Stop The ACLU 9-6-06
Sep 7, 2006 Stop the ACLU
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
It isn’t surprising 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 suspects under the rule of a military tribunal.
Via ACLU:
America is a nation dedicated to upholding the rule of law. However, President Bush’s draft proposal for military commissions fails to meet the standards recognized by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The court held the President’s initial military commission scheme was illegal because it violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the most basic standards regarding treatment of detainees. The new proposal has nearly all of the same problems, and will eventually be found to be illegal. For example, it would allow a person to be convicted based on secret evidence and would allow the use of evidence obtained as the result of horrific abuse.
Of course the ACLU automatically accuse the U.S. 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 inadmissible. 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 probability 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 water boarding, 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 scum buckets 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 loop holes 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 Qaddafi 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 state.”
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 Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already onboard.
Stop The ACLU Blogburst 8-31-06
Aug 31, 2006 Stop the ACLU
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
The ACLU thinks that parents have no right to know if their pregnant underage daughter is seeking an abortion.
vs. America
80% of Americans think that parents have the right to know if their minor daughters are seeking an abortion. (CBS News Poll July 13-14, 2005)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU believes anyone, for any reason at any time should be allowed to abort a child.
vs. America
75% of Americans believe that there should at least be some restrictions on abortion. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll June 24-26, 2005)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU opposes abstinence education.
vs. America
96% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that abstinence is the best approach to sex.
93% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that having sex leads to disease and pregnancy.
85 % of American parents with children under 17 want abstinence to be taught with at least equal emphasis as contraception receives.
79% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that teen sex leads to harmful psychological and physical effects. (http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1722.cfm)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU has fought to have constitutionally-sound displays that include the Ten Commandments removed from public property.
vs. America
75% of Americans believe that the Ten Commandments should be displayed on public property. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll June 24-26, 2005)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU is on record as supporting polygamy.
vs. America
92% of Americans think polygamy is morally repugnant. (The Gallup Poll May 5-7, 2003)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU has filed cases across the nation to redefine marriage against the repeatedly expressed will of the people and, now the overwhelming affirmation by even Left-leaning courts that the state is justified in retaining the definition of marriage. (Note: the ACLU got smoked in an attempt to prevent Tennesseans from even having the opportunity to express their will at the polls this year.)
vs. America
21 states have recently voted to protect marriage by an average of 70%: Alaska 68%, Hawaii 69%, Nebraska 70%, California 61%, Nevada 67%, Arkansas 75%, Georgia 76%, Kentucky 75%, Louisiana 78%, Michigan 59%, Mississippi 86%, Missouri 71%, Montana 67%, North Dakota 73%, Ohio 62%, Oklahoma 76%, Oregon 57%, Utah 66%, Kansas 70%; Alabama 81%; Texas 76%
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU believes that children should be trapped in failed public schools, even inner-city children whose parents desperately want to escape the captivity of government education.
vs. America
69% of Americans believe that parents should be able to choose their childs public school rather than being assigned based solely on residence location. (http://www.edreform.com/_upload/2005ncsw-poll.pdf).
63% of Americans believe that parents should be able to choose the best school for their child, whether public or private. (Zogby International Polling July 2002)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU opposes personally-initiated prayer in school and moments of silence as well as individual acknowledgement of religious beliefs at public events.
vs. America
83% of Americans think prayer should be permitted during school activities including graduation ceremonies. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll June 25-27, 1999)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU has filed lawsuits and threatened cities and schools all across the country to prevent Christmas from being openly celebrated in public fora.
vs. America
96% of Americans celebrate Christmas
87% of Americans believe Christmas displays should be allowed on public property.
(FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll December 3-4, 2003)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU has attacked Mt. Soledad memorial in San Diego since the the very beginning of Bush the Elder’s Administration because it includes a cross. This is just one of countless examples of the ACLUs seek and destroy mission to eliminate all religious symbols from public grounds.
vs. America
76% of San Diegans voted to save the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial from the ACLUs attack on behalf of a single atheist. That atheist, Jim McElroy was quoted as saying following the vote: It still doesn’t mean a damn thing,” he said, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. Voters should have never voted on it. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money.
