Wednesday, December 28, 2005

No More Tax Dollars For The ACLU

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

One of our contributors, Craig McCarthy, set up a petition to stop taxpayer funding of the ACLU, quite a while ago. We are trying to help Craig reach at least 25,000 signatures. We are not that far away.

Just two days ago, I put up as one of Stop The ACLU's best posts of 2005, my interview with former ACLU lawyer, mr. Reese Lloyd. I had no idea it would be such great timing.

Mr. Reese strkes again in a podcast with Congressman Hostettler.

Rees Lloyd made the comments in an online podcast hosted by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in which the two discuss the congressman's legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square – such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal.

Lloyd, a California civil-rights attorney, is an officer with the American Legion who wrote a resolution passed by the national organization supporting Hostettler's bill.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.

Hostettler says some organizations have created a new civil liberty – a right to be protected "from religion, which is found nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights." The Indiana congressman blames "a very select group" for "perverting" the original statute, including the ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separate of Church and State.

"They use this statute to extort behavior out of individuals," the congressman said, citing the Indiana Civil Liberties Union threatening local educators. The group sent a letter to officials saying they would be sued and be forced to pay attorney's fees should any graduation prayers be offered at commencement ceremonies. The threat sent the message, Hostettler said, that individuals tied to school districts could be impoverished personally.

Said the lawmaker: "When officials see the potential threat of a lawsuit, they stop allowing children to write papers for English class – when they're asked to write about the most important person in their life and they decide to write about Jesus Christ."

Hostettler's bill would allow cases to move through the courts without public officials worrying about being held personally liable for thousands in attorneys fees.

"Let's let these cases go forward; let's let the courts decide what's constitutional and what's not, and let's not leave it up to the ACLU," he said.

Hostettler explained that while government entities can pay attorney's fees charged to individual elected officials, they don't legally have to, which puts the politicians on the hook.

Saying most taxpayers are in favor of allowing public religious expression, the congressman noted the irony of those same taxpayers being forced to pay the ACLU to sue their local governments.

"The current threat to public officials is very real; it's ongoing," Hostettler stated. "It's been the case for several years that public officials are scared to death to suggest any type of public recognition of our Christian roots. It's a problem that needs to be addressed in Washington, D.C."

PERA would prohibit damages, court fees and attorney's fees from going to plaintiffs in establishment-clause suits while keeping the original purpose of the civil-rights law, Hstettler says, to provide a means for those whose religious liberties have been blocked to find justice.

The congressman wonders why the ACLU would oppose his legislation since it still provides for "injunctive relief" – e.g., a court can rule in the ACLU's favor and force the removal of a Ten Commandments display – but takes out the monetary incentive for lawsuits.

"If they're not out for the money but are really out to preserve our civil liberties … then the ACLU should not be opposing my bill," Hostettler commented.

In the podcast, Lloyd decried the "terrorizing litigation tactics of the ACLU."

Said Lloyd: "Not only can the ACLU brings these suits and compel taxpayers to pay them to destroy the public display of our American history and heritage, but so can Islamist terrorists or Islamist sympathizers in our midst.

"All they have to do is walk into court, make their claim that they're offended by the sight of a cross or other religious symbol, and they're going to win the case because judges follow one another under stare decisis," or deference to precedent.

The judges would then order that fees be paid to the Islamists, Lloyd contends.

Lloyd said this issue came into focus for him when he witnessed the fight in San Diego, Calif., over a cross on a veterans' memorial on public land in the Mohave Desert.

"For me, that was the one step taken too far," Lloyd said. "Now, for the first time, the ACLU was attacking the very veterans who secured their freedom."

A civil-rights activist since the '60s, Lloyd worked with the ACLU in the '70s and was "very supportive" of the 1976 Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act because it was a "noble attempt to assure that people who had legitimate civil-rights violations and injuries could secure legal representation."

Stated Lloyd: "The ACLU has perverted, distorted and exploited the Civil Rights Act … to turn it into a lawyer-enrichment act."

Lloyd says the American people are "oblivious" to how many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are going to the ACLU each year.

The attorney pointed out many attorneys in cases brought by the ACLU are volunteers, so the fees the group is awarded normally do not go to reimburse an attorney but rather directly into the organization's coffers.

Hostettler's bill, which was introduced first in 2003 without success, currently has 35 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and sits in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

The Center For Reclaiming America claims that they have over 100,000 signatures backing this bill. Honestly, I don't know what they are waiting on. If we can up our petiton from 19,000 to 25,000, I will personally take the signatures to Congressman Hostettler myself....I promise you. I only live two hours from D.C.

SIGN OUR PETITON TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU ....and spread the word as far and wide on this petition as you can!


Thursday, December 22, 2005

Some Thoughts For The Season

I had originally thought I might write about the coming collapse of the Democratic Party and its departure from the national scene, but as it is three days before most Americans celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ I thought I would share some of my hopes for the New Year and my thoughts of this Christmas season.
I have had many things to be thankful for this year and while the MSM would have many believe that this year was a terrible one, it was one to look back on and revel in our success’s and comfort each in the sorrows’. The President that has kept good on his promise to defend this nation was re-elected and started the year with a noble agenda. While he has stumbled along the path this year, he has succeeded overwhelming in his primary duty, the safeguarding of this nation. We have not had a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 and while we still have an incredible amount of work to do, we have made progress. Our economy has proven how strong it is even with rising fuel costs and the expense of the terrible 2005 hurricane season and home ownership is becoming more and more a reality for everyday Americans.
While we have faced difficulty in Iraq over the last year, the success has been simply amazing. The Iraqis in the short span of a year have elected a representative government and ratified a constitution. They have made these historical steps towards a free democracy quicker then even our own great county. The road will be a long one and it will not be without sacrifice but it is worth the blood, sweat and tears that our brave men and women and their families will endure. They are our greatest examples of the selfless ideals that this country was founded on. They deserve our daily thanks and a permanent place in our prayers.
Looking forward to next year we can only guess what might be in store for this country and each and every one of us. I offer a simple prayer of thanks and wish goodwill towards all including those who through direct or indirect action seek the destruction of our way of life.

Dear Lord,
I thank you for the health and happiness of my family and friends and ask for your continued blessings on all of your children who count you as our Savior. Please continue to watch over those who serve this nation and protect it from harm and their families as they cope with the absent of their loved ones. Help those who have strayed from your path to return to the flock so that might know your love. I thank you for the honor of counting all the Wide Awakes as dear friends and continue to bless them and their families as well. Bless the President as he faces the most difficult time of his life. Bless the members of Congress and please grant them wisdom to do what is right for this country. Thank you Lord, Amen.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Is there a War on Christmas or Has the Right Learned to Use the Left’s Tricks?

