Wednesday, January 25, 2006

The ACLU's Hypocrisy Legacy

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Convincing liberals that the ACLU is leading us down a dangerous path is about as productive as talking to a rock. Perhaps this is because I mostly deal with far left liberals who share the same insane views and have the same radical agenda as the ACLU. Anyone who believes that the ACLU is there to purely defend the Constitution is naive at best. Surely there are some moderate liberals out there that can concede that the organization is in need of reform.

A balanced society can not survive resting in the fringe. A Nation only concerned with security will drift toward a police state, and one that follows the absolutist views of liberty like the ACLU will drift toward anarchy.

The ACLU proudly display a banner that states, Keep America Safe and Free, but any honest person will admit that the ACLU have done nothing for the safety of America. As a matter of fact, all evidence leads to quite the opposite. The ACLU are always ready to put the security of America at risk in the pursuit of its absolutist views of liberty.

Many of the ACLU's former leaders have noticed the irresponsible shifting of the ACLU away from true civil liberty protection into a much more dangerous agenda. For example take the words of this former Executive Director of the ACLU

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

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

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

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

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

None of the anti-abortion group's intimidating writings explicitly threatened violence. Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants' First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief taking no one's side but arguing that speech constitutes a physical threat only when the speaker intends his statement to be taken as one.

...Before anti-abortion zealots started getting sued, the ACLU had much more tolerance for menacing speech. Few of the 20th century's great social movements were entirely peaceable. The labor, civil-rights, antiwar, environmental and black-power movements were an amalgam of violence, civil disobedience and highly charged rhetoric. But to gag fiery speakers who call for harm to the establishment because others in the movement pursue their political goals with fists, guns or bombs would do terrible damage to strong, emotive pleas tot social change. It is something neither the ACLU nor, thankfully, the courts have countenanced in the past.

That's why in 1969 the ACLU helped defend a Ku Klux Klan member who had called for violence against the president, Congress and the Supreme Court. At the ACLU's urging, the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating violence was constitutionally protected unless it incited imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. This case was later used to defend the speech of black militants.

The ACLU also applauded a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that speeches promising violent reprisals were protected by the First Amendment. During the civil-rights movement, a leader of the NAACP called for "breaking the necks" of blacks who violated a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, and published a list of those who did. Some of the boycott violators were beaten. The court ruled that despite the atmosphere of fear, all the speeches and lists were part of a debate on a public issue that needed to be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

I would argue that the Constitution doesn't protect all of these extreme positions of the ACLU, but that isn't the point he is trying to make. The issue is the ACLU's curious commitment to "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" free speech when it involves things such as virtual child pornography, but not when it involves a something like a boss making racially offensive statements.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are so hypnotized by the ACLU's absolutist views and of the ACLU's campaign for pedophilia and child pornography that they are prepared to defend an organization that has become a shadow of its former self--a group that lets its idealistic and skewed understanding of the establishment clause trump freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Stop the ACLU had the opportunity last year of interviewing a former ACLU lawyer. He was concerned with much of the same things.

The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due.” “But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.”

“The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.”

It seems that the many of the ACLU's greatest critics came from their very ranks. The division within the ACLU will continue as long as the ACLU continues on the irresponsible, hypocritical path it is on. America needs a civil liberties union, sadly the ACLU isn't doing that job. If the ACLU succeeds in the dangerous direction it is steering America, they will ironically be putting in jeapordy the very liberty they claim to protect.

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 on-board.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Guard The Borders? Why Bother? We Can Hire the Mexican Military to Do It For Us!!!!

Why not? They are already getting familiar with the terrain on our side of the border anyway. But you can read about that in a bit.

First I wish to point out a little known front in the battle against illegal immigration. It is linked in the title, and tells the story of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI.

Go read that for the history of the CNMI, and to understand the ramifications of my next statement.

Anyone that is under the impression that an "amnesty", or a "work visa program" or any program under any name that gives the criminal aliens a pass for the crimes they have already committed by breaking into the US and working illegally should consider carefully the current status of life in the CNMI.

