Thursday, September 28, 2006


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 the NY Subway. Ironically the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

The ACLU have fought tooth and nail against the Bush administration's NSA program, a program designed to track international phone calls being made to or from suspected terrorist organizations. They have hailed themselves defenders of the right to privacy and labelled the program an illegal "secret" program of "domestic spying". All the while the ACLU has its own "secret " program of domestic spying of its own members and their personal financial information. This program has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with the real bottom line of fundraising. Former ACLU board member Michael Myers was shocked at this discovery.

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.

The group's new data collection practices were implemented without the board's approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU's privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group's Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group's Web site was changed. "They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy," Meyers said. "In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret."

After spending 23 years on the ACLU board, the "defenders of free speech" issued gag orders to him, not to speak about the issue. Now thats free speech for you.

When it comes to free speech the ACLU claim to be its most steadfast defender. Now, I am not an absolutist on unlimited free speech. However, most people would think that an organization arguing for hate cults to protest with "God Hates Fags" signs at military funerals, neo nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods, and that child porn distribution is protected by the First Amendment are about as absolutist as it gets. Not so!

When it comes to pro-life protesters the ACLU could care less about their free speech rights. As a matter of fact they actively fight against pro-life protesters' free speech and have even tried RICO lawsuits on them. It is scary to see just how far the ACLU will go for its unrestricted abortion agenda. Free speech definitely takes a backseat to their pro-abortion agenda. They have even listed it as their number one priority pushing the defense of the First Amendment, the alleged heart and soul of the ACLU's mission, down to third on the list, after civil rights.

But don't just take my word for it, listen to the words of a former Execuitve Director:

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.

But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU's press release: "We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion."

Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.

The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled "The Nuremberg Files," after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called "baby butchers." ...

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending "robust freedom of speech" in the ACLU's book, but defending people's right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list.

But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America's religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be errected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can't convince the Senate to pass this as well.

But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU's disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members.

Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous.

"For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can't think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists."

After a huge controversy, media coverage, and public concern of the NY Attorney General's office the ACLU dropped the proposal. Instead they switched to more effective measures of replacing or voting out the members that were not in line with their agenda.

When it comes to principles the ACLU has none other than lining their pocketbooks and furthering their own liberal agenda. As I said at the beggining of the article, cleansing the ACLU of hypocrisy will be a mammoth task. I don't think its possible. I'm more hopeful that their own greed and corruption will eat them from the inside. I think we are beggining to see the cracks and hopefully enough light will shine through them to wake people up to the truth.

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

Thursday, September 21, 2006


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 devil supposed to pose as an an agent of God? Who did that very thing, in that very place, the day before? Why, his good freind Ahmedinejad!

Whether you believe in Jesus, or the "Twelfth Imam," or don't believe in God at all, there is a simpler way to look at this. Ahmedinejad was condemning anyone who doesn't believe in his faith, and Chavez "demonized" Pres. Bush, who only called for freedom of speech, religion, and an end to terrorism and oppression over these issues. Who smells like sulphur here, Hugo?

PS: ABC NEWS is comparing Chavez' speech to Castro calling then-candidate JFK an "illiterate and ignorant millionaire." It does have a familiar ring to some of the epithets that have been hurled at our president, but it pales in comparison to this demonic duo.

Trackbacked at STOP The ACLU's Friday Free For All ; also check out And The Billy Carter Award Goes To...TWO BIRDBRAINS FROM VENEZUELA from Sweet Spirits of Ammonia

ACLU Condemns Voter Integrity Act

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 them to purchase one in order to vote would be tantamount to a poll
tax. This measure will disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minority
voters, senior citizens, voters with disabilities, and others who do not have
photo identification nor the financial means to acquire it."

What a load of crap! This ridiculous "poll tax" meme is quickly making its
rounds. Nancy Pelosi has taken the ball with this one and ran with
it headlining with the alarmist title, "Voter ID Bill Is an Attempt to
Suppress the Votes of Millions of American Citizens!

Give me a break! You have got to be kidding! Perhaps they are worried this act
will supress "millions" of illegals and dead people from voting! An I.D. is
required in many of the most basic things in America such as driving a car or even
cashing a check. Please, tell me how all of these poor people that can not
afford to get an I.D. cash their welfare checks?