From Dispatches from the Culture Wars comes an interesting observation regarding the "War on Christmas", questioning if such a war exists or if another event is taking place. The other event being that "social conservatives have learned the power of victimhood."

There is an old saying that goes "just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you". The claim that "there is no 'War on Christmas', you are simply playing at being a victim" falls into the same category.

Whether you believe there is a "War on Christmas" or not is immaterial to this one fact;

If the Right has taken a wellworn page from the Left's playbook and started a "Christian Victims of Secularist Plots" group that will, if the typical victimized subgroup plan is followed, start demanding "protection" and special advantages under the law then the left get what they deserve.

Never use a weapon you aren't willing to have used against you.

So if there is no "War on Christmas", conferring a false victimhood on Christians will eventually get them, and Christmas, "protected" status under the law, (sorta' like a religious affirmative action), and if there is a "War on Christmas" the same outcome is very likely.

How pissy is the left going to be when they realize that they already lost this one?

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances

That headline above almost tells the truth and for the Washington Post that is a scary thing. The Dumbocrats have asked Nancy Pelosi to come up with an issue agenda for the 2006 Mid-Term Elections. Wow, doesn't anyone at the DNC see what a colossal mistake that is going to be. Besides joining her fellow Dummycrats in their daily, strike that, hourly displays of hypocrisy she is without a moral or ethic compass.

I think the main reason that she does not plan to include a stance on Iraq in the 2006 issue list is a very simple one. They can't make up their minds and are constantly trying to read tea leaves in order to try and do what is best politically for them and not what is best for this country or even the Iraqis. It will be interesting to see their reaction to the President's speech later today. When he speaks plainly on the topic the American people respond if any polls are to be believed.

Let me leave you with this following tidbit from Pelosi and ponder whether the Dummycrats really have a chance in Hell of returning to the status of a national party.

Nancy Pelosi is once again calling for withdrawal from Iraq. Didn't the House just vote on this recently? Perhaps Pelosi forgot she voted against the resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Was not that resolution defeated 403 - 3? Is there some thing in the water that has given Pelosi some memory issues? Today, Nancy Pelosi endorsed withdrawal from Iraq. Courtsey of Sailor in the Desert

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

ACLU's Opposition to Patriot Act Conflicts Its Own Agenda

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU


WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed disappointment with the failure of the House to protect the liberty and freedom of innocent Americans when that body adopted flawed legislation to reauthorize the Patriot Act. The White House and its allies had placed enormous pressure on lawmakers to adopt the proposal that now heads to the Senate.

The ACLU noted that the conference report fails to require individualized suspicion before people's financial, medical or library records can be gathered by the FBI, as unanimously adopted by the Senate.ACLU Website

This is nothing more than feeding unnecessary paranoia for those who live in a state of Orwellian fear. First of all, I can’t understand why people are so afraid of someone seeing their library records. If it's a public library, it's a public record. That includes any library that accepts public funding, which means virtually all college and high school libraries as well. There is a check and balance involved, because before someone’s records can be obtained only after being approved by a federal judge. It would be a total waste of time for the FBI to care what someone is looking at in a Library, unless some other act of theirs puts up a flag that an investigation should be warranted. The ACLU are using scare tactics, creating the fear of Big Brother invading the libraries, when in fact investigators in ordinary criminal cases have been able to gain access to library records long before 9/11. The Feds already had these tools for cases in domestic criminal activities, the Patriot Act only extends these tools to investigators to use against terrorists.

Alberto Gonzales writes in the Washinton Post
Those who voice concern that Congress is rushing to reauthorize the expiring provisions fail to recognize the oversight it has conducted. In 2005, Congress held 23 hearings focused on reauthorization and heard from more than 60 witnesses. The Justice Department was pleased to provide witnesses at 18 of those hearings, with more than 30 appearances by our experts. I testified three times, explaining the importance of the act, responding to concerns and directly addressing the act's critics. My testimony was informed not only by the successes of the act but also by my personal meetings with representatives from groups such as the ACLU and the American Library Association. During the reauthorization discussion, I asked that certain provisions be clarified to ensure the protection of civil liberties, and Congress responded.

For example, Section 215 of the act permits the government to obtain records on an order issued by a federal judge. I agreed that the statute should allow a recipient of such an order to consult a lawyer and challenge it in court. Further, I agreed that Congress should make explicit the standard under which such orders are issued: relevance to an authorized national security investigation. In 2001 one prominent Democratic senator agreed that the "FBI has made a clear case that a relevance standard is appropriate for counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations, as well as for criminal investigations."

The president has said that our number-one priority is preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack. Congress must act immediately and reauthorize the Patriot Act before the men and women in law enforcement lose the tools they need to keep us safe.

It isn't suprising that the ACLU would be against this, after all we are talking about an organization that thinks Gitmo detainees have the right to remain silent when interrogated. However, for the ACLU to pretend they care about people's privacy is a joke. The ACLU have been against the Patriot Act since it was first introduced. There have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the act's existence. Where privacy matters are concerned, the ACLU's record is much more tainted.

Just last year, the ACLU came under fire over privacy concerns.

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Daniel S. Lowman, vice president for analytical services at Grenzebach Glier & Associates, the data firm hired by the A.C.L.U., said the software the organization is using, Prospect Explorer, combs a broad range of publicly available data to compile a file with information like an individual's wealth, holdings in public corporations, other assets and philanthropic interests.

The issue has attracted the attention of the New York attorney general, who is looking into whether the group violated its promises to protect the privacy of its donors and members.

"It is part of the A.C.L.U.'s mandate, part of its mission, to protect consumer privacy," said Wendy Kaminer, a writer and A.C.L.U. board member. "It goes against A.C.L.U. values to engage in data-mining on people without informing them. It's not illegal, but it is a violation of our values. It is hypocrisy."

The organization has been shaken by infighting since May, when the board learned that Anthony D. Romero, its executive director, had registered the A.C.L.U. for a federal charity drive that required it to certify that it would not knowingly employ people whose names were on government terrorism watch lists.

A day after The New York Times disclosed its participation in late July, the organization withdrew from the charity drive and has since filed a lawsuit with other charities to contest the watch list requirement.

