This is a post at STACLU, Jay asked us to cross post it. Why, I’m not exactly sure….because he’s asking for feedback - which you should give on his post here at STACLU.

Original email I (Jay) received:

Dear Jay
I probably have some agreement with you that the ACLU takes seperation of church and state way too far.I don’t see that a prayer at a graduation is any violation of a so-called seperation of church and state.

Jay my problem arises when we look at some of the ultra conservative ideas to expand we have seen lately from the Bush Administration when it comes to shredding our Fourth Amendment and on those issues I’m thankful for the ACLU.In addition with our economy going into a tailspin in part because of the supply-side economics and sillly idea that the markets can regulate themselves of BUsh and MCCain.

What I”m trying to say Jay is that the GOP and far right wing pro corporate agenda of the right is almost as sickening as some on the hyper secular left that you talk about.Look we are in a mess Jay, and its not democrats its the 6 years of GOP policy from 2000-2006 so when you combine your rehetoric against the ACLU with rhetoric attacking Obama and complimenting Bush and McCain you have destroy your credibility.

TThere are many on the left who are not part of the secular left and would have some agreement with you but any effort to join the GOP team and group together absolutely destroys your credibility and doesn’t help our cause to fight for more relisgous liberties and unlike you something i cherish “civil liberties.Travis

My (Jay’s) response:

I’m gonna guess that you are a conservative leaning libertarian. I could be wrong, with the way you talk about the “right wing” though. However, I proudly call myself a conservative, and embarrassingly call myself a Republican. It isn’t about party.

I don’t disagree with everything the ACLU does. I just think they are a fraud and dangerously misguided far to the left. I believe in civil liberties. I just think the ACLU take those liberties too far, to a dangerous level. Their advocacy of having child molesters live across the street from playgrounds and elementary schools is too far for me. Their advocacy that looking at child porn should be freedom of speech is too far. Their hypocrisy in fighting against listening in to phone calls to known terrorist over privacy issues while keeping a database of their member’s personal financial history is too far. Their attacks on free speech for Christians are too far, and on top of that hypocrisy they have restricted their own board member’s speech.

I don’t want to stop the defending of the bill of rights. I want to stop the perversion of the Constitution.

I also want to stop taxpayer funding paying the ACLU’s cases they convince left wing judges of, that the majority of American taxpayers don’t agree with.

I’m tired of these legal groups destroying the foundation of our Constitution. If homosexuals want equal rights, then convince enough people to amend the Constitution like they did for abolishing slavery. They only hurt their cause when they convince judges to push it on a population not ready to accept it.

Then they only get reactions from politicians ready to represent the will of the people who put Constitutional amendments to ban such things before the people. The people react, just as you would expect, and it makes everything that much harder. They hurt their own cause by going the route of the judiciary.

The ACLU is a partisan organization that should not receive any tax exemption as they do. They separate their organization into two so they can lobby and play the courts. They are evil.

Should I have said more? I’ll update this post if and when I get a response. In the meantime, chime in with your responses.

Its become a popular yearly tradition now to send the Anti-Christian Liars Union grinches a Christmas card. I personally think its ineffective, and that the money you waste on a stamp for the organization to toss in the shredder would be better served towards a good cause. So, I encourage you to save that money, dig a little deeper, and contribute to an organization that fights the ACLU and defends Christmas.

The Alliance Defense Fund, and the ACLJ are both great organizations that defend Christmas each year. The Alliance Defense Fund does it for free. Why not help groups like that out this year?

However, from experience last year…I know that many will insist on sending the ACLU a Christmas card. Afterall, it is tradition. If that is how you want to make your message…we have some great greeting cards and postcards available at our online store. Plenty of other great Christmas gifts too.
Send your Christmas card to the ACLU at:

ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York , NY 10004

From Jay.

It was a short-lived love affair between me and Mike Huckabee. After one of my heroes and fellow Christians, Chuck Norris endorsed him for President, and seeing that he supports the Fairtax, I thought I’ll have to take a closer look. Well this slams that door shut.

Bryan Preston has a must read on Huckabee. Via Washington Post

After the Iowa poll showed that Republican voters like him but found him much less “presidential” and “electable” than Romney, Huckabee sought to build his foreign policy credentials, meeting with a group of retired generals who are in Des Moines to urge the 2008 candidates to commit to opposing torture. After the meeting, Huckabee joined Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in declaring his opposition to the interrogation procedure known as “waterboarding,” and said he would support closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a contrast with the other leading Republicans.

MIKE HUCKABEE: I’ve been to Guantanamo, I was there, I guess it’s been about a year and a half ago. I think the problem with Guantanamo is not in that its facilities are inadequate. It’s the symbol that it represents. It’s clearly become a symbol to the rest of the world as a place that has become problematic for us as a nation. I was quite frankly impressed with the quality of the facilities and even the attention to care that was given to the detainees, but that aside, it doesn’t alter that Guantanamo to the rest of the world is a symbol that is not in our best interests to continue pursuing.

Thought I have been critically observing Huckabee as his popularity rose, and found him lacking in many conservative areas, I was seriously considering giving him the benefit of the doubt on much of it. I was thinking that if it came to it I could pull the lever for him. Considering my own opinions on the war on terror and how it should be fought being the number one issue in my considerations, I will find that more difficult to do now.

Bryan Preston:

Ok, so now we know he wants to put the detainees at Leavenworth. If SCOTUS doesn’t grant them habeus corpus, that move is likely to as the nearest federal judge will have the ACLU camped out in his inbox. What then? And what happens when the Gitmo critics just move on to start criticizing us for holding the detainees at Leavenworth? The end result of Huckabee’s stance will be to grant the detainees full rights in US civilian courts, either that or freeing them, since he won’t take the stand that our detaining them at Gitmo is both lawful and humane and has established the precedent that he’ll retreat in the face of unfair and unreasonable criticism of the US.

Sorry, Governor, no sale here.

Ameripundit:

With any luck, this will be the end of Huck’s presidential chances.

Slublog:

Guantanamo is not a “symbol.” It’s a facility (and a relatively nice one, as far as detention centers go) where we keep people who have pledged to do us harm. If we close the facility and let these people go, some will keep their promises.

Flopping Aces:

He’s soft on immigration, soft on taxes, and apparently soft on our national security. How in the world is this guy rising in the polls?

