Wednesday, May 31, 2006


I recently started a new blog at It is an interesting community, with many nice people, and some freindly (and NOT) moonbats. However, I felt pressure to get comments on my posts there, and to comment on others' posts, to acquire "Gather points." This does not jibe with what I do. My premise is that I say what I think, or what I want to promote for thought, with as few distractions as possible when writing this blog. If no one else reads it, it still serves as a record of my opinions on a variety of subjects.

While I get more comments on some posts at Gather, I don't like that they have ads on the same page as everything I post there. I've deleted most of my artwork, but will probably leave crossposts of everything I publish here at LEAVWORLD, with a link.

I encourage you to go check out my Gather page, especially the comments on LET THEM EAT BOMBS!, which got no comments here. This is why I find it so hard to quit this quaint little internet community. I love stirring debate, and Gather fills the bill for that.

I just don't like diverting more time to another, smaller community in the blogosphere. I'm happy with my little LEAVWORLD blogspot for now, and will try to keep my Gather posts current with this blog. I barely write anything when I'm reading so much.

This is also a test to see if I can link to Gather from here, and if it is restricted from being viewed. If it is, I may have to drop them.

Friday, May 26, 2006


The eminent Dr. Thomas Sowell has just published the third part of a series called " Bordering on Fraud" over at Town Hall. I highly recommend them, and will add any following chapters on this post.

Bordering on fraud
The immigration bill before Congress has some of the most serious consequences for the future of this country. Yet it is not being discussed seriously by most politicians or most of the media. Instead, it is being discussed in a series of glib talking points that insult our intelligence.

Bordering on fraud: Part II
Of all the insults to our intelligence in the current discussions of immigration legislation, the biggest insult is the claim that border control legislation and legislation on the illegal immigrants already in the country must go together.

Bordering on fraud, part III
Some people are worried that amnesty will give illegal aliens the same rights that American citizens have. In reality, it will give the illegals more rights than the average American citizen.

Thursday, May 25, 2006


Crossposted from STOP THE ACLU:

Hat tip: Pretend Pundit Via ACLU Website:

Responding to reports that phone companies are turning over private
details about Americans’ telephone calls to the National Security Agency, the
American Civil Liberties Union today launched a nationwide initiative to end
illegal government spying.

ACLU affiliates in 20 states today filed complaints with Public Utility
Commissions or sent letters to state Attorneys General and other officials
demanding investigations into whether local telecommunications companies allowed
the NSA to spy on their customers.

“We cannot sit by while the government and the phone companies collude in this
massive, illegal and fundamentally unAmerican invasion of our privacy,” said
ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “And unfortunately, we cannot wait for Congress to act. The ACLU
is mobilizing its members and supporters nationwide to demand investigations
into this shocking breach of trust. And we are asking the FCC to use its
authority to uncover the facts about how far the president's illegal spying has
gone. The American people want answers.”

True to form, Romero has twisted the facts of this case around to scare the
unsuspecting liberal minded, apathetic imbecile who supports him and his
anti-American organization. To this point, each and every legal scholar who has
looked at the program has agreed that no laws have been broken.

Congressional leaders, including Dick "the dick with the turban" Durban have
come out in favor of changing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to cover
this type of operation. Each one has touted the benefits and necessities of this
program for the national security of the United States and its people.

Democrats are approaching this from the oversight angle. That if the President was given authority to conduct this operation
in just the same manner that it already has been, it would provide some
oversight with teeth under which the President is less likely to abuse the

Republicans are approaching this from the stand point that the President needs
this program and having it written into FISA would provide him with the tools to
conduct it.

I agree with both actually. No matter who is in power, it is always possible
for power to be abused. But as both parties have recognized the need for the
program and both have expressed the need for it to continue, what is the ACLU's

I'll tell you what their beef is. They are the perpetual fly in the ointment.
If they aren't causing trouble over each and every thing the federal government
does, they feel as though they aren't doing anything at all. After all, if they
agreed with the stance the government takes, their significance would be

This is a fund raising campaign. If they make a big enough stink about this, the apathetic morons will give them
more money. If by chance they prevail in any one of these many lawsuits that
they are planning, then they can circumvent the legislative process and again,
they make money off the government.

The ACLU is listed as a non-profit organization. They claim to be non-partisan.
But it seems awfully odd that the only members of Congress that are members of
the ACLU are Democrats and that the ACLU publicly opposes any proposal sponsored
by Republicans. And it seems awfully odd that each time they win a case, they
take a larger cut of the settlement than their clients.

The ACLU feeds of the weak minded. They rely on the apathetic uniformed morons
who fill out the little form and send it in with their $25 each year to get
their little card in the mail so that they can go around saying that they are
"card carrying members of the ACLU". If these people had half the intelligence
that they claim to have, they would look into the dealings of the ACLU and come to the same conclusions that we have. That their
actual goal is destruction of the United States as we know it.

President Bush and other administration officials have neither
confirmed nor denied a USA Today report that the NSA is collecting the calling
records of ordinary Americans in its effort to detect the plans of al-Qaida and
other terrorist organizations.