The group's new data collection practices were implemented without the board's approval or knowledge, and were in violation of the A.C.L.U.'s privacy policy at the time, said Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent and strident internal critic. Mr. Meyers said he learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 in 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," he said. "In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret."

The ACLU has no room to talk. They need to sit down and shut up. The Patriot Act is a vital tool for law enforcement to keep us safe. The Senate does not need to let this important legislation expire.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at or Gribbit at You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

The Bill of Rights (ACLU Style)

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but we will sue like hell everytime we feel that Christianity is daring to show its' ugly, exclusionary and morally indignant head. Further, we shall demand that tax payers cover our court costs.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but we don't really care and won't defend this amendment one bit, however we swear to work towards giving the criminals that prey on law abiding citizens more consideration.

Amendment III
The death penalty shall not be enacted upon those born and legally convicted of a crime. The unborn and citizens being preyed upon by criminals deserve less consideration than the victims of our uncaring Republican controlled world.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, no matter what circumstances may arise, and this applies especially to people that the government believes may be acting against the safety and security of these United States and its' citizens. This really, REALLY applies in the case of people suspected of trafficking in child porn or acting in support of "terrorist" organizations.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, unless that person is George W. Bush, then he shall be tried for War Crimes in the public arena using false information. Further, this Amendment shall extend to any person on the whole of the Earth that wishes to accuse the Bush Administration of any number of wild allegations such as claiming to have been captured by the CIA and held in Afghanistan.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense,especially when we can use the trial for publicity. Further, people convicted should not only retain the ability to cast votes in elections, but should also be afforded those things which honest citizens must work hard to pay for, such as cable television and workout equipment.

Amendment VII
Child Porn, while being a heinous crime, should be, once created, a protected form of free speech, and should not be used as evidence.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, unless such fines are levied upon rich corporations that have been sued by our ideological bretheren in the militant enviromental movement. Cruel and unusual punishments include no cable TV, being forced to sleep on a floor, and being deprived of pornographic material.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, unless those "rights" need to have a new definition placed upon them due to changing social mores, chief among them being the Right to Not be Offended, ever.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, unless we feel it imperative to override the states right to choose and take an issue to the Supreme Court of The United States, thereby making a states right into a federal decree. In fact, the rights of the state are of little concern to us, as we believe that achieving our goals through judical activism is the only way we will ever get our purely seditous agenda enacted in this country.

There ya' have it. Any suggestions?

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Democrats Prove Themselves Liars Again

The Democrats tell us that they are the true moral compress of this nation. They cry about the injustices that the American people are subjected to on a daily basis by the Republican Party and its evil leader, President George W. Bush, but offer no ideas or vision only constant complaining and petty bitching. Well, I am going to lay out the case for why the Democrats have forgotten their roots and serve no one but themselves and as a result of selfish path they walk, they are actively working to destroy this country for all.

The Democrats were handed a golden opportunity last Friday by a Republican led House of Representatives that honestly was out to embarrass them. But as they have done time and time again they showed exactly how weak they are, how without any core values they are, and how desperate they are to stay elected, they simply took the bait like a good rat and died the proverbial quick death. I will explain this opinion in depth shortly but let’s detail the overwhelming position of Democrats on the war in Iraq.

The Democrats “believe” the following when discussing Iraq:

1) We should never have gone to Iraq in the first place, no threat existed.

2) The Iraqi WMD program was shut down through sanctions and did not exist at time prior to the war.

3) The President lied and manipulated pre-war intelligence to make the case for the war stronger.

4) No terrorist ties existed between Iraq and any terrorist organization.

5) With our presence in Iraq, we are creating the next generation of terrorists.

6) The war in Iraq is a complete failure and we are risking our men and women in uniform needlessly.

If I am leaving out any leftist talking points I am sure that I will be corrected in short order by those that practice drive-by commenting. Let me take these talking points one by one and show how the Democrats never mean what they say and most certainly do not believe anything they tell us.

I am going to address points one and two together, no threat from Iraq existed and Iraq’s WMD program was non-existent before the war. During the Clinton administration, Bill Clinton ordered attacks against Iraq multiple times during his administration for continued violations of the United Nations sanctions against the Iraqi WMD program. Here are just a few instances of those violations during that time period.

September 25, 1997

· UNSCOM inspects an Iraqi "food laboratory". One of the inspectors, Dr. Diane Seaman, enters the building through the back door and catches several men running out with suitcases. The suitcases contained log books for the creation of illegal bacteria and chemicals. The letterhead comes from the president's office and from the Special Security Office (SSO).

  • UNSCOM attempts to inspect the SSO headquarters but is blocked.

October 1997

· UNSCOM destroys large quantities of illegal chemical weapons and related equipment. Iraq admitted that some of this equipment had been used to produce VX gas in May, 1997.

February 1998

· US President Bill Clinton remarks "(Hussein's) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act." Senate Democrats also passed Resolution 71, which urged President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Spring 1998

  • An UNSCOM inspection team discovers a dump full of destroyed Iraqi missiles. Analysis of the missile parts proves that Iraq had made a weapon containing VX.

July 1998

· UNSCOM discovers documents, at Iraqi Air Force headquarters, showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the U.N. it had used during the Iran-Iraq War. These bombs remain unaccounted for.

August 26th, 1998

· Scott Ritter resigns from UNSCOM, sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming," Ritter said, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike."

September 28th, 1998

· The United States Congress passes the "Iraq Liberation Act", which states that the US wants to remove Saddam Hussein from office and replace the government with a democratic institution.

November 30th, 1998

· Butler meets with US National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to coordinate timelines for a possible military strike against Iraq

December 13th, 1998

· US President Clinton secretly approves an attack on Iraq.

December 16th-19th, 1998

  • UNSCOM withdraws all weapons inspectors from Iraq.
  • Saddam Hussein's failure to provide unfettered access to UN arms inspectors led Washington and London to hit 100 Iraqi targets in four days of bombing as part of Operation Desert Fox. The US government urged UNSCOM executive chairman Richard Butler to withdraw, and "[a] few hours before the attack began, 125 UN personnel were hurriedly evacuated from Baghdad to Bahrain, including inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency."

Ok, I know that it’s a little bit of over kill but I wanted to show how the Democrats in most cases during the Clinton Administration and the run up to the current war in Iraq made a better case for war against Iraq then quite a few Republicans. Now the only thing that has changed from that time period of 1997-2000 is that a Democrat is no longer in the White House and they have lost control of the Senate along with the House. The information has not changed only the will of the Democrats to do what is right to protect this nation. Personally I don’t think they ever had the will to do the right thing. One little side note, with the exception of the attacks of 9/11 all the terrorist attacks that this country has suffered have happen on the watch of a Democrat President. How did we react? We bombed a tent city in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan. When 9/11 occurred this Republican President did not bite his lip and shed a tear, he stepped up and took the reins of leadership as he acted decisively.

