LEAVWORLD: GRAFFITI POLITTI

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU: In case you haven't heard, a group of dissenters from the ACLU are rebelling and calling for a change in the current leadership of the main organization. The summary of things this new group is fed up with is hypocrisy and the ACLU is full of it. Purging the ACLU of its hypocrisy is bound to be a goliath task. Where do we even begin with the ACLU's hypocrisy? How about its odd stance on the Second Amendment? They have decided that the term "the people" that is contained in the Second Amendment does not apply to "the people" as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. They defend even the most radical in free speech for individuals, but somehow have adopted the opposite position on the Second Amendment. Surely it couldn't be that the Second Amendment doesn't fall within the boundaries of their liberal agenda! Could it? In August of 2005 the New York ACLU sued against random bag searches on t...

Hugo Chavez overshadowed his freind Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at the UN, when it came to bashing Pres. Bush. However, Mahmoud did pray for the return of the Twelfth, or "hidden" Imam's return, at the end of his speech. This got thunderous applause from the assembly. Do they realize what they were applauding? Let's say that Pres. Bush had finished his speech with "We await the return of Jesus Christ, who will unite the world under God." He would be labeled a madman; a fundamentalist; a zealot, and much worse. The basic understanding is that Jesus' return signals the coming of Armageddon, which is feared by many people, for some reason. The return of the "hidden" Imam is has similar meaning to Shiites. Hugo made the sign of the cross as he said that "the devil came here, right here" the day before. He said he could still smell the sulfur. Now, Pres. Bush didn't mention God, Jesus, or the devil at all in his speech. However, isn't the ...

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU Via The ACLU Website: The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its disappointment with the House passage of a bill placing undue and unnecessary burdens on Americans’ fundamental right to vote. H.R. 4844, the "Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006," requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote in federal elections. In addition, beginning in 2010 voters would be required to present a photo ID that was issued based on proof of citizenship in order to vote. The measure passed by a vote of 228-196. The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office: "Less than two months after the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, the House of Representatives has chosen to pass legislation disenfranchising the very citizens the VRA was designed to protect. No eligible citizen should have to pay to vote. There are voters who simply don’t have photo ID and requiring th...

Poor Ned Lamont. He condemned Sen. Lieberman for condemning Pres. Clinton in 1998, according to the NY TIMES (see link): "You don't go to the floor of the Senate and turn this into a media spectacle," Mr. Lamont said of Mr. Lieberman's remarks eight years ago this month. "You go up there, you sit down with one of your oldest friends and say, 'You're embarrassing yourself, you're embarrassing your presidency, you're embarrassing your family, and it's got to stop.' " he said. That was last week. However, back in 1998, Mr. Lamont emailed Sen. Joe these tidbits : "I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end," and "We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe should be censured for lying -- and let's move on..." Hey, isn't 1998 around the t...

Crossposted from STOP The ACLU : Via ACLU Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism. "We are pleased the court recognized that attorneys should not be forced to sign these ineffective and offensive pledges," said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link. "The Ohio Patriot Act is an assault on the fundamental liberties of all Ohioans. Hopefully, this decision is a stepping stone to reining in this overreaching and flawed law." I have only one question here. Why does the ACLU of Ohio have a problem giving an oath that they are not terrorists and are not involved with terrorist groups? What the law...

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU It isn't suprising that the ACLU were quick to react to Bush's jaw dropping speech admitting to secret CIA prisons and pushing Congress to pass legislation that would put captured terror supspects under the rule of a military tribunal. Via ACLU: America is a nation dedicated to upholding the rule of law. However, President Bush’s draft proposal for military commissions fails to meet the standards recognized by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The court held the President’s initial military commission scheme was illegal because it violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the most basic standards regarding treatment of detainees. The new proposal has nearly all of the same problems, and will eventually be found to be illegal. For example, it would allow a person to be convicted based on secret evidence and would allow the use of evidence obtained as the result of horrific abuse. Of course the ACLU automatically accuse the U.S. o...