Rep. Henry Hyde makes the same point.

But Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who sponsored the Federal Election
Integrity Act, says requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls "presents no
greater hardship than people face performing everyday activities."

For example, Hyde noted that government-issued photo IDs are required for
driving vehicles, applying for Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, food
stamps, boarding airplanes, entering government buildings, registering at
school, getting student loans, renting movies, and cashing checks.

Given all the cases in which U.S. citizens are asked to produce photo IDs, it
should not be difficult to produce IDs to guard against fraud in the electoral system, Hyde said.

It really isn't surprising that the ACLU would be against making our democratic
process have more integrity. After all, they know which side butters their
bread. They even keep a scorecard on Congress.

The ACLU are involved across the country fighting voter I.D. laws. In Missouri
at least 16 St. Louis area Democrats have been found guilty of election
crimes in the last year and a half! When Republican Gov. Matt Blunt signed a
law requiring voters to provide I.D. the ACLU had to come up with a different
argument than the poll tax crap. Even though Missouri the Missouri law provided
for free photo IDs that voters could obtain before election day
the ACLU represented a group of Democrats to challenge the
law by arguing for a loophole they found stating the law violated a state
constitutional provision against imposing costs on local governments without
providing state funding. So much for the poll tax argument or putting an undue
burden on the poor.

As a matter of fact as Digger's Realm points out:

Those against it are claiming it's a poll tax on the poor,
minorities and elderly and that they can't afford to get a drivers license or
passport. They fail to mention that the bill includes a portion to pay for free
for the poor who can't afford a photo ID.

People can see for themselves. The full text of the bill is here.

ACLU were also involved
in the recent case
against a similar bill in Georgia
that was struck down. It also provided free I.D.s. They also fought voter ID
laws in New Mexico, Michigan, and Indiana. The ACLU has clearly shown its true colors in
support of voter fraud. The only possible reason I can realistically see why
someone would be against this bill is if they actually desire for voter fraud to continue. Once again the ACLU has shown
just how transparent their lie of non-partisanship is. It is clear what the ACLU and
democrats want. They want rights for illegal aliens, dead people, and felons to vote early and often.

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

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

LAMONT'S LAMENT: Another Liberal Flip-Flop Tale...

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.
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

Hey, isn't 1998 around the time MoveOn was founded? Let's see what happens in the general election, but I don't see a bright political future for Mr. Lamont, or any candidate supported by MoveOn.

PS: I know this is a little behind the curve, so to speak. I wrote this 5 days ago, but just posted it here.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

ACLU Claims Victory: Attorneys Not Required to Sign Terrorism Oaths

Crossposted from STOP The 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 is attempting to do is ensure people have not supported terrorist organizations.

The law requires applicants under final consideration for a government job, contract or license to complete and sign questionnaires to determine if they have supported organizations on a federal list of terrorists.

Actually this isn't suprising.

In October of 2004, the ACLU They got the provision scrapped after a long and vigorous fight, then accepted the funds.

The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations today said they have successfully challenged Office of Personnel Management's Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) requirements that all participating charities check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for "terrorist activities" and that organizations certify that they do not contribute funds to organizations on those lists.

So what was it in this that the ACLU objected to? Here's what the CFC letter said.

"I certify that as of (date), the organization in this application does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on the following terrorist related lists promulgated by the U.S. Government, the United Nations, or the European Union. Presently these lists include the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Nationals List, the Department of Justice's Terrorist Exclusion List, and the list annexed to Executive Order 13224. Should any change of circumstances occur during the year OPM will be notified within 15 days of such change."

Obviously the ACLU had a problem ensuring the exlusion of terrorists from its funds and employment. What a shame.

It isn't difficult to understand why the ACLU would object to such terms, after all they have defended numerous terrorists, including an individual that participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. With the help of CAIR, they also defended an admitted agent of Al Qaeda that has confessed to attending jihad camps in Afghanistan, and is being charged with lying to the FBI about his terror ties and activities. Palestinian terrorists have also found a friend in the ACLU.