Point three, the President lied about the pre-war intelligence and overstated the threat so as to “trick” the American people, Congress, and our allies into going to war when no valid reason existed. I have to say that this Democrat “talking point” is my favorite, not because it is the most repeated and some leftist have practically tattooed it to their foreheads but because it is the most obvious, outright, and complete falsehood in the entire Democrat arsenal of revising history. The same intelligence data that they claim the President lied about is the same intelligence data that Democrat after Democrat used to justify their votes to give the President the ability to wage the war. The constant revising of history to suit their needs is nothing more than a symptom of their collective inability to stick to a belief or an ideal. This behavior is simply the high of hypocrisy and should not be tolerated by the American people regardless of the politician’s political affiliation.

The fourth talking point by most Democrats is that no terrorist ties existed between Iraq and any terrorist organization. Again this is a complete falsehood and another attempt to change facts that do not fit their twisted version of the world. The world has known for more than 15 years that Saddam Hussein and his government had been paying Hamas and other Palestinian homicidal bombers families about $20,000 dollars to help ease their loss and thank them for their “noble” sacrifice for the cause. If Hussein and corrupt government were willing to support Hamas and others against Israel, can we subscribe to the naiveté notion that he would not support others groups that might be willing and able to hit his most hated enemy, the United States of America? It makes me wonder if anyone in the Democratic Party ever took a critical thinking course in college, or high school, or grade school because they sure don’t act like it. Now I know the old argument about Saddam was from this tribe and the terrorists are from another tribe. To those who pin their hopes for safety and security on that myth I say this: keep dreaming. When you have someone who is willing to kill his own countrymen and even members of his own family then anything is possible.

It just occurred to me that as I address these leftist “talking points”, they mostly likely are culling more from the wonderful people over at Democratic Underground. The work of the righteous is never done, on to point five. Our presence in Iraq is creating tomorrow’s terrorists. I am sorry but I don’t know any other way to say it but that is complete and utter bullsh*t. If we are creating more terrorists in Iraq it is only because al- Qaeda has found enough suckers to replace all of the Islamofacists that we have already introduced to Allah. If the terrorists are only in Iraq because they are joining up to fight us how on God’s green Earth does that explain the attacks in Spain, London, Thailand, and India? The terrorists who have hijacked the Muslim faith are all over this planet including right here in the United States.

Of the world’s current armed conflicts, over 80% of them involve radical Islam. Why is it that we must bend to the deranged view of these radicals when clearly they cannot even live in the same country as others of a different faith? Furthermore, why is it the platform of the current Democratic Party to try and understand and treat these murderers with respect? I for the life of me cannot figure it out. Let me lay this nugget on you. If a dog of any breed attacks anyone in that liberal stronghold of San Francisco, the dog is put to death. There is no attempt to understand the dog and why it attacked, it is simply executed and the issue is closed. That is the exact policy we need to take with the terrorists who seek to kill or convert every single person on the planet who does not share their perverted vision of the world.

The sixth “talking point” is that we are a complete failure in Iraq and we are needlessly wasting American lives. Obviously the left is reading too many of their own press clippings. The entire MSM is a complete failure as legitimate news gathering organizations. The fact is that there is good news out of Iraq; it is just not being reported at the MSM level in the United States. Everyday men and women of our armed forces are making a difference in the lives of Iraqis who previously had only known the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein. More people have access to electricity, clean water, education, and economic opportunities than ever before in the long and storied history of not only Iraq but the entire region.

Now that I had taken the Democrats to task over their much beloved Iraqi “talking points”, let’s address their latest example of how they hold no core beliefs and simply don’t even believe what they tell the American people. On Friday after many weeks and months of bitching and moaning about how there is no exit strategy, the Democrats were given a golden opportunity to show the world of exactly how they felt about the war and how soon we should leave Iraq. Contrary to the MSM reporting, the issue was not about Congressmen Murtha; it was about whether or not we would finish the job before us and give the Iraqi people the gift of freedom or cut and run as many in the Democratic Party think. Well when given the opportunity to express the opinion that many have been pushing on the MSM news programs and in Op-Ed pieces in leftist newspapers, they blinked. If they truly believed that we should leave Iraq as soon as possible then they certainly did not show it. There are two reasons for this I think. The first reason is a simple one, they know that their views are out of touch with the rest of America and many of their own constituents and they don’t want to be voted out of office the next time they are up for reelection. The reason is equally as simple; they would rather toe the line while staying in the shadows, spouting their treasonous speech. They will continue speaking out of both sides of their mouth and not believing a word from either side so why should we?

Monday, November 21, 2005

Guard Our Borders Blogburst

Our porous borders are not as benign as many people think. I'm originally from Wisconsin, and if anyone had told me stories about the southern border today, I would've assumed they were talking about the Old Wild West - until Kalishnakovs and AK-47s entered the story, that is. Today's American/Mexican border is a wasteland of trash, human waste, and ruined land criss-crossed with heavily traveled dirt highways. It doesn't matter that the land is privately owned, or that Americans living on the border live in a constant state of armed alertness, 24/7 - it's the Wild, Wild West, 21st century-style.

As he careered along the rock-strewn gulley towards his silver mine deep in the Sonoran desert of southern Arizona, Roger McCaslin first checked his bowie knife, then his pistol, and finally his Kalashnikov. From the road, he had already noticed that something was wrong.

"The gate's broken and the door on the trailer's open. They've been here, I know it," he said ominously. "I just hope they've moved on - for their sake."

Under the harsh sun, Mr McCaslin's black cowboy hat cast a shadow over his droopy moustache and a face so deeply creased that it resembled cracked saddle leather.

Welcome to the Wild West 2005, where modern-day cowboys still guard their land from interlopers - but using AK47s and four-wheel drives instead of Winchester rifles and horses.

Heavily armed Mexican gangs use the network of trails across McCaslin's land to smuggle humans and vast quantities of drugs into the United States. There is no one to stop them, except one man. And in today's society, even he runs a steep risk of prosecution for protecting his own property from foreign invasion. Knowing this, the Mexican gangs have gotten extremely aggressive, violence has erupted, and life on the border has become fraught with peril.