Bush has said the administration's anti-terror surveillance programs are legal
and constitutional.

The ACLU was planning to file actions with state utility commissions in Arizona,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia
and Washington. Other states were expected to be added later. Source

So the ACLU will sue these companies for helping our government to detect
terrorists? All the while, the ACLU has a massive database of its
members, their financial information, and much more private details than
the NSA could ever hope for.

Sign the
Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU

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 200 blogs already on-board

Tuesday, May 23, 2006


This is from Nov. 19, 2005:

"What we need is a little more commander in chief, and a little less campaigner in chief," Kerry said in an exclusive interview on "Good Morning America Weekend Edition."

Although he may have sounded as if he were campaigning, Kerry said he's leaving the door open when it comes to running for president in 2008.

Not without releasing his full military records, I hope!

Join the "Free John Kerry's 180" Blogburst every Tuesday. Details avilable at CAO'S BLOG.

Saturday, May 20, 2006


From today's NY POST:


May 20, 2006 -- Concerned U.S. officials and Jewish groups yesterday demanded answers from Iran after a shocking report that Tehran's radical leaders passed a Nazi-style law requiring Jews and Christians to wear identifying badges.
Jews would be forced to wear yellow cloth strips - like the Star of David that Jews were made to wear in Nazi Germany - while Christians would have to wear red strips.


UPDATE: Amir Taheri elaborates on this story. (Hat tip to POWER LINE) Mr. Hinderaker wraps it up: "Given Mr. Taheri's past reliability on matters relating to Iran, I think this can stand as the best information we have, pending future developments." Read those for a more sober analysis.

Now, on to the LEAVRANT portion of this post:
The only way to free the people of Iran, No. Korea, and other oppressive rgimes is through violent force of arms, to a greater or lesser degree. These societies already live under the gun, so to speak. Iraq was the first exercise of our ability to grasp the concept of this global war. Iraq is not Vietnam, or Korea, where a stand-off was acceptable. Russia and China will protect Iran and Syria, and others like Sudan, in the U.N. They're playing the same old game on us, substituting the Arab and Muslim countries for their previous "third world" surrogates. Somehow, WE'RE THE IMPERIALISTS!

It is up to the free people of the world to stop the oppression against their brothers and sisters around the world. America is doing the right thing, especially the Iraq invasion. God (or the UN) forbid that we should invade the Sudan unilaterally, of course. We might be worse war-mongers, then.


Friday, May 19, 2006


An excerpt from Robert Novak's "Evans-Novak Political Report," an invaluable resource:

The latest miserable performance on NBC's "Meet the Press" by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has renewed talk in Democratic ranks about bouncing her from the leadership following the 2006 elections, whether the Democrats capture the House or not. We think it is just talk. Pelosi's gender protects her. The logical alternative, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), is such a personal foe of Pelosi that his accession would be too divisive.



I caught a report of Palestinians protesting over the lack of funds from Israel, the EU, and the U.S. One protester said that they were being punished for "exercising democracy." If this was a democratically elected government, as alleged, they are now truly and collectively responsible for all of the terrorist murders that Hamas has, and continues to commit.

Under the same logic they follow to kill innocent Israeli civillians, they now have justified the killing of innocent Palestinian civillians. Israel, in the past, has killed innocents only when they were in proximity to a terrorist target. They would never stoop to suicide bombers dressed as women at shopping malls, or on buses. The stoppage of funds is warfare by other means, and the Palestinians brought this upon themselves. Imagine if Israel had the moral code of the Palestinians in warfare.

Israel has done more than any democracy could, to live with people who want to wipe them off the face of the Earth. It is no surprise that they have acted unilaterally, seperating themselves from the hostile foreign influences from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and others, on the Palestinian Authority. Mass re-education is what they need over in the P.A, and it might not hurt here in the U.S. either, when it comes to dealing with terrorist governments.

The P.A. must separate from these influences, if it wants to become an indepent nation. The true shame is that the innocents pay the steepest price. That's the problem with terrorism, and those who support it. Have generations of Palestinians on the front line of this jihad helped to destroy Israel? NO! Have generations on the front line of this jihad against Israel helped the Palestinians? NO! Do the surrounding nations that are still "at war" with Israel really give a crap about the Palestinians, beyond "lip service" and rhetoric? NO!

Now that crunch time has come, I hope the Palestinians understand that.


The responsibility we have to the world is the same that we have to our own citizens. We are "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," to quote "honest Abe" Lincoln. Ours is the resposibility to further the ideals and benefits of freedom to our closest allies and worst enemies, and everyone between. The U.S. doesn't seek to bring freedom to the world by force. Like George Washington, we must pick our battles, and lose some, in the overall war for human rights. Our ideals of freedom continue to grow in oppressive countries worldwide, without any military action by us.

The same responsibility is tied to personal freedom. The freedom we enjoy requires people to act responsibly, and further, to combat any criminal behavior they observe, by calling the police or other authorities. This nation is filled with Americans who daily accept the responsibility to make their communities safer. It has ever been so, and will always be. The ones who look away, or blind themselves to evil will always be with us, as will the evildoers themselves. That is the human condition, not unique to the U.S. To love this country less because of the actions of a small percentage of the population, or the even larger percentage who are ambivalent, is ridiculous.