Never mind the fact that the original inhabitants of the CNMI, or "the natives" seem to have taken to heart the socialist ideals of the democratic party, to the point of creating a system that actually caused this to happen;

The corrosive effect on the work ethic and morals of the American citizens is so bad that, in 1995, the government actually had to issue a directive prohibiting welfare recipients from hiring foreign maids.

As the article said "Free-market success," indeed.

With that said, here is today's officially sanctioned, posted all over the web Guard The Borders BlogBurst:

Last week, those of us who keep an eye on border issues noticed that several mainstream media sources had featured articles about the regular Mexican military incursions over our borders and into our country. This is nothing new, as the Border Patrol has documented hundreds of such illegal incursions by an armed Mexican military over the past decade, and our government has done nothing to curb these incursions. In fact, it seems our government has looked the other way. While I'm relieved that this information is getting out into the mainstream, I have little confidence that our governement will actually do its job and secure our borders.

Some confrontations between the Mexican military troops and our own Border Patrol agents have become violent as Mexican soldiers have fired their weapons at the Border Patrol. It's a mystery why our government refuses to acknowledge these hostile invasions. They surely know about it, and the Mexican Embassy in Washington D.C. has gone so far as to publicly deny that the Mexican soldiers are hostile, but rather there to "patrol for illegal border jumpers". Contrary to that public statement, however, most of the Mexican military troops on the border are moonlighting as security escorts for drug smuggling gangs the coyotes who are running large groups of illegals across the border.

T.J. Bonner, a 27-year Border Patrol veteran who heads the National Border Patrol Council [said], "Intrusions by the Mexican military to protect drug loads happen all the time and represent a significant threat to the agents. "Why else would they be in the area, firing at federal agents in the United States? There is no other explanation," said Mr. Bonner, whose organization represents all 10,000 of the nonsupervisory Border Patrol agents.

He also challenged reports that Mexican military units had crossed mistakenly into the United States, saying, "Every country's military has a [global positioning system] nowadays, including the Mexicans. "If the border is so poorly marked, why don't the thousands of Border Patrol agents working 24/7 along it ever seem to get lost, and none of us have been issued a GPS," he said.
Attacks on Border Patrol agents in the past few years have been attributed to current or former Mexican military personnel. U.S. law-enforcement officials have long thought that current and former Mexican soldiers are being paid to protect drug shipments bound for the United States.

Several agents said the attacks have escalated in the past two years as U.S. security efforts on the border have increased -- including the July shooting of two agents in an ambush near Nogales, Ariz., by assailants in black commando-type clothing, who fired more than 50 rounds. Authorities said the gunmen used military-style cover-and-concealment tactics to escape back into Mexico. No one has been arrested.

Without any federal commitment to secure our borders, the Minutemen, a volunteer citizen's group, has performed an invaluable civic service in patrolling our borders to document and verify the location of illegal border crossers. They, too, have encountered Mexican soldiers on the WRONG side of the border. The video clip below comes directly from the Arizona Minutemen who told the Mexican soldiers, when confronted, they were there as "media" to document the border situation. It is incredibly important to note that there is no reason why American citizens should EVER be required to justify their lawful activities on American soil to a FOREIGN military presence. That is anathema to our rights as American citizens!

(SCOTTSDALE, AZ) January 20, 2006 – The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps ("MCDC") announced the release today of video footage of an incursion by a unit of the Mexican army across the U.S. border in Arizona.

Chris Simcox and a group of Civil Defense Corps volunteers encountered a squad of approximately eight armed Mexican soldiers about 500 yards inside American territory. The Mexican soldiers started running back through the brush to Mexico when they realized they had been spotted.

The video shows a uniformed Mexican soldier climbing through a barbed wire fence on American soil to return to the Mexican side of the border as he races to catch up with the other Mexican soldiers who had also climbed back through the fence as they retreated back into their country.