Notoriously porous, the border has reached new levels of lawlessness this year as smugglers, known as "coyotes", have become increasingly brazen, willing to fire on anyone - from border patrols to the likes of Mr McCaslin - who gets in their way.
He recounted several gunfights with the "coyotes", including one occasion when he and his business partner came under fire at dusk as they barbecued steaks. "They started the war when they started shooting at us."
From his vantage point at the mine, he has watched long lines of illegal immigrants traipsing north through the desert, leaving their detritus as they passed. Discarded everywhere, in disused mines and beneath bushes, are the cheap clothes and bags that they abandon to travel faster and less conspicuously. Empty water bottles litter the landscape.

Once Mr McCaslin found a 300lb stash of marijuana hidden in a hollow. "I called up the border patrol who came and took it away. Then that night I sat up here and watched the car lights of the coyotes as they searched and searched for the stuff. Boy, they must have been mad," he said with a satisfied grin.

I posted a story months ago about families living on the border, and the stories they recount so matter-of-factly, are horrifying to outsiders. Theirs is a life dominated by self-defense lessons, family practice drills to huddle in the master bedroom, obligatory two-way radios for kids who walk to school, and a handgun on the hip for mom.

"The diversity of those who are coming across has grown and their desperation has definitely heightened," she [Mrs. Garner] says. "Years ago, they would politely ask you for water outside. Now you come home and someone is in your house, eating your food, trashing your bedroom, stealing your stuff, and leaving garbage everywhere."

While public outrage is growing, our government has been slow and ineffectual with dealing with the lawless border. In a post-9/11 world, prudence would've dictated that the border be tightened up and patrolled regularly - especially since al Qaeda has made it public knowledge that they are working with Mexican gangs. In October, three known al Qaeda suspects were caught crossing the border into Texas. And the Border Patrol estimates that 1 in every 10 border jumpers is Arab. is more dangerous and pernicious...with a growing number of people of different nationalities coming across the border, including from the Middle East, India, and Afghanistan.

The evidence of that comes in Islamic prayer rugs found in the desert dust, Arabic literature left by still-warm campfires, and Afghani head garb caught on cactus quills.

Public support for a 2,000 mile steel wire fence along our southern border is rapidly gaining popularity among Americans. Considering the incredible success of San Diego's 14 mile fence, which has reduced illegal border jumping to 1/6th of its previous levels, the argument in favor of a fence is strong. However, the Bush administration has inexplicably stated that a fence would be a "waste of money". That argument is entirely unsupported, since illegal aliens cost our economy hundreds of billions per year, whereas the fence construction would cost $8 billion - and pay for itself within the first year of its construction!

The fact that life on our own borders is a surreal throwback to the lawless days of the Wild West is something we cannot ignore just because it's happening to someone else. American citizens should not have to live in a no-man's land of unchallenged drug smuggling and human trafficking. By leaving our borders unprotected, our federal government has abdicated its control of our national security, and our President has betrayed his sworn oath to protect and defend our people and our land.


This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to kit.jarrell at gmail dot com.

Blogs already on board:

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Stop The ACLU Blogburst

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

In conjunction with the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the ACLU has lobbied hard against Arab-profiling at airports for years. “Profiles are notoriously under-inclusive,” says ACLU legislative counsel Gregory Nojeim. “Who knows who the next terrorist will appear as? It could be a grandmother. It could be a student. We just don’t know.”Source

The airline industry’s fear of such lawsuits is based on solid historical precedent. In 1993, for instance, the ACLU joined forces with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) to sue Pan American World Airways for having detained a man of Iranian descent during the first Persian Gulf War.

So, the ACLU says political correctness trumps common sense. They block that route of securing ourselves from being blown up. What to do? Hmmm.. I've got it! Lets do random searches!

ACLU Files Suit Over Random Subway Searches.The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the New York chapter of the ACLU, has announced that they intend on filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan today. The suit claims that the random bag searches before boarding the subway system is unconstitutional.

City lawyers have noted that an al-Qaida training manual advising terrorists to avoid police checkpoints gives the city some justification for its random searches of bags entering the subway system.

Ok, so the ACLU says no profiled searches, and no random searches. What about searches across the board? Nope. Raymond James Stadium tried it, and the ACLU sued. So, where does that leave us with searches? I think we can conclude that the ACLU are against all searches. Is this because they stand by the principle of the fourth amendment? The irony and hypocrisy here is that, the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search. Apparantly their war against searches is not based on principle.

But searches are not the only that brings criticism on the ACLU on the topic of National Security.

The ACLU and CAIR have actually taken up quite a number of cases together. In 2003, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU awarded its yearly “Liberty Flame Award” to the Ohio chapter of CAIR “for contributions to
the advancement and protection of civil liberties.” This same Ohio chapter, in August of this year, refused contributions from the United Way, as to not complete a required counterterrorism compliance form.

But it isn't isolated to one rouge chapter.

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.

What is this all about?

Although its website proclaims that it does not receive “any government funding,” it does get money from a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions. Last year it got $470,000 from the program. (The ACLU’s 2002 annual budget, the most recent available, was $102 million.)

Now it had a choice: give up the money, or sign a promise certifying that the ACLU “does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on” government watch lists of suspected supporters of terrorism.

Trouble was, the ACLU had strongly opposed the lists, saying they were often inaccurate and violated the constitutional rights of some people.

But it really hated the idea of giving up the money.Source

So what did they do? Well, at first they decided they would try to trick the government. They decided to keep the money, AND keep hiring anyone they pleased, by what Nadine Strossen called a “clever interpretation.” Their solution was that if they remained ignorant of who was on the list, then they couldn’t “knowingly” hire anyone on the list. Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, tells the New York Times: “I’ve printed [the lists] out. I’ve never consulted them.”

To make a long story short, when The New York Times outted them, they caved in. But they didn’t cave in to the government, they just decided to forgoe the money, so they could still ignorantly hire people on the government watchlist. Isn’t that nice?

However, this isn't the end. The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations successfully challenged Office of Personnel Management’s Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) requirements that all participating charities check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for “terrorist activities” and that organizations certify that they do not contribute funds to organizations on those lists. This is something the ACLU finds worthy of celebrating. In my opinion this is reason to be suspicious of what the ACLU does with its funds.

It isn't a far fetched idea to wonder if the ACLU uses its funds to support terrorism. The ACLU's history is tainted in this arena.

In 1985 Samuel L. Morrison, an employee of the Naval Intelligence Support Command was convicted and sentenced for stealing classified spy satellite photographs from his office, cutting off the “secret” designation and selling them to a foreign publication. The ACLU claimed that Morrison had the right to steal and sell these classified documents and the under the First Amendment.