Why must we be responsible for the world's, and our own freedom? Because it's in our own self-interest, at least. One could say it's because of a higher calling from God to do the right thing, but I'll leave that for a theologian to explain elsewhere. History has taught us this much: If not us, then who? Who will stand up to governments that terrorize their own citizens, while threatening their neighbors? Who will call the cops on the drug gangs in their neighborhoods? The answer to both of those questions is the same: the citizens of the United States of America.

This is why free societies; the U.S. and Israel in particular, will never bow to terrorism and totalitarianism, in the grand scheme of things. THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD UNDERSTAND THIS, ESPECIALLY THE PALESTINIANS.

Thursday, May 18, 2006


Crossposted from STOP THE ACLU, written by Kender

Our erstwhile and dearly beloved President Bush, having found one of his
testicles behind the couch, FINALLY gets around to attempting to begin
to consider taking the correct course of action by deploying 6000 National Guard
Troops to aid ICE in securing our Southern Border in Name Only (SBNO) and the
ACLU races with all haste to try to undermine the deployment by whining
incessantly and lying to the American people.

"Oh-ho" you say, along with "Kender? How can you say that the ACLU is
LYING to the goodly citizens of the United States?"

Here's how, and as usual, it is attributable to The Queen of the ACLU, The
Beauty of the Bill of Rights, the Nancy of the Nine Amendments (ask him, there
is no Second Amendment) Anthony Romero:

"Turning immigration enforcement policy into another military
operation is not the answer. The president’s proposed deployment of National
Guard troops violates the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act, which
prohibits the military from getting into the business of civilian law enforcement.

(emphasis mine)
Did you catch that?

I made it real big so you would catch it, but how many of you
actually caught it?

Actually the question should be how many of you even know about it?

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be
lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse
comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and
under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly
authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress;
and no money
appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in
the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person
willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be
punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not
exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Let me repeat that.

except in such cases and under such circumstances as such
employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by
act of Congress;

Got that? Never mind the fact that the since the Posse Comitatus Act is an
AMERICAN LAW it should logically only apply to AMERICAN
But applying our laws to criminal aliens is a fight that
the ACLU has won....for the moment.

But we all know that where the ACLU is concerned logic has nothing to do with

I propose the radical concept that it is SPECIFICALLY the job of the federal
government to secure the border, and if we need National Guard Troops to
accomplish that goal then that is what needs to get done. If these millions of criminal aliens were coming across with guns and in uniform would
the ACLU demand that Bush not send the military to stop the invasion?

I bet they would.

In WW2 the current ACLU would have been suing the government for placing
anti-aircraft guns on the coast (many of those were placed on private property
with the owners blessings) and demanding that blackout rules be abolished
because forcing one to turn out the lights during a possible air raid would put
them in danger of tripping on something in the dark, thereby depriving them of
their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Of course, the ALCU
is more than happy to let someone pursue their personal happiness in the dark,
often times even when it involves children, but that is a rant for another day.

The fact of the matter is that the government has failed us by refusing to
secure the border, and we have been invaded. The ACLU is doing everything in
their power to stop the government from doing ITS' JOB and in the process making us all a little less safe with each and every day that goes

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

Wednesday, May 17, 2006


AMIR TAHERI continues to impress, with a great series of articles regarding Iran. His latest, IRAN'S (COSTLY) WAR ON AMERICA, published in the NY POST, refers thusly to the reports of US "boots on the ground" in Iran:

"As for The New Yorker's report of U.S. Special Forces operating in Iran, it is unlikely that the Islamic Republic has not found any of them after nearly 14 months."

He goes on to deal with those who worry about a war between the US and Iran:

"...the Iran-U.S. war is not going to start in June - because it started on Nov. 4, 1979, when a group of "students" raided the American embassy compound in Tehran and seized its diplomats hostage. By any standards, that was a clear causus belli. It did not lead to a straightforward war because the American side chose not to treat the embassy raid as an act of war."

His main focus, of course, is the cost of the Iranian war on the U.S:

... the policy was not cost free. Washington's refusal to
recognize the Khomeinist regime as a legitimate member of the international
community has cost Tehran dearly. For almost three decades, Iran has been shut
out of the global capital market and prevented from normal access to the fruits
of scientific and technological progress. The Islamic Republic's persistent
economic failure must, at least in part, be imputed to the U.S. boycott.

Today, the Islamic Republic produces something like
3.8 million barrels (of oil) a day - a level Iran had surpassed in 1973.

Iran has become an importer of petroleum products. Because the Islamic
Republic failed to build enough refining capacity, it is now forced to secure
nearly half of the nation's needs in gasoline and special fuels through imports.
So nearly 30 percent of Iran's income from oil exports is spent on imports of
petroleum products.