I don't see what the problem is. The State doesn't want its money going to individuals that might support terror. What problem does the ACLU have with not supporting terror? Why don't they just come out and say that they do support it? What is absurd is that no one is investigating the ACLU for terror ties. Start out with one or two of its employees, and go from there.

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

Thursday, September 07, 2006

ACLU Accuses Bush Of Gutting Geneva Conventions Enforcement and Undermining Due Process For Terror Detainees

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.


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

Of course the ACLU automatically accuse the U.S. of using horrific abuse to
obtain our evidence without any evidence whatsoever to back that claim up. You
can also bet that if one of their terrorist plaintiffs were to go before our
court system they would make the claim that any evidence we have against them
was obtained through such procedures and argue it was inadmissable. This is
only one of hundreds of reasons that Congress needs to pass the legislation the
President is requesting so these terrorist creeps, several of which are in the
top Al Qaeda chain of command, need to go before a military tribunal. They are
not American citizens and we can not afford the dangers involved in allowing them to be represented before the U.S. courts, in all probabilitily represented by the ACLU.

"The president should have listened to the current Judge Advocates
General for the four military services, all of whom have urged close adherence
to the court-martial procedures, and all of whom oppose the use of secret
evidence and coerced evidence. By contrast, Senators John Warner (R-VA), John
McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are reportedly following the advice of
these top generals and admirals and supporting due process protections that are
more in line with the time-tested courts-martial procedures.

"The president also proposes to gut enforceability of the Geneva Conventions by
amending the War Crimes Act to completely immunize from prosecution civilians
who subjected persons to horrific abuse that may have fallen short of the
definition of ‘torture.’ As a result, government officials and civilian
contractors who authorized or carried out waterboarding, threats of death, and
other abuse would get a ‘get out of jail free’ card under the president’s bill.
The nation’s soldiers and sailors would remain liable under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, but civilians would be immune from prosecution under the only
statute that applies to many of these acts. That is simply wrong.

No, what is "simply wrong" is that cowards committed to terrorism and jihad
against America that do are not signatories of nor abide by the Geneva
Conventions should be afforded the protections of it. The sickening fact that
the ACLU would steep low enough to represent an enemy of our nation to sue a
military member for doing their job in capturing and interrogating these
killers. This is exactly what the President is asking Congress to keep from
happening. The President is asking Congress to make it clear what our
protectors can and can not do and to protect them from prosecution of being sued
by the very scumbuckets they protect us from.

"The new Army Field Manual avoids some of the worst problems with earlier drafts and clarifies that those held by the military or at military facilities must be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, it then creates loopholes for so-called ‘unlawful combatants’ by depriving them of the same protections--and specifically authorizes holding persons in isolation. And, the new manual does not apply to those held by the CIA. The Bush proposal is lip service unless the executive
branch actually holds people accountable for violating it.

"So called" unlawful combatants? If you are not abiding by the rules of being a
lawful combatant then you aren't one. It is that simple. The ACLU are the ones
looking for loopholes in the system, and the very reason they are so up and
arms on this is that it closes them up. What the President is asking is for
Congress to make the definitions clear. In the Hamdan case, which the ACLU played a major part in, the door was left wide open for
Congress to clarify and create legislation making military tribunals the main
process for due process dealing with terrorists caught on the battle field.
What does the ACLU have against bringing these murderers to justice?

The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They
defended the P.L.O.
in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980's. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.

In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding
from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller
foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions
make it unable to accept their funds.

“The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any
activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any

The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may
not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations
or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.”

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 tried to kill the Patriot Act because they see
the rights of an individual who may or may not be an American citizen as more
important than the safety of the nation at large. They want the borders open because they see that as an infringement of the rights of non-Americans to become Americans however they can manage it. They want to have military and intelligence sources, activities, and planning
revealed to the public so they can "watch dog" and ensure freedoms of
individuals and/or groups are not being compromised, but in doing so will enable
those very individuals and/or groups under surveillance the ability to avoid
surveillance and possible capture before they do something destructive to
American citizens.

When it comes to America's enemies you can count on the ACLU to be there to defend them.

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