Positions like these might be easier to understand if we look at ACLU Policy #117. They title this policy “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies”. ”

Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluating foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations. Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by eliminating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.

Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries. Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records….”

The ACLU Defends the P.L.O.

“I’m afraid even the good guys on civil liberties are going to be against us on this one.” Those are the words of ACLU Executive director Ira Glasser on the ACLU’s decision to represent an agent of Yassir Araftat’s Palestine Liberation Organization.
I wonder if his definition of “good guys” meant American citizens who care about their country and are not willing to grant sworn terrorists complete freedom within our borders. If so, he is absolutely correct. We are against that one.
“Arafat’s group of ruthless murderers had set up an “information office” in Washington D.C, only a few blocks from the White House.

The ACLU Defends "Mad Dog" of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi.

“In 1985, the ACLU learned of an alleged plan by the CIA to engineer Qaddafi’s overthrow. Outraged, they put together a “strenuous” public protest against this proposed action.

In a letter fillled with self-righteous indignation, Morton Halperin, Director of the ACLU Washington office, expressed his opinion of that plan to Sen. David Durenberger, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with copies to everyone imaginable.

And to make sure no one was left out, the ACLU also issued a press release trumpeting it’s opposition to any attempt to oust Qaddafi.”

The ACLU has also shown itself a willing tool of the terrorists, waging a massive anti-anti-terrorism legal campaign. This pillar of the legal Left denounced the government’s requirement that men aged 16-25 holding “temporary visas” from nations with known ties to terrorism register with the INS; represented Sami al-Arian, the North American fundraiser and co-founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (filing a brief upholding his inalienable right to fresh briefs!); rallied on behalf of convicted al-Qaeda benefactor Maher Mofeid Hawash; urged local communities not to cooperate with federal anti-terror investigations; and opposed the FBI’s monitoring Islamist mosques. As David Horowitz notes in his book Unholy Alliance, radical Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer Ron Kuby notes the “passionate…identification” most lawyers feel with their clients, such as that of convicted terror enabler Lynne Stewart for World Trade Center bomber Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Given her aid for international Islamic terrorism, the government is right to keep a watchful eye on those who perpetually side with the enemy. Front Page Magazine

They have fought hard for the release of Abu Ghraib images depicting sickening torture of our enemies, further inflaming the propaganda war on the side of the enemy. The ACLU also submitted a 37-page report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee describing specific U.S. breaches of the political and civil rights covenant.

The report included sections on “Excessive Government Secrecy”; “Racial Profiling of the U.S. Arab, South Asian, and Muslim Communities”; “Criminalization of Political Protest”; “Increased Surveillance Powers”; and “Random Searches.”

Recently the ACLU have decided to represent two detainees who claim the U.S. Military threw them into lions dens. Somebody is lion alright. They have also accused the U.S. military of outright murdering 21 detainees. They have even advised the majority of the prisoners at Gitmo that they did not have to answer questions from military interrogators.

Actions like these have enraged groups like The American Legion, and Christians for Reviving American Values, who are asking Congress to investigate the ACLU. The American Legion is already mobilizing its members to fight the ACLU over issues such as the Boyscouts. The sympathy for the enemy also has them fired up. To many of these groups, and to many Americans, the perception is that The ACLU cares more about terrorists than it does about America.

As you can see, balancing national security interests with a respect for civil liberties is not the goal of the ACLU. Its goal is the absolute pursuit of civil liberties, without regard for its consequences. Gone are the the carefully worded policies that guided Union thinking during World War II. Gone, too is any kind of talk about the enemies of the United States. It is hard to imagine a person vile enought, or a crisis serious enough, to shake the ACLU from its absolutist position during wartime. The tragedy is it is not just the nation's security that stands to lose as a result, it is the cause of liberty itself.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at or Gribbit at You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Top Ten Reasons To Stop The ACLU

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Stop The ACLU was started on February 9th, 2004. We started with high hopes, and we realized we were facing a goliath. There were many reasons why we thought the ACLU needed to be countered, and they are numerous. We wanted to provide a way to inform the public of the ACLU's agenda, as the MSM sugar coated it. We wanted to be a central database for people to gather, exchange ideas, and get actively involved in real ways of stopping them. It is a monumental task, exhausting, time consuming, and often frustrating. But it is a fight worth fighting.

We would be nothing without our supporters. To all of you, we appreciate the continued support. We have called you to action and you have answered. We raised $2,500.00 for an ad in the Washington Times, and I want to announce at this time that the check is in the mail as of Wednessday, Nov 8th. The ad should appear within the next two weeks. When it does, it will be scanned, and put up at Stop The ACLU for all to see. We will call you to action again, and again, and it is good to know that you will answer the call because you believe in this cause.

The ACLU have been laying low lately, but that is no reason to grow complacent. It is now that we should prepare to counter them. The Christmas season is around the corner, and the ACLU will be full force. Get involved in Operation Nativity.

There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. For this blogburst I decided to list my top ten list.

10. The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly...

My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

9. The ACLU do not belive in the Second Amendment.

ACLU POLICY “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”ACLU Policy #47

#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.

#7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it's the ACLU's top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU's pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

#6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.

#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of "seperation of Church and State", the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. The oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.

#4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don't practice the principles they preach.

Take a walk into the NYCLU’s Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you’ll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

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

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

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

#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.

As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.

There is no doubt the The ACLU are perverting the Constitution.

#1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one?

There are countless reasons the ACLU needs to be stopped. So don't just stand by and complain, do something. Get involved. Here are some ways you can get involved to help us stop the ACLU.

Support and donate to organizations fighting them in Court. Here are the ones at the forefront.

Alliance Defense Fund
Thomas More Law Center

Join the Stop The ACLU Coalition

Help us write Churches to get involved.

Tell your Congress to support the Public Expression of Relgion Act of 2005. This legislation seeks to limit attorney's fees in Establishment Clause cases to injunctive relief only.


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at or Gribbit at You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

The UN, Panhandler to the World

The UN is saying, as they say about everything, that the H5N1 virus, better known as the Bird Flu, could be stamped out if they simply had more money.

"We just haven't spent enough money,"....."It can be contained in domestic birds. It can be eliminated in domestic birds, but at the current level of money, it cannot be contained."

Damned socialists. Every single problem can be solved with more money.

They say they need about 500 million. The Oil-for-Food Scandal netted somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 billion dollars plus.