Oh, and Gitmo has come to symoblize what’s gone wrong with the war on terror? Puhlease. If anything its come to symbolize that we treat those who should be shot better then how we treat our own criminals.

Paul at Powerline:

My main objection to Huckabee — the reason why he’s my fifth choice out of five — is that I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism. It’s not just that he lacks experience in this realm, though that’s certainly the case. The real problem is that he’s too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral). My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because “we broke it.” Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state. Huckabee’s exaltation of moralism (in this case dubious) over policy calculation was difficult to miss.

Now we learn (but are surprised) that Huckabee opposes waterboarding and would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Huckabee reached this conclusion after meeting with a group of retired generals (the usual suspects, I assume) who are lobbying candidates to oppose Bush administration interrogation and detention policies.

Ace:

Huckabee is a smooth talker and charismatic. But I’d like to know why the Republican base is getting so enthusiastic over an unrepentant pro-amnesty guy and a dude who wants to shut down Guantanamo and outlaw waterboarding. And raise taxes, of course.

True enough, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain might split the party were they to gain the nomination. But wouldn’t Huckabee do so as well and perhaps much worse? I really can’t support a guy who takes the liberal position on several of my top issues.

The backlash begins! I agree. After combining all the liberal positions Huckabee is standing on…he won’t be getting much support from me either.

RWNH:

Fred Thompson is head and shoulders above Mike Huckabee when it comes to having a record of votes on fiscal policy that consistently prove his conservative beliefs. He has also fleshed out his positions on a number of issues with a tax plan and social security white paper that have been praised by conservatives across the country. Get past the charm, the unctuousness, and the corn pone manner and what you have in Huckabee is a big government conservative who looks suspiciously like George Bush did in 1999.

We don’t need another George Bush. We don’t need Mike Huckabee. What we need is someone who will fight for conservative principles in government and wear out a veto pen in nixing excessive spending and any increase in taxes proposed by a Democratic Congress.

Is that man Fred Thompson? I just don’t know about Fred. But I’m sure that if the GOP goes ahead and annoints Huckabee, the conservative movement in America will be set back as our once proud heritage of fiscal responsibility and support for smaller government will be trashed by another wolf in conservative raiment.

Jammie Wearin Fool:

Doesn’t sound like he will very tough on the terrorists now does it? At one time I thought Huck might be my man but in the last couple of weeks he has really shown his weaknesses. I am still holding onto Fred Thompson and I would like to learn more about Duncan Hunter. They may be the last chance of finding a conservative in this field of what appears to be RINO’s (Republican In Name Only)

Last chance? Haven’t they been they been the best chance all along?

X Posted at Stop the ACLU, written by Jay.

Every single time I see this sort of thing it makes me very angry.

From Van Helsing.

As he points out, this is a perversion of the First Amendment; to ban religion in the name of freedom of religion. It doesn’t make any sense, but that’s what they say; quoting ’separation of church and state’ is though it appears somewhere in our founding documents. They’ve either mistaken the Soviet Union’s for ours, or are intentionally using verbiage in order to shape our country into the communist Soviets’ vision.

X Posted at STACLU

Recently, the ACLU set their doomsday clock at six minutes before midnight! Once it reaches the ‘dark hour’ of midnight…we will be slaves to the ominous and evil ’surviellance society’. This isn’t science fiction. This is typical scare tactics from the ACLU.

They prey upon the paranoid. This is how they get donations to fund their machine. They cry about “American citizens being spied upon” when in fact there is no evidence that anyone has been hurt by the government’s terrorist surviellance program.

While the ACLU cry that they are the guardian’s of liberty, and that privacy is one of those liberties….they have been exposed as being violators of that very liberty. They have a massive database of their own member’s private financial information they use for soliciting donations.

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.”

Now the ACLU are proudly defending Rep. Larry Craig on grounds of privacy. In another recent case they are defending a “pre-operative transsexual” anatomically male’s “right” to use the female public restroom. Terrence Jeffrey calls out the ‘privacy hypocrisy’ on this one.

“The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime,” said the ACLU. “It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or a restroom.”

But then the ACLU went a step further, arguing that there is not only a right to solicit sex, but also to engage in it, in a public restroom.

“The Minnesota Supreme Court,” said the ACLU, “has already ruled that two men engaged in sexual activity in a department store restroom with the stall door closed had a reasonable expectation of privacy. They were, the Court held, therefore acting in a private, not a public place.”

The conflated logic of the ACLU’s bathroom briefs seems to be that someone entering a public restroom intending to use it for traditional purposes has no protection either from the gender sign posted at the door or from the otherwise vaunted right to privacy. Someone entering a public restroom intending to solicit and engage in sex, on the other hand, is protected by both the First Amendment and the right to privacy.

What else would you expect from a group that embraces an ideology that holds that partially born babies have no right to keep their skulls intact?

Indeed. As my good friend Glib Fortuna puts it:

This about sums up the ACLU’s worldview. To the ACLU, the only “freedom” the ACLU truly believes in is “sexual freedom” and the concomitant “right” of people who choose aberrant sexual behavior to be free of any criticism and free from anyone else exercising common sense (and more threateningly, religious liberty) if it “infringes” on these “rights” recently invented by the ACLU and its partisans.

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

This article at Stop the ACLU by Jay is worthy of a read!

This is the same type of demoralizing that was used during the Vietnam war - and which John Kerry and his ilk came back complaining that our troops are immoral butchering monsters…it’s a moral inversion. Goes back to what Robert Kaplan talked about in his piece on Vietnam, drawing comparisons to the propaganda campaign against our military then, and how even today, guys like Bud Day and others who wrote politically incorrect accounts of what happened still haven’t been elevated to the public’s consciousness.

ACLU Seeking Rulings Issued On Warrantless Wiretapping

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 18, 2007

A secret U.S. intelligence court has ordered the Bush administration to register its views about a records request by the American Civil Liberties Union, which wants the court to release a series of pivotal orders issued earlier this year about the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program.

The move is highly unusual, because the court — which approves warrants for electronic surveillance within the United States by intelligence and counterterrorism agencies — operates in almost total secrecy and has made only one ruling public in its 29-year history.

In a scheduling order issued Thursday and released yesterday by the ACLU, the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court instructed the government to respond to the ACLU’s request by Aug. 31. The civil liberties group has until Sept. 14 to file its own response.

