellstone memorial that you don't mix politics with funerals?
More on Pres. Clinton: Did he not look like a puppy being told to "heel" while Hillary spoke? PLEASE! This guy couldn't even manage one loving glance at his wife as she spoke? -I didn't see the whole thing, so he may have looked at her while she spoke, but he looked chastened in the clips I saw.
Carter just played the fool, mentioning the wiretaps that Kennedy OK'd on Dr. King. Did he know that Ted K. was there, and going to speak? Did he intend to make them all look like fools?
God rest Mrs. King's soul. She is reunited with her husband, and I hope they are both happy in heaven together. What played out at her funeral had too much to do with the most base of earthly events...politics. (I know that there are much worse things in the world, but they all have a political component, which is the reason I feel free to say that)
Others can give a more comprehensive analysis, but those are my first thoughts, and I doubt I'll revisit this funeral.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
I dropped the ball this week, so will link to CAO'S blog for today's FREE THE KERRY 180 BLOGBURST. Also see the John Kerry (in)action figure, at Sweet Spirits of Ammonia.
Join the "Free John Kerry's 180" Blogburst every Tuesday. Details avilable at Cao's Blog.
Monday, February 06, 2006
First, Jeff Jacoby has a great piece called We are all Danes now. I particularly like the opening paragraph:
Hindus consider it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.
It didn't happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak.
Next is a piece from Der Spiegel, by Ibn Warraq, titled Democracy in a Cartoon:
Best-selling author and Muslim dissident Ibn Warraq argues that freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it against attacks from totalitarian societies. If the west does not stand in solidarity with the Danish, he argues, then the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest.
The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."
Finally, Sacred Cow Burgers weighs in with an image from Jay D. Dyson titled "Islamist Hypocrisy." Go check it out!
Hat tip to Magua, and thanks for the support.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
I've been thinking about my Allah and Mohammed cartoon alot since I posted it. My fiance has told me that idolitary is the sin, or blasphemy that I comitted, under the religious laws of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. She also believes that Catholics violate this law, and I agree with her, though I went to a Catholic School as a child. I've also heard that the Shiites in Iran allow images of the prophet Mohammed to be published, but I'm not certain (any help appreciated)
My point is "so what"? If Jews can get along with Muslims, as they have in the past, and still do in some (not so) rare circumstances around the world, and Christians can get along with Jews and Muslims as well, then WHAT IS STOPPING US FROM IGNORING ALL THE THINGS THAT OFFEND US ABOUT EACH OTHER?
In one word, DOGMA. (I cite definition [c.] from Merriam Webster's online Dictionary: c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.)
I tried to argue that my cartoon couldn't be idolatry, since it was mocking Allah, not worshipping him, and I seem to insult God and Jesus much worse in this one. Am I choosing the path of evil by drawing these cartoons?
I respect the Muslim world's passion to protest the offensive cartoons. I wish that a similar popular uprising had occured when "piss Christ" was displayed with government funding, minus the threats of kidnappings and cutting off of hands and heads, of course. In that spirit, I am publishing this mirror cartoon, which aims at the false criticisms of George W. Bush. It seems there is a dichotomy: when I cite terrorists who claim to represent Islam, I'm slandering that religion. When the terrorists claim that Pres. GW. Bush is a modern Crusader, killing innocent Muslims, all of the west is guilty. I don't buy that.
There are only two ways out of this dilemma. Politics, or war. The Muslim world has lived under repressive politics for a long time. Pres. Bush has shown them the results of the war option with Iraq, and opened up political avenues that weren't open before. I hope that this "cartoon issue" will not hinder freedom of religious (and anti-religious, when/where approppriate) speech in the Middle-East.
We all have to live together. We can't "wish away" problems from other parts of the world, for they affect us profoundly. LEAVWORLD recommends that all of the nations that recalled their ambassadors send them back, or send new ones.
As I give them this advice, I pray for my soul. I'm still not sure if the big guy is OK with me drawing someone flipping him off. ...and doesn't Jesus look downright disappointed?
Well, I'm proving a point. Let's see the Christians protest me, if I haven't done it to myself...
Linked at STOP The ACLU- Sunday Funnies...
Friday, February 03, 2006
"The blogger at Leavworld though, sees Tomlinson as a sacrificial lamb who tried his best to expose liberal bias. This blogger hopes conservatives won't lose the battle to see a broader spectrum of views on public television."
I can't disagree with that representation of my post. Thanks, Tony Maciulis - Senior producer, 'Connected: Coast to Coast'. I hope your show isn't off the air yet, sir. Really.
I'm in the phone book, and have a great professional voice, if you ever need new on-air talent.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Danish Muslims Accept Cartoon Apology (NOT!)
There is a huge controversy erupting throughout a large part of the world over some cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten, a Danish publication. At the same time that REAL anti-semitism is resurgent in Europe, Muslims are claiming "anti-Islamism" over "offensive" cartoons. Why this isn't being covered by the US media is the obvious question. My take is that the US media knows that the US public would be on the side of freedom of expression on this one, especially in one of Europe's most liberal nations. There is really no way they can spin this as an assault on Islam, though I wouldn't put it past them to try in the future, hence their current silence on this story.
Read about it in full at PBS WATCH (Hat tip to BobG from SSofA). While many other sites have weighed in on this, I thought I'd put my two cents in with my own cartoon, using the title of this story from Dhimmi Watch as the caption (hat tip Jihad Watch)...though I wanted to write a caption more like "My right hand can't control my left!"
...aaah, there's nothing like throwing gasoline on the fire!
I hope that as you read all of the links there, you also Google "Piss Christ" by Andre Serrano, or Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary," to see the kind of abuse Islam needs to tolerate, if they want to join the modern world. PBS WATCH also links to a story about a young Tunisian playwrite, Ben Chikha, who was born and raised in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking north of Belgium. From Brussels Journal (story) :
"The poster for the play is probably meant to be funny too. It depicts the virgin Mary with a howling child and a bowl of blood. She is barebreasted and is sitting next to a shield with the arms of Flanders. As a muslim immigrant Ben Chikha is apparently allowed to use such images, which make fun of the Flemings and ridicule the religion many of them adhere to."
I wonder where all of our wonderful western liberals are on this debate, especially the killing and terrorist threat part. Look at the cartoons that these artists drew, and wonder why they were all so circumspect. Good thing I've got the Death Squad protecting me, but that's another story.
Europe is facing the brunt of this clash, and the US media is turning a blind eye to it. Does that sound familiar? Did someone mention Hitler? - or Ahmedinejad?
Update: I saw several MSM reports about this story today. Michelle Malkin has commentary on that, as well as the "THE "INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ANGER" planned for today (Fri, 02/03/06). Please read this, before you see the MSM reporting on it tomorrow.