Let them use that money.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Guard Our Borders Blogburst

The biggest incentive for illegal aliens to come to the United States is to find work. If there are no employers willing to hire the illegal aliens, then the flood of illegal aliens will subside. To that end, a new website has been established whose purpose is to expose "alleged" employers of illegal aliens. The website is We Hire Aliens. There are currently 297 employers from 33 states listed on that "allegedly" hire illegal aliens.

Stordahl and Mrochek, both of San Bernardino, stood at 21st Street and Lincoln Drive on Monday near the Home Depot here, snapping pictures of employers who stopped to pick up laborers, many of whom are Mexican immigrants.

Their plan is to post the photos on the Web site, which features a "Hall of Shame," listing names, phone numbers and other information about businesses that reportedly hire undocumented immigrants.

Mrochek believes a majority of the workers who line the sidewalks here every morning have entered the country illegally, though it would be difficult to know for sure, he said.

He quoted a study conducted by UCLA's Center for the Study of Urban Poverty, which shows that less than 6 percent of day laborers have entered the country with documentation.

"That's strong enough (proof) to have us come out here," he said.

Mrochek is the co-founder of the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition, which operates the Web site.

I think this is a very useful tool. With widespread dissemination of this resource, more people across the country can register companies they know hire illegal aliens. It will literally be a Hall of Shame. And a good dose of embarressment for employers who break our laws. For instance in Texas, there are already listed three very well-known and popular Mexican food chains: Chipotle, Don Carlos, and Casa Ole. Here's one example of the restaurant reports filed on the website:

I was a waitress for one year, and witnessed false documents and social security numbers being used. The American manager even signed a false name to documents so that he would not be responsible in the event of a raid. The entire kitchen/bus staff consisted of illegals who spoke little to no English, and had no desire to learn it.

Another Texas company, Sunbelt Express, is a trucking company. Read this report, and pay special attention to the last sentence:

This company operates tractor-trailers on routes between Texas and California. They do not have any company trucks, but only lease on owner-operators. They are a team operation, meaning always two men to a truck. They have a fleet of about 50 trucks and 100 drivers. Out of that 100, there are only about 6 American drivers. The rest are all Hispanic, with the exception of one team of Iraqis. Few of them speak any English. Many of the trucks are owned by owner-operators who own multiple trucks. Those owner operators provide drivers for their trucks, and the company puts them through cursory training to qualify them to drive for the company. I was in the office one day when one of the larger owner operators brought in several drivers for the company to hire to drive his trucks. None of them could speak any English. The banter in the office was asking the owner operator if he was sure these guys would not get caught at the state scales and be deported. That has happened with some of the drivers they have hired in the past. When the Iraqi team was hired, their first trip out to California was what is called a dry box load. Their return trip, they hauled hazardous materials, a truck load of paint thinner.

Another Texas example is Pilgrim's Pride, a poultry products company, which has about an 80% illegal alien employment rate. Ironic, considering the name of the company, don't you think?

In California, another trucking company, Carrasco Trucking, has been reported:

Jose Carrasco had asked me several times if the corner check point on I17 in Arizona was open. When I asked him why, he replied that some of his drivers don't have green cards or valid CDL's. This occured when I was an employee of Carrasco trucking taking oversized loads of tires from Long Beach Harbor to Bisbee, AZ.

Lennar Homes, a nationwide home builder, was reported in California:

I was having a home built by Lennar in Hemet California and had to cancel it due to shoddy workmanship done by illegal aliens. The Assistant project manager even admitted it. To quote him, "all builders in California use illegal aliens"

I think that's pretty much common knowledge - it's the same in Texas. All builders use illegal aliens. And the work shows it.

Now, here's a winner! U.S. Immigration hired illegal aliens!

I worked for the Immigration & Naturalization Service for 11 Years. During that time, we came to find out that INS had hired 3 Undocumented Aliens presenting counterfiet Birth Certificates. All 3 were terminated but that just goes to show you how good the background checks the INS provides are.

Amazing. What cahones those illegal aliens had to actually apply for employment with INS! Maybe they figured it's safer to hide in plain sight.

If you browse the companies listed at We Hire Aliens, you'll soon notice that MANY of the jobs are jobs that any qualified American would be glad to have. I saw listings for hospital staff, trucking (a lot!), landscaping, state employees, and tons of restaurant chains like Quizno's, Subway, etc. The wages for Americans in similar jobs are being driven down as a result.

You'll also notice many reports of office managers who process the employment paperwork, knowingly accepting false documents, falsifying the documents themselves, or giving the illegals a few days to get "other phony docs they can use for verification".

With shady employment practices like this, a tool like We Hire Aliens, is unique and with nationwide participation can become a real force for change! Should you feel strongly enough about it, the website lists the employer's contact info and invites you to use one of their pre-written form letters to let the business know that you disapprove of their illegal hiring practices and won't patronize their business.

The hispanic illegal aliens believe that they are being targeted unfairly. I find this absurd! What part of illegal don't you understand?!

Some of the laborers waiting to be picked up Monday said they felt they were being unfairly targeted.

Illegal immigration foes want only to show people with brown skin, said Roberto Arreola, 29, who said he's in the country illegally from Mexico.

"Why don't they go to the Canadian border and harass them?" he said. "Why focus just on the Latinos? There are other illegal immigrants from other countries. My question is why? Because of my appearance?"

Arreola questioned who would work the jobs immigrants perform if all the workers here illegally were deported.

He said he doubts Americans would do the work he does, which often involves landscaping and concrete work, for the wage he's willing to accept. Employers will pay between $10 and $15 an hour for some tasks, he said.

What we used to think of as "cheap labor", isn't really so cheap. Ten to fiteen dollars an hour is nothing to sneeze at - especially if you're an unskilled laborer, college student, or unemployed. You can't tell me that an out-of-work American wouldn't be relieved to get a $15/hour job.

We Hire Aliens has also started a database of jobs with Patriot Companies - businesses that only hire Americans. All in all, this resource can grow to become an incredibly useful tool. I know I have a few solid reports to file, both of companies that knowingly hire illegals, and of companies that only hire Americans. DO your part, and help spread the word.

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to kit.jarrell at gmail dot com.

Blogs already on board:

The Devolution of France, or Pride Goeth Before the Fall

The ongoing and apparently uncontrollable riots in France, which claimed their first life today, would appear to be hordes of disaffected youths unhappy with their lot in life in the "French Model" of civilization, and that would be partially correct.

For more in depth analysis one would have to understand the "French Model", socialism, True Freedom, racism, arrogance and "French Pride".