“This is an unprecedented request that warrants further briefing,” wrote U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who serves as the intelligence court’s presiding judge.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement that “we’re extremely encouraged by today’s development because it means that, at long last, the government will be required to defend its contention that the orders should not be released.”

Nosey ACLU Needs To Be Shut Up
Baltimore Sun Has A Similar Article

Looking at the headlines, you just have to laugh. Look at the leftist hysterics.

Federal appeals court overturns wiretap ruling (Detroit Free Press)

Panel Dismisses Suit Challenging Secret Wiretaps (New York Times)

US Appeals Court Orders Surveillance Case Dismissed (Update3) (Bloomberg)

Court dismisses suit over wiretaps (Fort Worth Star Telegram)

All of them are just reiterating the Associated Press’s Lisa Cornwell’s piece.

CINCINNATI — A divided federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit Friday challenging President Bush’s domestic spying program without ruling on the issue of whether warrantless wiretapping is legal.

Artfully crafted, isn’t it? Rejected a lawsuit challenging the President’s domestic spying program without ruling on the issue. Oh, maybe they still have a chance if they appeal! Then she says “of whether warrantless wiretapping is legal.” So the American people are thinking, hey. Warrantless wiretapping? Shouldn’t there be a warrant? And of course another reason why this makes headlines is because of Watergate and Nixon’s infamous wiretapping. Had it been Clinton, none of this would be making news, I’m sure.

Well do you really think there should have to be a warrant? In 2002, Abu Zubaydah, a senior member of Al Qaeda, was captured in Afghanistan.¹ Computers and cell phones with phone numbers were valuable bits of information the CIA obtained in that raid. Did they have to have a warrant? So, the logical next step after Zabaydah’s capture, was the NSA began monitoring calls placed to those phone numbers.

Abu Zabaydah is alleged to have briefed Richard Reid, the shoebomber.² If someone in America, or anywhere, for that matter, is placing calls to one of those Al Qaeda phone numbers, I would want someone to be monitoring it in order to head off any future attacks, particularly attacks on American soil.

You can take any number of close calls that have hit the news and draw a similar conclusion about the dangers we face if we don’t allow the NSA to do this monitoring.

Take for example the Ohio trucker, Lyman Farris, who plotted to bomb the Brooklyn bridge.³ If the ACLU has its way, though, a guy like Farris will have every right to talk on a secure private line with Bin Laden himself. The ACLU⁴ and the democrats,⁵ in fact, wants to guarantee that right to every terrorist; you can tell by the cases they’re taking on terrorists’ behalf. They’re even representing detainees at Gitmo, complaining that Gitmo should be shut down.

Let’s just let them all go; they’re victims of evil Amerikka, after all. Who cares if Americans are killed in another attack? They’re all little Eichmann’s and they deserve it.

The problem is that after Watergate, in the mid-’70’s the Senate committee spotlighted some abuses and then went to the other extreme. The end result was Congress tied the hands of our intelligence agencies. The FBI can do little to monitor groups like Al Qaeda as a result; it has prevented the FBI from performing ‘blanket surveillance’. The only time you can is 1) if they appear to be in the act of committing a crime or 2) after the fact. Most of the time it’s after people are dead and they come with surgical gloves to zip up the body bags.

Former FBI official Oliver Revel said that the FBI is forbidden to even compile newspaper or other publicly available clippings on groups like Al Qaeda without receiving prior permission to open an ‘investigation’. It’s no wonder we’re reactive and not proactive!⁶ In fact, according to Wes Vernon (2002), FBI agents have been sued for deviating from those rules.⁷

In a 2-1 decision with Republican-appointed judges in the majority, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because they couldn’t prove that their communications had been monitored by the government. The appeals court vacated a 2006 order by a lower court in Detroit, which concluded that the program was unconstitutional.

So the lower court concluded the NSA Spying program was unconstitutional, but it couldn’t but they couldn’t prove that it occurred? Is that because there was a member of Al Qaeda on the other end of the phone? Who is it that is complaining about these wiretaps, specifically? You just have to appreciate how this piece is worded to produce the desired impact.

It’s apparent that the ACLU and leftists who oppose this program are really not concerned about supporting the constitution, they’re more about deconstructing it and rewriting it according to international law.⁸

The decision underscored the difficulty of challenging the anti-terrorism program in court because its secret nature prevents plaintiffs from obtaining surveillance information. The National Security Agency had refused to turn over information about the warrantless wiretapping that would have bolstered the court case.

That’s why it’s called ’secret’. duh. The ACLU, along with scores of other leftist organizations, questions the government’s right to have ’secrets’. There was a time when you could be arrested and sent to prison for selling government ’secrets’.⁹

Nowadays, they broadcast them in the New York Times.¹⁰

“I think what in effect they’re saying is that we can’t tell you whether you have been wiretapped because that’s a secret. And unless you know you’ve been wiretapped, you can’t challenge that program,” said Steven R. Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit.

As long as you’re not calling Bin Laden, I wouldn’t think you’ve got to worry about it, which is the entire point. Call a member of Al Qaeda, and you should have a world of trouble on your hands, and I think the American people, if they knew what this is really about, would unanimously agree.

President Bush authorized warrantless monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mails when one party is believed to be a terrorist or to have terrorist ties.

That evil Bush. The nerve of his trying to protect the American people from terrorists. We should do like Britain does; and allow Al Qaeda to work for the police¹¹ for fear of ACLU lawsuits like this one against the NSA wiretapping program.

1. (April 2, 2002). Profile: Abu Zubaydah, BBC News.[back]
2. Associated Press (December 8, 2001) Who is Richard Reid? BBC News.[back]
3. Arena, K. & Frieden, T. (June 19, 2003). Ohio Trucker joined Al Qaeda jihad. CNN.com[back]
4. Perazzo, J. (August 22, 2005). ACLU Defends Guantanamo Terrorists. Discover The Networks – Moonbat Central[back]
5. Coulter, A. (January 5, 2006). Why We Don’t Trust You With National Security, Frontpage Magazine.[back]
6. Lormel, D. (July 21, 2005). The Importance of Terrorist Financing Investigations. Corprisk.com[back]
7. Vernon, W. (March 5, 2002) FBI Can Do Nothing About Terrorists in Our Midst. Newsmax.com[back]
8. (January 11, 2005). ACLU Amends the Constitution? Different River[back]
9. United States government security breaches. Wikipedia.[back]
10. Malkin, M. (June 22, 2006). NYTimes blabbermouths strike again, MichelleMalkin.com[back]
11. Causal Nexus (July 7, 2007), 8 Al Qaeda Suspects are bobbies. Causal Nexus[back]

[googlevideo]-104569093069981126&hl[/googlevideo]

The ACLU has picked the wrong fight this time. God Bless The American Legion, ADF and especially those Greatest Americans whose memory these two organizations have come out strong to defend.