Iran owns the second-largest deposits of natural gas
in the world, after Russia, almost 20 percent of the global reserves. Yet it is
importing natural gas from Turkmenistan to feed the country's only gas-turbine
power station (at Neka on the Caspian Sea).

He wraps it up with this analysis:

The Islamic Republic has succeeded in securing a foothold in Lebanon,
through the Hezballah, and in the Palestinian territories through Hamas and
Islamic Jihad. It also has allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and among the Shiite
communities in the Gulf. Politically and diplomatically, however, the Islamic
Republic today is more isolated than in 1979.

The United States, on the other hand, has made a spectacular incursion in
what could be regarded as Iran's geopolitical habitat in West and Central Asia,
the Caspian Basin, Transcaucasia and the Middle East. The Americans are now
militarily present in all but two of Iran's 15 neighboring

In a sense, the war that the Islamic Republic says it is waging against the
United States has hurt it more than its designated enemy. The recent rise in
tension has helped put that issue at the center of the debate inside the Islamic
Republic. This is why people like Rafsanjani and Khatami, who once took pride in
describing themselves as "jihadists" against the Americans, are now publicly
critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's more militant anti-Americanism.

In other words, the real problem is an Iranian one, not an Irano-American
one. At some point, the Islamic Republic must decide whether it is in its own
interest to review a policy that has produced nothing but disaster over the last
three decades. Ahmadinejad may well turn out to be the man who pushed such a
review into the agenda of the leadership in Tehran.

Mr. Taheri also has several other recent articles, published elsewhere:

Arab News
May 14, 2006
Jerusalem Post
May 13, 2006
Asharq Alawsat
May 12, 2006


Friday, May 12, 2006


Sen. Pat "leaky" Leahy played fast and loose with the truth on the PBS Newshour show, claiming that the US had a "torture policy" that was found "illegal." If he is referring to "coerced interrogation," I don't know of any court ruling that called it "illegal." Violations of that policy have been prosecuted, however, as in Abu Ghraib. It is important to note that Abu Ghraib was being prosecuted over 3 months before it was broken in the media. The interrogation policy has been modified, but was never found illegal, or called "torture" under the law. Sen. Leahy was spinning BS, and nothing more. This was an "off the cuff" remark, during a segment about the newest NSA "story." Why he linked these two issues is a mystery, unless you hate the Bush administration. Then it all makes sense!

Earlier the same day, I heard Rep. Harold Ford, on Fox News, say that the NSA may be "monitoring" every phone call in the USA, both international and domestic. However, USA Today, who "broke" this four-month old NY Times story, clearly states (In a sidebar on page FIVE) that the NSA is collecting phone numbers into a database, not even the names that these numbers belong to, much less their content. Though John Gibson called him on it more than once, Rep. Ford kept asserting that the NSA "MAY BE" listening to any and all phone calls inside the US, without citing anything other than the USA Today story.


-At least Mr. Gibson's "Big Story" show's next two guests after Rep. Ford both pointed out his misleading statements. On the "Newshour," Sen. Leahy's remark was in the closing seconds of the segment, with no time for Sen. Kit Bond to respond.

PS: I have a future post coming about the Lehrer Newshour's lurch to the left, since the addition of Judy Woofwoof (my affectionate nickname), late of CNN's Inside Politics! Fail upward, Judy! You can be the next Bill Moyers! (No offense, Mr. Lehrer. You're just a damn sight fairer than either Mr. Moyers, or Ms. Woodruff.)


Crossposted at LOVE AMERICA FIRT!

This one was too good not to pass along; excerpted from MEMRI.ORG:

On April 30, 2006, expatriate Iranian satirist Ibrahim Nabavi published an open letter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the on-line daily Rooz ( ). In his piece, Nabavi scorned Ahmadinejad for failing to keep any of his campaign promises and for improper running of the country, and accused him of being the major cause of the deterioration in Iran's international standing.
The following are excerpts from the letter:

"In the six months [since your election], you have changed [Iranian] policy several times, because you didn't write things down. Weren't you supposed to fight the oil mafia? Weren't you supposed to free Iran's economy from the plague of the families [who control] the oil? Weren't you supposed to bring the oil profits to the people? Weren't you supposed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Weren't you supposed to propose a new program for U.N. reform? Weren't you supposed to give wedding loans [to young couples]?"

"If you had a notepad and wrote these things down, the government would have something to do now, and you wouldn't be such a pest about yellowcake and nuclear energy. One might think that the Guardian Council made you president just to produce nuclear energy."

"I fear that just as you forgot last week, due to political Alzheimer's, that during the election [campaign] you promised to bring the oil [profits] to the people and then denied you had said any such thing - that in another three months you will announce that Iran intends to nationalize the state's pistachio [industry], and will completely forget that 'nuclear energy is our inalienable right.' And that in another six months you will announce that we were never meant to enrich uranium, and that uranium enrichment was the policy of [former president] Khatami, aimed at harming the Hidden Imam. [2] Please make a note of this."

"You have already said, several times, that we intend to take the running of the world upon ourselves. Three days ago, you said that with a minor effort and within a short time Iran could become a superpower. Did you mean a real superpower, like China or America? Or, when you said superpower, did you mean great powers like England, France, Germany, or Russia? Or perhaps you meant a superpower like Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Lebanon?"


