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?