ArrMatey at Court Zero covers an absurd result of ACLU litigation against the harmless Mojave Cross: The Forbidden Mojave Desert Cross

See more here at Stop the ACLU.

American Legion and ADF to ACLU, FFRF, AU, American Atheists and friends: Step away from the war memorials

About time someone goes on offense.

CNS News: Christians, Veterans Team Up to Protect Religious Memorials

The nation’s largest veterans’ service organization is teaming up with two Christian legal groups in an effort aimed at protecting Christian-themed war memorials from lawsuits that would remove them from public property.

The American Legion is asking its members to contribute to a catalog of war memorials that feature crosses and other religious symbols. The group will monitor its database of memorials and will notify the Alliance Defense Fund and the Liberty Legal Institute of any attempts by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and similar groups to challenge their constitutionality.

The effort stems from recent attempts by the ACLU to have crosses removed from memorials in Mt. Soledad, Calif., and in the Mojave Desert.

On the ACLU’s Docket of Depravity, these attacks are second in loathesomeness only to the ACLU’s vigorous defense of child molesters who want to hang out in parks to fantasize about toddlers, child porn consumers and child-rape how-to guide authors. Thanks to the Legion and ADF for drawing the line in the sand.

Thanks also to Annie Laurie Gaylor who unwittingly affirms the importance of the joint project by admitting that she is all too ready to bulldoze any veterans’ memorial that happen to “offend” her:

” I would not jump into the fray until we see what happens with these other cases [Mt. Soledad and Mojave Desert],” Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said, adding that “the ACLU might feel the same way: Let’s wait and see.”

A spokesman for the ACLU did not respond to requests for comment Friday. [Glib Note: Shocking!]

“There isn’t a way to address all of them,” Gaylor told Cybercast News Service. “You have to take these violations one case at a time, and we are facing a very hostile Supreme Court.

“If it wasn’t the current court, I would have no concern that this could possibly be upheld,” she said, “but with this new court, we don’t know how they’re behaving, but they seem to be behaving very badly on separation of church and state.”

Gaylor called the land-transfer attempts to protect the two crosses “despicable” and criticized Congress for getting involved in local cases.

“They have gone out of their way in Congress getting into the act. It’s just been a very sobering education about the lack of understanding of separation of church and state and the willingness to be manipulative and to try to subvert the First Amendment.”

She said war memorials that feature religious symbols are offensive and unconstitutional because “it isn’t the business of our secular government to have any opinion … on religion, much less plant crosses on the highest point in any city and put it as part of a government park.”

If there was “a way to address them all,” I’m sure she’d buy the wrecking ball and dismantle every memorial that carries any religious symbol. Echos of the Taliban demolishing those millennium-old Buddhist statues…

No one is dishonored or “excluded” (and no one’s “rights” have been violated) when fallen American heroes are remembered by a cross or a Bible verse or a Star of David or whatever religious symbol those who dedicate the monument choose to include. The ultimate sacrifice and the men themselves are dishonored by the radical secularists who have no love or understanding of the US Constitution (I’d say a large proportion of them despise this country) and who campaign through the courts to erase even small remembrances of the bravest citizens who died for the very freedoms these extremists abuse.

Thanks to Glib Fortuna.

That’s because America should be, in the opinion of the ACLU, a place where you’re free to have an abortion any time, even if your baby is born alive after the process is finished.

In that case, they just throw the placenta on top of the baby so that it can’t breath fresh air, while it cries in agony for its mother.

It’s no wonder that there is a lobby out there which is trying to allow for death certificates for stillborn children. The abortionists object to that, because it might get the “pro life” peoples’ feet in the door to claiming that a fetus is a person; a living being, separate from its mother. The only time they recognize that now is if the child is ‘wanted’.

I’m not sure what the legal grounds are for the medical community to kill an infant that they’ve tried to abort and failed, because it was born alive….but that’s what Partial Birth Abortion is all about, and that’s the nasty word that the ACLU didn’t use in the article on its website here. Stressing women’s rights, autonomy and health concerns doesn’t diminish what it is we’re talking about here, which is a horrifying Joseph Mengele type procedure that should be outlawed in all of its forms. In my opinion, even a back alley abortionist should be jailed or given capital punishment if it can be proven that they’ve perpetrated this horrendous, vicious, murdering crime against a child.

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. It is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court’s decision will endanger women’s health.

Now how can banning certain abortions ‘endanger women’s health’? As far as I can tell, this has to do with the health of the baby, and not a woman’s health. Notice how they’re not mentioning the actual name of the Act that they’re attacking, which is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Let’s stop obfuscating the facts, shall we, and call things by their real names and get down to what it is precisely that these people are advocating: The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion. (FoxNews, 2007) The abortionists who are wailing about the decision have come out and said that this decision isn’t going to affect the number of abortions that are done in this manner, because it doesn’t prevent them from using an alternative method of murdering these children: dismembering the fetus in the uterus — which is an available alternative, and, is indeed, much more common.

“Today’s decision has placed politics above protecting women’s health,” said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of NAF. “This ruling is a set back for all Americans who believe politicians should not legislate medical decision-making. The decision disregards the opinion of leading doctors and medical organizations that oppose the ban because it is harmful to women’s health.”

This is a rather disingenuous argument when you consider ripping apart an innocent baby who’s done nothing wrong inside the mother’s uterus before pulling the parts out. This is Joseph Mengele type science, and what’s even more outrageous and sickening is how calmly the proponents of it are arguing in favor of it.

The Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion (hereafter referred to as PBA) ban based on Gonzalez v. Carhart, (Through a Glass Darkly) which might be another one of the reasons that the leftists are so adamantly opposed to Gonzalez; he’s made some serious headway on issues that all conservatives consider important. The firing of the 8 US Attorneys is just obfuscation as far as I’m concerned, under Clinton, all 93 US Attorneys were fired by Janet Reno, and there was not a peep out of the media or anyone else over that.

The majority clearly wants to revisit Roe Versus Wade, based on what happens to an infant during PBA:

At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetusand “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).

“‘While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of bluntcurved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.“‘[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Havingsafely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.“‘The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he appliestraction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.’” H. R. Rep. No. 108–58, p. 3 (2003).

Here’s court testimony from a nurse who assisted Dr. Haskell in a partial birth abortion:

“‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .“‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. “‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . “‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’” Ibid.

The Court ruled today on two challenges to the federal abortion ban, called by its sponsors the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.” The two cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country.

Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger, who was a racist communist. Sanger’s goal wasn’t even something that she covered up; she bragged about it.

“We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”-Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider and promoter of legal abortion in the United States.

So using Planned Parenthood as an example of an organization which is involved in attempting to legitimize this ill-conceived and sick practice of PBA is also very telling.

Margaret Sanger, through her Planned Parenthood organization, advocated abortions on Afro-Americans in order to eliminate what she called “socially undesirable people”. This site is an excellent Afro-American response against Sanger’s racist eugenics: Genocide against Afro-Americans

It looks as though it’s worked, because the birth rate for black people across the country has decreased by incredible numbers: Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. (blackgenocide.org)

On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 10 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated “Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America’s Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member.” (blackgenocide.org)

That’s fitting, because Engels, who helped Karl Marx write the Communist Manifesto, wrote that NATIVE BLACKS DUMBER THAN AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD

Engels. “Notes to Anti-Duehring”: “If, for instance, among us the mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child, and in no need of proof from experience, this is solely the result of “accumulated inheritance.” It would be difficult to teach them by a proof to a bushman or Australian negro”.

This is the reason that we need affirmative action, apparently - so that Blacks can get into universities and obtain good jobs - based not on good grades or academic prowess, but instead on the assumption that they’re not able to compete in a free marketplace. This is also a reason that Stanger felt that they’re ‘undesirable’, and why, in her twisted thinking, they needed to be ‘exterminated’ through legitimizing and socializing abortion as a method of birth control.

A third challenge to the ban, National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put that case on hold until the Supreme Court issued a decision in the other two cases. Today’s Supreme Court decision requires that the ban be upheld in this case as well.

We know all too well the junk science they prop in order to pull off their legal gymnastics.

“Today’s decision undermines a core principle of Roe v. Wade that women’s health must remain paramount,” said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “The decision invites politicians to meddle even further into the doctor-patient relationship by passing additional restrictions on abortion.”

Not a very intelligent statement when you consider the history behind this and the facts of the sickening medical procedure they’re they’re trying to legitimize through the courts, but then leftists at the ACLU are all about ‘feelings’ and not about ‘facts’.

What’s irritating to me is their stupidity over the ‘health of women’ rather than recognize whose health this procedure truly affects. We are not facing overpopulation in the United States, I don’t know why it is that they keep pursuing this in the face of all those who still believe that protecting the innocent is a moral imperative.

Leading doctors and medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of OB-GYNs in this country, opposed the federal ban.

Could that be because their cash registers wouldn’t be ringing anymore? Then again, if they keep whining about embryonic stem cell research, this might be another source of income for heartless scientists who use the theory of evolution as their guide for medical ethics.

Congress passed the federal abortion ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including the decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent to today’s opinion: “Though today’s opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of ‘the rule of law’ and the ‘principles of stare decisis.’”

The ‘rule of law’ has completely ignored the rights of the innocent who can’t speak for themselves, and the cruel, heartless murder of unborn innocents because it gets in the way of the sexual lives of their cold and irresponsible mothers.

Today’s cases are Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No. 05-1382 and Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. Our mission is to ensure safe, legal, and accessible abortion care to promote health and justice for women. Our members include health care professionals at clinics, doctors’ offices, and hospitals, who together care for more than half the women who choose abortion each year. For more information, visit our website at www.prochoice.org.

They should change the name of that website to legitimized back alley abortionists dot org.

The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. For more information, visit: www.aclu.org/reproductiverights.

What a lie.

X Posted at STACLU

Being that today is the day that we’re supposed to commence with the blogburst, I thought I’d take a few articles from STACLU and refer to them in a post. This is for Jay who is away, but still in touch. God bless you, Jay, looking forward to your return in May!

Local (ACLU) lawyer permanently disbarred for child-sex online chats

From the New Jersey Journal:

Chatting online about sex with someone he believed was a 12-year-old boy has earned a Jersey City lawyer permanent disbarment in New Jersey, officials said.

The disbarment is the result of a guilty plea by Steven C. Cunningham to one count of attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child, an act that “reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer,” according to the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.

How fitting. I don’t think anyone in today’s world honestly believes any lawyer fits the definition of ‘trustworthy’. “Fitness as a lawyer” in the world of the ACLU depends on whether or not you subscribe to the ideology of a leftist; supporting much of what that the right-minded individual with common sense would consider criminal.

STACLU has a couple of other posts about current events, particularly the Virginia Tech massacre, but I thought this one was the most noteworthy.

Also posted at TWA

I just received a quick email request from Jay to throw something up over at Stop the ACLU, so I thought I’d pull it over here and cross post it.

I’m getting bloody sick of this business, and I’ll tell you why. I was just writing a piece about CREW, which is one of the George Soros-funded organizations that he’s using as a leftwing hit squad against Republicans and Christians, no joke. And I came across a number of organizations that his Open Society Institute throws money at. Guess what. The ACLU got a whopping $250,000 “grant” from the Open Society Institute after 9/11, and is throwing obscene amounts of money at anti-war efforts. I guess he wants to help the terrorists.

Anyway, CREW, Human Rights Watch, D21, and a number of others are a part of the organizations that he’s funding in order to morph America into his idea of an ‘open society’ with completely ‘open borders’.