"My dear friend! I suggest that you devote 10 days of your time to a stay in one of these superpowers, so that you can see what it's like. I suggest that you do this as an ordinary person, not, for example, as a diplomat or a president. Of course, as a very proud Iranian, you certainly must know how Iran can become a superpower."

"This is what must be done":

"A. The superpowers are run by great minds, either because they use their own great minds, or because they bring in other [great] minds. You don't use other minds, and you make thinking minds flee Iran [...] With which minds, then, do you think we can become a superpower?"

"B. We can become a superpower without using our mind by using our work force, like the Chinese. But this is difficult. First of all, the country's population must increase 20-fold (and this alone will take at least 150 years) - alternatively, the country needs to increase its territory five-fold [...] So we need at least another 200 years before we can become a superpower."

"C. Do you think that any country can become a superpower with Ahmadinejad as president? I don't want to judge [on this matter], since [the answer] must be clear to you... "

"I hope that you manage to make Iran a superpower before it is completely destroyed."


Thursday, May 11, 2006


It's been too long since I mentioned the ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND on this page. They continue to take on liberal government supression of religious speech, often butting heads with the ACLU (though not in this case).

From the latest ADL news update:

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Sealing a victory for religious free speech, a federal district court judge issued a declaratory judgment Monday in favor of two preachers muzzled by city officials from speaking in a public park. An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney represents the preachers’ organization of which one of the men, Pastor Jim Grove, is a part.

"Christian speech shouldn’t be treated differently than any other kind of speech," said ADF-allied attorney Leonard Brown of the law firm Clymer & Musser. "This ruling, coming after a jury found two police officers had violated Pastor Grove’s First Amendment rights when they arrested him, clearly shows that other Harrisburg officials violated this basic constitutional guarantee when they had a city police officer stop the two men from speaking near the event."

In 2003, Harrisburg officials restricted the speech of James Grove and Michael Marcavage as they expressed opposition to the "PrideFest" event in Riverfront Park, which celebrates homosexual behavior.

I find it ironic that anti-gay pastors ended up in court to defend their right to speak their religious beliefs. Have the oppressed now become the oppressors (and vice versa?)? I googled some more info about this incident. It seems that Volokh posted about this back in '04, with this interesting excerpt from The Christian Times:

The arresting officer, Stephanie Barrelet, who was filmed on video hugging other lesbian women entering the pride event, jailed Grove, Garisto, and Marcavage for several hours until the PrideFest event was over. Lymon, the first to be arrested, was cited and released.

He continues with excerpts from the Hanover Evening Sun, Jan. 10, 2004; see also York Dispatch, Apr. 5, 2004 (no links provided):

Harrisburg police say the pastors refused to obey their orders to stay more than 50 feet from the park. By lingering in the 50-foot zone and handing out literature, the preachers allegedly blocked traffic on an adjacent street and harassed some of the more than 5,000 people who attended the event.

Grove denies blocking traffic or pedestrians and testified police never warned him about lingering in the street.

Volokh concludes: "Some of the protesters' speech was repulsive ("Besides distributing literature, protestors carried signs such as 'GotAIDS yet?'"), and I'm sure there was other stuff in that same vein. But the speech was nonetheless constitutionally protected."

I don't have to agree with the speech itself, to understand the fundamental right to protest against something one considers offensive. Only when the "protest" speech incites violence or prevents anothers' right to speak is police involvement required to stop the speech. "Blocking pedestrians and traffic" is another type of infraction, which has nothing to do with free speech, and obviously unfounded in this case. This was simply over-zealous policing by a pro-gay officer, backed up by politically-correct city officials, and now the court has said as much.

GREAT JOB, LEONARD BROWN, and the ADF. There are not enough people like you out there, but you are appreciated here at LEAVWORLD.

A reminder to all: If you, your school, or your town are being targeted for your exercise of religious speech, don't get the ADF!

Other ADF news:

9th Circuit tosses out legal challenge to federal DOMA and Calif. marriage laws defended by ADF attorneys

Canadian professor loses bid to muzzle complaint he filed against pastor for “hate speech”

ADF: Lawsuit against UNC Chapel Hill officials on behalf of Christian fraternity prompted change

Linked at STOP THE ACLU Weekend Links, and Gribbit's Word Open TrackBacks 05.13.06


The ACLU is watching a small town in western Pennsylvania because of its curfew law. Each night at 9:45 pm the Trafford fire station blows its alert sirens to alert teens and other children that the curfew is fast approaching. All persons under the age of 18 are to be home by 10:00 pm according to local law. But with the ACLU looking over their shoulder, the town has been reluctant to enforce their law.

This stems from one child. Again it is the needs of the one trumping the needs of the many. Mr. Spock wouldn't agree with this total lack of logic but that is the principle that the ACLU operates under.