_______________________________________________________________
The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: What is right and Constitutional is not always popular. Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU’s pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So…the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right…does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can’t we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself.
This has been a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
Everyone Needs To Call Their Elected Officials!
Aug 1, 2006 Political, Stop the ACLU
Every time some issue regarding religion is challenged in court by the ACLU taxpayer dollars are at risk. If the ACLU wins they are paid with US taxpayer money. This neat little scheme allows the ACLU to shop around for cases to bring to court and for judges sympathetic to their cause. When they win they get millions of dollars.
While most Americans remain unaware of it, the ACLU has been reaping millions of dollars in taxpayer-paid profits in lawsuits against veterans memorials, the Boy Scouts, or against the public display of the Ten Commandments or other symbol of our American heritage with a religious aspect.
For but three examples, the ACLU received some $950,000 in attorney fees in a settlement with the City of San Diego in the ACLU’s lawsuit to drive the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. In the famous Judge Roy Moore Ten Commandments Case, the ACLU, and cohort so-called “public interest†law firms, received $500,000. In the recent “Intelligent Design†case against the Dover school board, the ACLU received $2,000,000 in attorneys by order of a judge — although the law firm which represented the ACLU informed the court and public that it had acted pro bono and waived any attorney fees. Thus, it was pure profit to the ACLU.
Further, the ACLU has used the threat of imposition of taxpayer-paid attorney fees to extort local elected bodies, city or county councils, school boards, into surrender to the ACLU’s demands to secularly cleanse the public sphere of any evidence of our American religious heritage.
Moreover, the threat of imposition of orders to pay ACLU’s attorney fees in such cases has caused third parties, like The American Legion and other non-profit organizations, to suffer a chilling effect on their First Amendment rights to participate in such lawsuits to protect veterans’ memorials.
S. 3696 (PERA), and H.R. 2679 (PERA), would put an end to that abuse of benevolently intended laws by the ACLU, or anyone else following the ACLU’s precedents, for instance, Islamist terrorists or their sympathizers in our midst.
This reform of the law should be supported by all Americans across all party, ideological, philosophical, or religious lines.
Simply put, the ACLU’s profiteering at taxpayer-expense by exploitation of benevolently intended civil rights laws intended to benefit poor people is a disgrace. Stop The ACLU
This all occurs because the Congress tried to do something good and did not think about the consequences. Now, we have these blood suckers called the ACLU taking advantage of the law to become rich. Think about this, how many of you have ever needed a lawyer? If you won your case did the judge pay your lawyers with taxpayer money? Of course not! You were required to pay your lawyer. Why then, should taxpayer money go to pay the ACLU?
I urge everyone to call your Senators and Representative and tell them that you expect them to support the “Public Expression of Religion Act.â€
Please read the lengthy post at Stop the ACLU and then contact those your members of Congress and tell them that you want them to support this.
To contact your Representative
To Contact your Senators
Sign the petition
Others blogging about this:
Church and State | Crystal Clear | Go Pundit Go | Don Surber
Tags: Political
Stop The ACLU Blogburst 7-27
Jul 27, 2006 Stop the ACLU
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
Well it comes at no surprise to us at Stop The ACLU and Wide Awakes Radio that the American Civil Liberties Union is opposed to passage of H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005.
A review of the bill is as follows:
PERA would eliminate the ability for judges to award attorney’s fees compensation to groups like the ACLU in Establishment Clause cases only. These fees where originally authorized by CONGRESS so that good attorneys wouldn’t be dissuaded from accepting civil rights cases pro bono.
But in the hands of the ACLU it has become a source of income for the organization. In any other type of lawsuit, ie: personal injury, the attorney’s fee if any comes out of the settlement with their client if they prevail. But not under the law authorizing these fees.
The ACLU actively shops around for reasons to challenge any public displays of religion in order to collect these “attorneys’ fees”. This has led to a systematic removal of your Constitutional protections under the 1st Amendment to freely exercise your religious beliefs. They accomplish this by judge shopping. They shop for a district to present a case in. A district in which one of their “best buddies” activist judges will hear the case and more often than not, rule in the favor of the ACLU.