One of the initiatives that the left, democrats, CREW and the ACLU support is to object to the NSA’s “spying” of terror suspects. Because, you know, we’re concerned about their rights over those of law abiding citizens. This is a release from the ACLU’s website, the title of which is the title of this post,“ACLU Demands Update on Status of NSA Surveillance Program as Re-Authorization Deadline Passes (4/11/2007)”:

WASHINGTON - Following a crucial deadline for the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program, the American Civil Liberties Union today called on the administration to explain the status of the operation and urged Congress to fully investigate violations of the law.

Riiight. Like members of Congress, like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others are law abiding citizens who are concerned with ‘violations of the law’. As I recall, Obama had a tidy little land deal with Rezko exposed by the Chicago Suntimes recently, and the carefully manufactured scandals of his republican opponents were what thrust this wet-behind the ears politician into the limelight. He says the land deal was a “mistake”, but his relationship with Axelrod and the part Axelrod has played in his rise to stardom remains to be fully explained. Hillary has her own “Chappaquidik”, among other things. Clinton submitted a false report with the FEC – for a fourth time – which hid Peter Frank Paul’s personal donation of a multi-million dollar Hollywood gala and fund-raiser that helped put her in office. So, neither one of these George Soros’-backed candidates are squeaky clean, and they are members of a tiny handful of George-Soros-picked politicos involved now in Washington politics, and both of them are running for President.

“Attorney General Gonzales needs to tell Congress and the public whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has renewed orders authorizing NSA spying, and precisely what those orders authorize,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “We urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to demand the truth from Gonzales when he appears before that panel next Tuesday. Congress should insist that he release this information so Americans can know whether or not their phone conversations are private.”

Why do these people have such a problem with Gonzalez? First, he fires 8 US Attorneys and comes under criticism for it, when Janet Reno under Clinton fired all 93. I don’t remember this kind of kneejerk responses to their doing that, and that was a sweeping draconian move. They want to know precisely what those orders authorize so they can find something wrong with it, obviously. This is a case of the ACLU breathing down the necks of people who are just trying to do the next right thing, IMO. HRW and the rest of Soro’s lackies are not doing us any favors by flipping the laws around to protect the people we’re better off watching, putting in jail, or holding in prison. I like that. “Demand the truth from Gonzalez” as if he’s a liar. Notice that?

On January 17, 2007, the Justice Department announced that it had obtained approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in orders issued January 10, for the NSA’s wiretapping program. While it remains unclear whether this order was a programmatic, or wholesale approval, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, such orders are subject to review, or re-authorization, every 90 days. The orders were scheduled to expire on April 10, 2007.

As far as I can tell, every time these things are reauthorized, as is necessary to do, and which follows procedure completely, there is an automatic suspicion by the human rights groups and the ACLU that there’s something afoot, and that the republicans are lying.

The FISC has not released its January 10 orders despite a direct request from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Justice Department has also refused to confirm whether the orders generally authorize the program as opposed to authorizing surveillance of individual persons based on probable cause. The ACLU said that generalized program warrants are unconstitutional and violate FISA.

We’d have to see what the documentation says, but of course the ACLU wants to proclaim that what the government is doing is ‘unconstitutional’! Being that they ignore our laws and try to incorporate International Law - which doesn’t recognize our right to defend ourselves, the ACLU’s claims should be held under close scrutiny as well.

The status of the FISA court orders is also at issue in the ACLU’s legal challenge to the NSA spying program, which is currently pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. A district court in Michigan declared the program unconstitutional in August 2006, and the government appealed that ruling.

As far as I know, and Jon Jay or ArrMatey could probably set me straight on this, the NSA wiretapping program is aimed at capturing communications by potential terrorists. I would assume that if you’re a 75-year-old swedish grandma in a wheelchair, you’ve got nothing to worry about. So whose rights is the ACLU propping here, and are they really looking to defend ‘civil rights’ and make America safer, like when they rush to the defense of NAMBLA? It would seem to me that the Judge who struck down the constitutionality of the program in 2006 was playing right into the hands of the ACLU with some judicial activism.

This reminds me of the examples Keith Timmerman gave on this at Frontpage Magazine. I’ll change it a bit to fit this scenario:

Two Arabic-speakers are discussing an imminent terrorist attack, as an NSA tape-recorder captures their conversation.

“All is now prepared,” says the first.

“Is everything in place?

“It is done. When do we attack?

“Be prompt. Plant the bomb at—“

The screen goes blank, and the narrator delivers the come-on: “This terrorist wiretap has been disconnected by THE ACLU.”

It really should be a no-brainer; when someone living outside the US and is a known terrorist suspect calls a number in the US, President Bush ordered the NSA to listen. It’s not just the ACLU that objects, but democrats like Alcee Hastings and Nancy Pelosi. They’ve all promised to put an end to it, and instead, require the NSA to get a warrant for each and every phone call or email or other communication they want to intercept.

Now think about the bureaucratic red tape they’re putting on something that could take just minutes before there’s a big BOOM! As Timmerman points out,

To get those warrants, the NSA will need to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court and prove “probable cause.” Hard to do, when the subject, as Dick Morris points out, is “the bridge in the Godzilla movie.”

FBI agents just roll their eyes when asked about FISA applications. They can take weeks, even months to compile. “The last thing you want is to go to the court and have your application turned down,” one FBI special agent told me.

But instead, we’ve got…

ACLU attorneys today are filing papers with the Sixth Circuit to seek the unsealing of classified submissions by the government in the case last week. Because the submissions coincide with the expiration of the January FISA orders, the ACLU assumes the filings pertain to the status of those orders. The government has previously relied on the new FISA orders to urge the court to dismiss the case.

More time wasted in bureaucratic bumbling. This reminds me of the keystone cops, and it can only help our enemies move around with greater confidence inside the United States.

“If the factual basis for the government’s argument for dismissal has now changed, the government has an obligation to make any relevant new facts and arguments available to the plaintiffs and the public,” said Ann Beeson, ACLU Associate Legal Director.

Because the president is still claiming the “inherent authority” to engage in warrantless eavesdropping, the ACLU said, there is an urgent need for the court to rule so that the President cannot continue to violate the law.

Back in 2006, Bernie Saunders, the self-described Democratic Socialist from Vermont, vowed he would put an end to the NSA spying program. He was joined by the ACLU and the *Center for Constitutional Rights who together filed an amicus brief in two federal courts reviewing challenges to the warrantless wiretapping program in Detroit and New York.