Under threat of lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, it appears the borough has backed off its curfew ordinance. Neither Mayor Kevin Karazsia nor solicitor Bill Ferraro would confirm or deny if the long-time curfew ordinance is being enforced — but this much is certain: In December, the ACLU contacted Ferraro after the Toocheck family complained to the organization. Attorney David Millstein, a volunteer at the ACLU who handled the case, said as far as he knows the ordinance is not being enforced. If he learns otherwise, he said, the ACLU will sue. Craig Toocheck contacted the organization after one of his sons was cited a second time under the Trafford curfew ordinance. The first incident occurred last summer when the boy, then 15, walked to the 7-11 without his parents' permission around midnight. Craig Toocheck was asleep in bed when a police officer brought his son to the door. Surprised that his son had gone in search of a Slurpee without informing him, Toocheck agreed to pay the $73 fine and grounded his son — an active Boy Scout who posted a 4.11 grade point average on his last Penn-Trafford report card — for two weeks. The second incident occurred last August when the boy was watching a pre-season Steelers game at a friend's house. At half-time — and with his parents permission — he left to walk home. The time was 10 minutes after curfew. Craig Toocheck said his son was a half block from his home on Edgewood Avenue when he was picked up by police. A week later, a fine for $98 was in the Toocheck mailbox. Millstein called the fine and the curfew ridiculous. “The whole thing was unconstitutional,” he said. “There's no question about it.” The curfew violates one of the rights in the First Amendment — the freedom of assembly, Millstein said. “To impose a curfew on a person just because they're a juvenile... It's just not constitutional.” Toocheck said the curfew also violates the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments — which protect against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and includes the right to travel. SOURCE

Ok, let me get this straight, the ACLU is claiming that a reasonable curfew of 10:00 pm for what we can all agree are minor children violates the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments? How absurd. Next you will be telling me that a 9 year old has the right to buy a semi-automatic handgun provided they are willing to wait the required waiting period. I won't hold my breath on that one but it falls in line with the same logic.

Here are the facts folks:

Children under the age of 18 are just that - CHILDREN. And are subject to the regulations that the home and society puts on them.

Persons under the age of 18 (CHILDREN) cannot legally marry without consent.

Children cannot own guns, securities, land, vote, and are not subject to taxation all because of their age.

At which point do we throw caution to the wind and teach youngsters the meaning of law and order? If children are subjected to the same freedoms that adults enjoy, then why is it that no one is standing in line to represent children who are forced to live under their parents' regulations as false imprisonment? After all, a responsible parent would restrict where and when a child can travel outside of the home, right?

If you leave children alone for any amount of time, their inner demons will get the better of them and trouble usually follows. As someone who lives with 2 teenage boys I can tell you, that if left to their devices there would be holes in the walls, broken fixtures, parties 24/7 where all kinds of unspeakable activities would be occuring, and that is just the tip of the iceburg. Teenage children often times need to be restricted more than younger children.

The ACLU will stop at nothing to remove all barriers to free will in order to create chaos. Once that is achieved they will swoop in utilizing their dupes in black vestments to create laws restricting all liberties to restore order and a Communist state will be born.

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one. In this case the needs of Trafford to be safe and secure in their community without an unchecked unregulated youth population roaming the streets causing trouble at all times of the night out weight any presumption that a minor child has to Constitutional rights to travel. And if I remember right, there is no such right in the 4th, 5th, 9th, or 14th Amendments.

The ACLU needs to allow local governments decide what is best for the citizens of their locality. The beautiful thing about a representative democracy, if you don't like the decisions being made on your behalf, you can vote the decision maker out of office. Hence the terms government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

FROM LEAV: The major problem here is the adults permitting their kids to flaunt the law. His kid may not be a problem, but what of all the bad kids, whose parents don't care what they're doing? The law was enacted for a reason. If he doesn't like the curfew, change the politicians who enacted it, or petition the current officials with a better idea, maybe a volunteer neighborhood watch. Not likely. This guy wouldn't even get up at halftime to drive his kid home after curfew! He'd rather call the damn ACLU!

Sign the Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU.

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 200 blogs already on-board

Saturday, May 06, 2006


The "signs" all say that '06 will cause a shift leftward in Congress, perhaps giving majorities to Dems in either the House or Senate. This is the "conventional wisdom," a term coined by the late John Kenneth Galbraith. What other signs are out there? The Black political community is being courted by Republicans, who point to 40 years of failed Democrat policies, at the same time that Dems are courting the expansion of the Latino vote, by citing illegal immigrants as the new "civil rights" beneficiaries.

There is also the "culture of corruption" issue, which is older than I am (by far, I must add). This turned out to be a booby-trap for the Dems to wade into, by going after Tom DeLay. Now several Dems are caught in their own webs of corruption, and it seems to be a wash at this point. Before the elections, public opinion may even be against the Dems on this issue. More shoes to drop here, on both sides, is my sense.

Hat tip to Cindy Adams, the famous gossip from the NY POST, who predicted about a dozen congressman to be indicted. When "Mother" says something about politics, it's virtually a lock. Since then, that San Diego republican has gone to jail, and a New Orleans Democrat is next on the frying pan. She's like an oracle, at least when she talks about politics. I read her for the gossip, though.