The ACLU prefers to bring these types of lawsuits against cities, towns, and states which are usually cash strapped. First it is a matter of sending a letter to the governing body recommending that they cease and desist from further allowing public displays of religion. That if they fail to do so, it will cost the city, town, or state massive amounts of money to defend against them in court. And usually, a city or town is likely to not challenge. They will capitulate to the will of the ACLU. But if it does come to trial and they prevail, the amounts awarded to the prevailing party are often compounded by the amounts awarded to the ACLU attorney(s) for fees that had they NOT prevailed, would have gone uncollected.
This is extortion. Do what we tell you or something bad is going to happen. Pure unadulterated extortion.
It is these practices that the Public Display of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679) promises to eliminate so of course the ACLU would be opposed to its passage. They aren’t interested in protecting your right to freely express your religious beliefs in public.
From the ACLU’s News Release on H.R. 2679 dated 07.26.06:
The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005” (PERA). The panel is expected to vote on the legislation today [meaning Wednesday – in committee]. The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys’ fees to citizens who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
“If this bill were to become law, Congress would, for the first time, single out one area protected by the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Proponents of the measure claim that the bill is needed to protect religious freedom, when in fact, the bill would undermine it. We hope that the committee will stand for the Constitution and reject this unwise proposal.” emphasis mine
Hold the presses… Stop Stop Stop…..
Did they actually make an argument that if the bill becomes law, Congress would single out a Constitutional protection and block it from enforcement?
WRONG!
The only thing being discussed is a law written and adopted by Congress for the awarding of the fees. And the removal of the fees from a certain kind of cases in order to remove the ability for unscrupulous
Stop The ACLU Blogburst 7-19
Jul 19, 2006 Stop the ACLU
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND — A United Nations human rights body expressed grave concerns today about the record of human rights in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union with a delegation of 10 and working with a broad coalition of other groups is in Geneva to monitor the examination of the United States the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC).
In a two-day session that concluded today, the committee members pressured the United States for answers on the following issues:
The sentencing of children to life without parole and the disproportionate incarceration of minorities;
The militarization of the border;
The failure to prevent human rights violations and respond in a non discriminatory manner to Hurricane Katrina;
The failure to end racial profiling practices, specifically the profiling of South Asian convenience store employees in Georgia;
Warrantless spying on ordinary Americans;
The abuse of women in prison; and
The indefinite detention, rendition and torture of non-citizens.“The U.S. should be ashamed of itself,” said Ann Beeson, Director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “The review by the Human Rights Committee was a stark and all too accurate condemnation of the state of rights in America.”
No, the ACLU should be ashamed of itself. The review by the Human Rights Committee which includes member states Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China ,and ensures that violaters are included, is a joke and nowhere near accurate.
Religious persecutors, Womens Rights violators, Communist Regimes, and illegal organ harvesters will make up the new UN Human Rights Council.
And this is the organization that the ACLU want to hold the U.S. accountable to? The ACLU, and the U.N. are the two most dangerous organizations in the world. They are both seeking to destroy America’s credibility and soverignty. The U.N. are a corrupt joke when it comes to human rights, and they have absolutely zero credibility to make any judgement on America in that area.
The ACLU, who provided the list called “Dimming the Beacon of Freedom”, to this corrupt organization that can’t even clean up its own human rights violations are an embarrassement to this great nation. It is shameful that their list included our efforts to spy on the enemy, protect our borders, and several other accusations without evidence. I also wonder if their accusation to “abuse” of women in prison would be not providing them with abortions at the expense of taxpayers.
Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation’s sovereignty and national security.
For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “With today’s action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations.” Source
Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.
All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn’t directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU’s embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.
In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the UNHRC’s discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a “showdown with religion,” clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source
The ACLU’s actions are a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, religious exercise, security, and soverignity. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.
If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs…why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America’s freedoms, and our very soverignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU’s vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churchs and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them. To many Americans, these sound more like human rights violations than anything on the ACLU’s list.
On October 27, 1787, Alexander Hamilton predicted that a “dangerous ambition” would one day tyrannize the gangling young American Republic, all the while lurking “behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.” It could almost be said that Hamilton had a prophecy of the ACLU.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.