Keith Timmerman points out in his article from November of 2006 that both lawsuits demanded the NSA terrorist surveillance program be ended. Leading the charge was John Conyers, who now heads up the House Judiciary committee. You can bet we haven’t seen the end of this. And I don’t think we need to wonder very long how this is going to affect our ability to pursue terrorists on our own soil.

I don’t think the American people were looking for changes like this that would affect their safety at home when they voted for a ‘new direction in Iraq’ and got the democrats a majority.

This is just a taste of things to come.

It’s been pointed out that John Conyer’s role in impeaching Bush as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will become more apparent as time rolls on. This is nasty business, and they’re playing to take the President down.

Timmerman reminded us back in 2006 that …[t]he Democrat plan – such as it is – will gut this and other programs needed to fight terrorists, capture terrorists, and interrogate terrorists, to prevent attacks against Americans and on American soil.

Boom!

* Founded by pro-Castro radicals
Opposes post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) was co-founded in November 1966 by the radical attorneys Morton Stavis, Ben Smith, Arthur Kinoy, and William Kunstler, longtime members of the Communist and radical left. (Kinoy and Kuntsler were well known for their pro-Castro politics.) CCR characterizes itself as an organization that “uses litigation proactively to advance the law in a positive direction, to guarantee the rights of those with the fewest protections and least access to legal resources.”

At Stop the ACLU:
ACLU defending the Nazis again

Shortly after I graduated High School, in 1977, the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party here in Skokie when they wanted to march there. I felt that was a rude and audacious move, since so many holocaust survivors and their families live in Skokie; I’ve met some of them, and seen their tattoos from the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Bergen Belzen, and others.

The Captain has a post referring to that old debacle, plus a more recent one here:

The ACLU lost a number of members in 1977 when they defended the American Nazi Party when they wanted to stage a demonstration in the town of Skokie, Illinois — a city where a number of Holocaust victims and their families had settled. Over 30,000 ACLU members staged a demonstration of their own when they marched out of the organization, even after the ACLU won the case, and even though the Nazis never did march in Skokie.

It was disgusting! I was watching the news coverage over that then. The idea of these people marching through the streets of holocaust victims and their families was infuriating. The fact that the ACLU propped their right to do it, completely ignorant of the shattered lives and feelings of these people went beyond bad taste and crossed the line.

Thirty years later, the ACLU proves that they have not learned their lesson. The Ohio chapter has agreed to represent the American Nazi Party again in a conflict over a demonstration permit, this time in a predominantly black neighborhood in Cincinnati. Holly at The Moderate Voice shares the e-mail:

On April 20, 2007, the American National Socialist Workers Party of Roanoke, VA—a neo-Nazi group—plans to march through the predominantly African-American neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati. The city initially issued a permit to the group for its march, but the permit was soon revoked and prohibitions were added by city officials limiting the group’s demonstration to a three-block area. Believing their constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly have been violated, the ACLU of Ohio will be defending the demonstrators.

This looks to me like a call to Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and seems timely because of the Don Imus firing over racism. In their world, you’re a racist if you’re white! To me, you’re a racist if you’re a leftist. If these people are allowed to do this, Don Imus should be reinstated.

The ACLU condemns violent action and supports its prevention. Yet we also believe that our government must allow citizens their unhindered right to free speech. The City of Cincinnati should stand behind this basic freedom while taking steps to ensure a peaceful demonstration.

As in previous cases where the ACLU has come to the defense of people or groups with whom we disagree, our position is rooted in certain fundamental principles. While we in no way endorse the views of the American National Socialist Workers Party, we believe that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom they apply.

I think the American National Socialist Workers Party is seeking our destruction, and I’m not sure that ‘allowing their freedom of speech’ is something anyone should sanction or approve.

Captain Ed Continues:

I agree that the government should not be in the business of determining the acceptability of political speech. I would not want to have to get permission to hold a public assembly that hinges on the political content of the speech for myself, and I would want government have the same approach for others as well.

I think we’ve crossed the line in terms of tolerating people who would want to destroy us gathering and conspiring in our midst while we fool ourselves into believing they’re not a threat to us.

However, that isn’t what has happened in Over-The-Rhine, at least judging by the ACLU’s description. The city did revoke their permit, but then apparently issued another that gives them three blocks in which to demonstrate. That does not sound like an overwhelming burden for the Nazis to meet, and it does not keep them from conducting their protest. They’re not being stopped from demonstrating; they want to complain because of the boundaries placed on their protest, even though such permits routinely impose boundaries on demonstrations.

That’s interesting…during the DNC, there was a place for protesters to protest, but it was surrounded by a fence, outside of the view of media cameras. Although many people showed up to demonstrate, the media didn’t cover it. It will be interesting to see how much coverage the Nazis get.

The ACLU will put themselves in the position of arguing that the city of Cincinnati has no authority to determine the geographical boundaries for a protest — on behalf of a group that would, if given the chance, strip everyone of the right to demonstrate in any form at all. They do so even though they have no requirement to represent Nazis; the Nazis could hire their own lawyers to handle this case, and unfortunately they can probably afford it, too. The ACLU has determined that they can get a lot of publicity for their flacking on behalf of Nazis, and have climbed into bed with racists as a result. They’re doing nothing more than unnecessarily enabling the Nazis.

Indiana Jones once said, “I hate these guys.” In this context, it would be difficult to determine which group he would have meant.

The ACLU’s support of Islamic terrorists has become quite apparent over the past few years, why should this reminder come as a surprise to anyone? The ACLU is about destroying the spirit of the laws we have in place to convict and put away criminals to make America safe; and to prop the rights of NAMBLA, felons, drug dealers and murderers - not to mention the fascists that want to attack us of the Islamic variety.

I think our ‘tolerance’ has gone a little bit too far.

Thanks to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, , Pet’s Garden Blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, , stikNstein… has no mercy, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Maggie’s Notebook, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Pet Haven, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Not that this comes as much of a surprise, but it is certainly disgusting. From the Washington Times:

By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 24, 2007

Federal authorities yesterday charged the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, who serves as a leader of youth sports organizations in the state, with receiving and possessing child pornography. Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, of Arlington, was named in a criminal complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alexandria and was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Arlington County police.

Being that the ACLU goes to the defense of pedophiles, rapists, murderers, terrorists and NAMBLA, the fact that one of their own former presidents would be exposed as belonging to a group that his organization defends shouldn’t be a surprise, but it IS disgusting, nevertheless.