The media will be very influential in the '06 elections. More people are watching FOX NEWS, and other news outlets that tell both sides, than ever in the era of TV. The liberal lock on the media is broken. The "old" media monopoly is not dead yet, but it may have the opposite effect than it had in it's heyday. "Media bias" has become a topic in the popular cultural debate, even for those who don't understand it (hello, Hollywood!). All of the signs in this area show that while people still watch the MSM, they mistrust it more than ever. Over the top liberal media support may hurt the Dems this year.

Then there's the immigration issue, mentioned above. This one is like a tidal wave, and I'll compare the Republicans to the ships in two movies: "The Posiedon Adventure," and "Krakatoa: East of Java." In "Posiedon," which has a remake coming out this week, the ship takes the wave on the side, and rolls over. This is what will happen if the Republicans avoid decisive action on this issue. I also blame Pres. Bush for not leading in the right direction on this issue.

In "Krakatoa," the ship turns into the huge tidal wave released by the titular volcano's eruption, and survives intact. This would symbolize a better course of action by the Republicans (especially with Hillary on record in support of a wall). The looming threat is of losing the Latino Republican vote. This ties in with the courting of Latinos by Dems mentioned above. Regardless of what they do, Republicans will be painted as anti-immigrant racists. The best course is to take the issue head-on, and do what's right. Latino voters will respond positively, and the Republicans will survive intact.

The Latinos that spout this "pro-illegal" rhetoric are usually lefties themselves. Note that Latinos have just surpassed Blacks as the largest minority population in the U.S. It must be unusually bracing for the Black left-wingers to be cuckolded this way in their own party. Because this story is about internal Democrat racial politics, it's not covered in the MSM. However, it will have an impact on this election, with Blacks voting for Republicans that take a hard line on illegal immigration.

The ACLU's influence is becoming a mainstream issue, which may factor in this election cycle as well. STOP THE ACLU is a grassroots organization, which publicizes the egregious positions of this extreme liberal organization. They are one of a number of groups that are fighting this battle in the public square. The ACLU mainly works through the Judicial branch, but legislative action to restrain the judicial branch is becoming more accepted as a remedy. Electing Conservative Republicans is the sane answer to the pernicious influence of the ACLU, to the average voter.

The anti-ACLU backlash applies to a host of issues, not least of which is protecting children, something the liberals used to their advantage in the '90's. This issue has turned around 180 degrees. Liberals are now on the forefront of defending child-predators, led by the ACLU and selected liberal judges. Another big issue that the ACLU is hurting Dems on is their opposition to every US policy/program to fight Al Queda and other terrorist groups. Sens. Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin and others may not realize it, but their words are obviously taken from the ACLU's rhetoric, and widely played in the Middle East. In other words, they smear America to the world, then complain about our bad reputation, blaming it on Pres. Bush, and Republicans.

U.S. citizens, average Janes and Joes everywhere, are waking up to this sick reality. When the polls say that whatever percentage of the country thinks we're going in the "wrong" direction, more than half of that number still thinks we're going in a leftward direction, even under total Republican political control (LEAVFACT, NOT BASED ON ANY EMPIRICAL DATA, or "I'll bet!"). The greatest thing about our system is also the most frustrating; that whoever is out of power still gets a say, small or more often larger than they deserve, in our government. STOP THE ACLU intends to make the ACLU's influence as small as possible. There is a real need for that goal to be attained, with so many liberal Republicans running around unopposed.

Iraq doesn't seem to hang around the Republicans' neck like a noose, as much as it did a few months ago. Casualties are down from their (historically low) highs of over 100 a month. This sounds morbid, but it has taken Iraq off the table in the political debate, to a degree. Look for an upsurge in attacks on US forces leading up to the Nov. US elections, which will help Democrats. Also look for Zarqawi to be caught before then, which will help the Republicans, if it should happen. If neither happens, status quo favors political progress in Iraq, which benefits Republicans.

This is a little GRAFFITI POLITTI, with many subjects left uncovered. Social Security reform; educational bias and (public) wastefulness; health care and the fraud associated with it. Gas prices, which don't affect me directly, as a bicycle guy (though oil prices affect my rent, and gas prices affect other prices I pay); international relations; Israel and Palestine (It's gonna be a country soon, even though it shouldn't be, under any sane notion of a country); Africa; China; Russia's regression from, and Belarus' resistance to progress against totalitarian corruption are among these subjects.

All of these are on LEAVWORLD'S radar, but not mentioned as often as I'd like. That's why I put out a rant like this one every once in a while; just for my own sanity. I have to say what I'm thinking, and not worry about being embarassed until later! LOL! -Just kidding, these are all serious issues, and I hope my words provoke some serious thought about them before the '06 elections!


PS: The Mexican illegal lobby thought they could do what the French Muslims and others groups have done, which was to affect French government policy in their favor through street "protests". The result in the USA will be the opposite.