At one time, the French had a sparkling country, full of possibility and True Freedom. That time was directly after the French Revolution, an historic event that showed the raw power of the people unleashed, when hordes of French Citizens took back the country from an elitist government that kept them poor and subservient. I am proud to say that the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, when the Patriots who founded the United States of America tossed off the yoke of oppression imposed by the British Crown and undertook the grandest experiment in the history of the world by creating a government BY the PEOPLE, FOR the PEOPLE, and OF the PEOPLE.

But then the French cocked it all up. With the grand cry of "liberty, equality, fraternity", the French strove to create a country of true equality, where color didn't matter, and creed was a matter of personal belief, never once understanding that the world doesn't work that way, no matter how badly one wishes for it.

Creating a false level playing field through socialist policies that have taken deeper root after WW2, the French refused to believe that their system wasn't thought out well enough, or that "liberty, equality, fraternity" could not be legislated into life.

What we are seeing with the riots in France are the failures of the French Model. There are some people in France, thankfully, that see this failure and are willing to buck the system of "political correctness" and appeasement t point it out.

One such man is the French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who has said;

France's "republican model" falls short and that the U.S. or British "melting pot" approach could help break the cycle of minority exclusion, unemployment and revolt.

He may very well be one of the last honest and intelligent Frenchmen left in that country, although he is not alone. Michel Wieviorka, one of France's leading sociologists, has stated the riots indicated;

"the decline -- perhaps historic -- of the so-called French model of republican integration".

The fact is that the French are racist, but they don't use color as a barometer for their racism, but rather country of origin, economic status and even skill sets. Take for example this article, which states:

Such factors include attempts by France to protect its own particular brand of welfare state at the expense of new entrants to the job market, particularly those belonging to ethnic minority groups, who tend to be poorly educated and low-skilled and therefore less employable. Relegating poor minorities to the outer suburbs hardly make fermenting problems go away, as the current violence has shown.

By the above one can see that the French Model, and it's resultant socialism, simply is NOT working. Add in the factor of inherent racism on the part of the French, especially White French citizens, and a dangerous situation has been created over decades that is not going to go away when the riots end. These issues are going to need to be addressed once the city streets are quiet again, and it is going to be a painful process.

About now you may be asking what does "arrogance" and True Freedom have to do with this, Kender? And what about that "French Pride" you spoke of earlier? To that we need to understand first what True Freedom is, why the French don't possess it, and how their pride is going to keep them from rising to anything but a shadow of the greatness they once knew.

It is no secret that the French are arrogant, to the point that they cannot admit their mistakes. America can be arrogant at times, but that arrogance is fleeting. Never mistake Pride for arrogance. American's are a proud people, because they realize the inherent superiority of their system, and realize that it needs to be tweaked from time to time. The American Way is an ever changing system that evolves with the times, rooting out injustice, albeit sometimes slowly, and making the necessary changes to bring about the values that America was founded on.

Those values include the knowledge, (note; I did NOT use the word "belief", because it is NOT a "belief" but is FACT) that "All Men Are Created Equal". (note for the feminists out there; the use of the term "men" means "mankind", so just shut up about it).

Americans know that all men are CREATED equal, but also realize that life isn't fair, so not all men END UP equal. To that end the American Way allows one to use their brains, ambition, and sometimes luck to create a better set of circumstances for themselves and their family, which carries over naturally into their community.

This gives rise to True Freedom. True Freedom is socio-economic mobility, which means that one can moves through the strata of society (the "socio" part) through economic success (the economic part) and that your lot in life is NOT tied to your birth circumstances, but rather on your ABILITY as a human to be successful or not. At this point I want you to think about this tidbit, Capitalism is Economic Darwinism.

Under a socialist society, with policies of resource redistribution (i.e. THEFT) you cannot rise above your socio-economic status, as in the interest of "parity" you are taxed at ever increasing rates once you attain a certain income level, using the justification that you only need so much to live on, and since another guy only makes so much money compared to what you make, he is going to need more help to stay close to you economically. That is the antithesis of True Freedom. A socialist government decides what level you can attain by the level of society as a whole, thereby stealing not only your earnings, but your Freedom to Succeed, all because there are people that may not be as capable or driven as you are.

French Pride causes the majority of French people, whether in the street or parliament, to believe that their system is perfect the way it is, and only needs to be applied more forcefully. In this article is a very telling sentence:

When Sarkozy says the best social system is the one that produces jobs and that the French model is not doing that, his comments are met not with approval but retorts that the French model is fine and needs only to be better applied.

Proof positive the French cannot admit failure. Indeed, French animosity towards the U.S. is legendary, and I suppose throwing it in their faces that we kept them speaking French and not German twice doesn't help, but the fact remains that the French are regarded on the world stage as has-been's, a joke, a country of people too fearful to stand up for themselves or what is right for fear of "offending" somebody.

That the French have not been able to see clearly for decades is, of course, no surprise, and I suppose with their appeasement of radicals that these riots are simply the expected results of failed policies in the French government, but insight is provided not only to the French incapability to understand True Freedom, but the inability of the French to understand America.

What catches many French leaders in a bind is their belief that the alternative to their strong state intervening to ensure colour-blind equality is the cut-throat capitalism and ethnic segregation they say prevails in English-speaking countries.

In America, ethnic segregation does not exist as the French understand or interpret it. In America segregation is self imposed, as people tend to stick within their comfort zone, which is generally with people like themselves. Segregation is America is also, by and large, not predicated on color, religion or national origin, with the exception of the above mentioned caveat, but rather is an economic indicator. Any segregation in The U.S. is based in Economics, as people that can afford to move to better neighborhoods where the houses are bigger, the average income higher and mainstream values of hard work are evident by the success of the area are free to do so.

If anything America has replaced the old system of social strata by birth or lineage, where one could not move between classes due to long standing traditions or societal taboos, with a new system based on economics, and in the process has always worked to assure that the possibility of attaining that socio-economic mobility is there for anyone that has the ability and drive to reach for it.

French Pride keeps them from realizing that they have a system based in the noblest goals of creating a utopian paradise which will never work, and have hewed to a system born of idealism, without regard to reality.

An honest assessment of the Capitalist system of the United States of America will show that even with all of the faults we have here, we continue to march ever forward into the future with one eye on the past, to learn from our mistakes, and remembering that we must stay grounded in the fact that life is not fair, and we can only address real inequalities, not imagined wrongs and pipe dreams.

XPOSTED@Kender's, Cao's and Conservative Angst