X Posted at Stop the ACLU

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Two men who are members of Gideons International, the Christian organization that is famous for, among other ministries, placing Bibles in motels and giving them to children, have been arrested after trying to hand out Bibles on a public sidewalk in Florida, according to a law firm.

Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund have confirmed they will be representing Anthony Mirto and Ernest Simpson, who were arrested, booked into jail and charged with trespassing.

Jeremy Tedesco, one of the ADF’s lawyers on the case, confirmed to WND that the organization’s clients were on a public sidewalk when they were handing out Bibles and school officials summoned police.

Yes, it reads public sidewalk and yes, it reads school officials. I hope you’ll also notice that it doesn’t say anything about sex offenders, child molesters or military funerals.

“The First Amendment protects the right to engage in religious speech on a public sidewalk,” ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman said. “Members of the Gideons have been highly respected for decades as peaceful providers of free Bibles to those who want them.”

The arrest happened Jan. 19, when Mirto and Simpson were on the sidewalk outside of Key Largo School in Key Largo, Fla., and were distributing copies of the Bible to those interested.

“Neither man entered school grounds,” the law firm said. “After the school’s principal called police, a Monroe County sheriff’s officer asked the men to leave immediately or face trespassing charges. As the men prepared to leave, the officer decided to arrest both individuals.”

A hearing is scheduled March 5 in Monroe County Court in the cases, and ADF attorneys are preparing motions to dismiss the charges.

“Officials cannot use fear of arrest as a means of bullying law-abiding Christians into silence,” Cortman said. “These men broke no laws when they decided to communicate their message on a public sidewalk.”

Tedesco noted that sometimes school officials have a misconception about whether they can control activities on school grounds and adjacent public sidewalks. But the First Amendment does provide a protection for speech on those parcels of ground that are public, he said.

Lets see… public schools, public grounds, public sidewalks, public officials and public law enforcement.

“There’s no reason why they should be put in jail,” he said.

The ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the truth, through strategy, training, funding and litigation.

The Gideons, a group founded in the late 1800s, has as its “sole purpose” the goal “to win men, women, boys and girls to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ through association for service, personal testimony, and distributing the Bible in the human traffic lanes and streams of everyday life.”

Members of the Gideons, who pay their own expenses so 100 percent of the donations to the group go toward Bible purchases and distributions, have placed the Bible in 181 nations in 82 different languages over the years.

The organization focuses on hotels and motels, hospitals and nursing homes, schools, colleges and universities, the military and law enforcement and prisons and jails.

“The demand for Scriptures in these areas far exceeds our supplies that we are able to purchase through our donations. Much more could be done – if funds were available. However, we are placing and distributing more than 1 million copies of the Word of God, at no cost, every seven days in these areas” the group said.

The organization only gives away the Bibles with the Gideon logo on the covers, but plain Bibles are available for consumers to purchase at its distribution center at P.O. Box 140800, Nashville, Tenn., 37214-0800. Information about the products is available on the group’s website.

The Gideons serve as an extended missionary arm of the Christian church and are the oldest Christian business and professional men’s association in the United States.

Great! Get those laws keeping sex offenders away from our school kids and daycares overturned. Get those laws that permit our loved ones to grieve and honor our dead in peace, overturned.

But get them Christians, handing out Bibles, in jail. Got to protect the kids and…

Did they legalize drugs in Florida or are they putting something in the water? The Dixie County Ten Commandments issue, immigration raids in Miami, and now this.

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

ACLU sues county over jail count

This is a sad commentary on the ACLU’s fight for an ‘open society’ along the lines of what George Soros would like to transform this country into. If I’m not mistaken, the ACLU is sueing because they haven’t opened up enough empty cells in this jail in Indiana.

Now wouldn’t that mean that they think the criminals who were occupying those cells should be released?

Is this another example of people having the ‘civil right’ not to be in jail?

Jail overcrowding has gone on for long enough in Grant County, the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said. So, the chapter has filed a lawsuit against county officials to correct the problem.

Kenneth Falk, the chapter’s legal director, said the state ACLU decided to file the suit because the county has failed to take significant steps to bring down the population of the Grant County Jail despite having the time to do so.

Riiight. Let ‘em all go!

What’s even funnier is the overcrowding is affecting their ‘rations’, and ‘comfort’ in addition to their liability insurance. The ACLU has said that this overcrowding problem not being addressed is ‘unconstitutional’. They didn’t cite what part of the constitution is being violated by having too many criminals pent up in their cells…maybe it’s making them irritable while they’re watching their cable tv.

ACLU Raises Objections Over Expanded Military and CIA Domestic Spying

The NY Times continues in their quest to leak out our methods to our enemies.

The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.

The CIA has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.

Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.

Notice that the leaked information claims that it was hundreds, not thousands, of people suspected of terrorism or espionage. This seems to me to lean towards the side of restraint rather than abuse.

If we have enemies within, and we can’t trust our own military to investigate the financial history of those that are suspect then we have bigger problems to worry about than paranoia over privacy.

Government lawyers say the legal authority for the Pentagon and the CIA to use national security letters in gathering domestic records dates back nearly three decades and, by their reading, was strengthened by the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act.

California Conservative writes:

I’d further suggest that the credibility of this reporting is suspect because we’re getting this information leaked. If there’s anything that makes me suspicious of a report, it’s when the information was acquired through a snitch with an agenda.

If the government’s lawyers are right that the Patriot Act strengthened the use of national security letters, then it’s reasonable to assume that there’s regular oversight done on this program. If that’s the case, then we don’t need to read about it in the NY Times.

I’d further add that it’s suspicious that Eric Lichtblau, one of the reporters that exposed the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, another important tool in preventing terrorist attacks, is one of the reporters for this article. Does the NY Times hire Mr. Lichtblau each time they want to tell terrorists about the tools the U.S. is using in preventing terrorist attacks? Or do they just keep such subversives on payroll for use during Republican administrations?

Of course National Security is not the primary concern of the ACLU:

“This country has a long tradition of rejecting the use of the CIA and the Pentagon to spy on Americans, and rightfully so. Today’s published report that the Pentagon and CIA have been relying on “National Security Letters” to collect the financial records of Americans without judicial supervision or Congr