Friday, May 05, 2006


My old freind and former Freeport HS classmate Keith Young, author of Cooking With The Firehouse Chef, will be appearing with Food Network star chef Giada DeLaurentis on the Today show next Wednesday. It will be his second appearance there, the first time being right after his book was released last year. I can't say enough good things about Keith. FDNY firefighter, a great cook, and all-around nice guy. I've personally enjoyed his cooking, and encourage all to get his book, as well as watch him on the show Wed. Ms. DeLaurentis is the host of the Food Network's Everyday Italian show. As the email I received from his unofficial publicist, Christine G. (LOL!-just kidding, Chris!) says:

"She's probably 1/3 the size of Keith so the visual itself should be interesting. Then mix in Keith's sense of humor and you know the banter will be flying. Should be an entertaining segment!
Watch the show and cheer on our hometown boy!!"


Thursday, May 04, 2006


I found these two posts at RealClearPolitics, regarding the blockbuster Shelby Steele OpinionJournal piece. The first, from Brian Goettl at the Conservative Edge, makes a few interesting points, but fails to see how they actually fit in to Steele's theory. The second, from James Biga at, is very close to my take on the Steele column, echoing points I've made in comments on a controversial earlier post. (Hat tip to RUSH, of course.)



(PS: Jay from STOP THE ACLU has a post at RealClear as well, regarding protesting at soldiers' funerals. The ACLU is defending this vile practice, which means it's STOP THE ACLU's job to publicize it. I voted for it, Jay!)


Crossposted from STOP THE ACLU


Ruling on a 15-year-old ACLU case, a federal judge today ordered the
city of San Diego to remove a mountain-top cross within 90 days or face a fine
of $5,000 a day.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson said, "It is now time, and perhaps long
overdue, for this court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding
the presence of the Mount Soledad cross on city property," the San Diego
Union-Tribune reported.

Thompson ruled in 1991 the Mount Soledad cross violates the so-called
"separation of church and state" but the case has remained in courts and become
an issue of public policy for more than a decade.

ACLU lawyer James McElroy believes San Diego officials finally will give up
their fight.

"I don't think the city has its heart in taking more action," he said, according
to the paper.

A city lawyer argued during the hour-long court hearing today that citizens had
voted for transfer of the land under the cross.

Proposition A, passed by 75 percent in July, called for the city to donate the
cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of a veterans memorial.

The ballot initiative came about after the city refused to donate the cross and
memorial to the federal government. A group called San Diegans for the Mount
Soledad National War Memorial took just 23 days to gather 105,000 signatures.

In a ruling now on appeal, however, a Superior Court judge found the transfer

The Union-Tribune said the group behind the public vote on transfer likely will
appeal Thompson's decision.

The 29-foot cross has stood on Mount Soledad as the center of a war memorial on
city land since 1954. The first cross on the site was built in 1913.

A bill authorizing the federal government to take over the memorial was authored
by Republican U.S. Reps. Duncan Hunter and Randy Cunningham. President Bush
signed the bill into law in December.

The ACLU are constantly seeking to censor America's history. In my interview with former ACLU lawyer, Rees
Lloyd, it was described to me with clarity.

Lloyd said:
The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American
religious secularism.”
“The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just
a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history.
The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian

Or, as Alan Sears says: The ACLU is America's number one religious

The ACLU and the judicial activists are destroying our heritage, and they are
doing it with our tax dollars. Join us, and the American Legion to urge Congress to put a
stop to this. Support Congressman Hostettler's
legislation to stop taxpayer funding of the ACLU.

the Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU.

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 200 blogs already on-board

Tuesday, May 02, 2006


So, Kofi gives a big UN appointment to Achim Steiner, the man that just granted him a half-million dollar prize. Big surprise; Mr. Steiner’s name had been added to the list of candidates for the top job at the U.N. environmental unit after the $500,000 Dubai prize was awarded to Mr. Annan.



From Human Events (again-great stuff! Full story linked in title) :

In spite of the pleas by Mayor Villaraigosa and Cardinal Mahony, the Democrat leaders of the California State Assembly have decided to call their own boycott for May 1, canceling legislative session that day in deference to the protests. But, showing that their commitment only goes so far, they declared Monday a "check-in" day so as not to forfeit their $459 tax-free per diem for the weekend and Monday. A true legislative walkout would have led to lawmakers losing per diem pay for Saturday and Sunday, as well as Monday since spending more than three consecutive days away from the Capitol triggers a halt in the highly-prized extra pay.

The legislative protest by the Democrats caught Republican Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy’s attention. Mountjoy remarked at the close of Thursday’s session that he had spoken to former members of the legislature who where willing to come to work on Monday for half price. The only issue was that they were, "undocumented by the Secretary of State." Does that mean that "undocumented" lawmakers are willing to do the work that American lawmakers aren’t willing to do?



I found this Human Events piece by Mac Johnson to be exactly the antidote to O'Reilly's rantings about gas prices. Bill actually had him on the Factor, as well. Mr. Johnson's site links to the video, as well as a John Gibson radio interview about the O'Reilly column. I don't disagree with Mr. O. too often, but his whole gas price argument is seriously flawed, as Mr. Johnson proves in this hilarious analysis.