A group of armed Mexican soldiers then returned to the barbed wire fence (on American soil) and confronted Simcox and the volunteers. A discussion in Spanish ensued, with the agitated soldier 'in charge' saying the Americans had no business being there.

Simcox and the volunteers did not budge. The Mexican soldiers left and drove off. Judging from earlier activity observed at the ranch that morning, Simcox is of the belief that a trafficking operation had been disrupted by the volunteers.

The footage, filmed in 2004, was sent to then Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. His office did not respond. The video has remained in the Minuteman video archive and is being released in response to recent news reports that over 200 cross-border incursions by the Mexican army have been documented since 1996.


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 euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.

Blogs already on board:

Euphoric Reality
A Lady's Ruminations
TMH's Bacon Bits
Part-Time Pundit
The Right Track
Cao's Blog
Ogre's Politics and Views
In The Bullpen
Stuck on Stupid
Kender's Musings
Watchman's Words
Third World County
Gribbit's Word
Right on the Right
Team Swap
Gina's Rantings
The Irate Nation
Publius Rendezvous
Freedom Folks
Bear Creek Ledger
Something and Half of Something
Mover Mike
The Neo-Con Blogger
Ravings of a Mad Tech
Parrot Check
Curley's Corner

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Counselman Says No To ACLU Prayer Censorship

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

It is happening all across the nation. The ACLU sue city counsel after city counsel over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsel meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick. This was the case in Fredericksburg. But one man isn't taking things lying down.

Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner has filed suit against his fellow council members, saying the council’s newly adopted prayer policy violates his constitutional rights.

Turner is being represented by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates for free expression issues.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, asks the court to rule that the city’s prayer policy is unconstitutional, and to order that Turner be allowed back into the council’s prayer rotation.

The council voted 5-1 in November to adopt a policy of offering non-denominational prayers devoid of any Christian or other specific religious references.

Turner abstained from that vote, and Councilman Matt Kelly voted against the policy.

The vote came after Turner had been excluded from the council prayer rotation for more than a year. The council got a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in July 2004 saying that the civil liberties group would file suit if Turner continued to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his prayers.

Turner, who is pastor at First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, had always closed his prayers before council meetings by invoking the name of Jesus Christ before the ACLU complaint.

On the same night of the November vote for the nondenominational prayer policy, Turner asked to be put back into the prayer rotation, and to give the opening prayer before the Nov. 22 council meeting.

Mayor Tom Tomzak said today he asked Councilwoman Debby Girvan to give the prayer at that meeting instead of Turner, because, “I did not want to unleash a 1,000-pound gorilla-the ACLU-on the City Council.”

However, Tomzak said he does believe Turner’s rights are being violated, and the suit filed today is “a lawsuit that I probably agree with.”

“He’s a very passionate man, a man of faith and a man of principle, and he believes his rights have been violated,” Tomzak said of Turner.

Neither City Council members nor City Attorney Kathleen Dooley had seen copies of the lawsuit earlier today.

The suit calls the new prayer policy “an unlawful attempt by the City Council to prescribe the content of prayers given at City Council meetings by Turner and other members of City Council.”

John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said Turner approached his organization last fall, saying he believed his rights were being violated. “All he wants is to say Jesus Christ at the end of the prayer,” Whitehead said. “He’s not asking for any money. ... It’s a very simple suit.”

One would think that it would be simple, yet the ACLU don't seem to get that. Religious expression in America is under attack. It is a shame that an organization that claims to protect our rights are the number one censor of Christian religious expression. If they were trying to get rid of all prayer at counsel meetings, we would have a different argument, but they are targeting Christian prayers and individual expression. It is good to see this man is standing up for his rights. More people should do so.

Currently there is legislation, introduced by Representative Hostettler that could put a stop to these ridiculous lawsuits. 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.


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 on-board.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

No Post Today

Today is my Birthday so yeah to me and thus I will eat, drink and be merry for I am half way to my dirt nap.
Seriously though, I am jet-lagged and tired so no post. I may post tomorrow about the poker/party tonight so enjoy your day for it's the weekend and we live in America.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

The Unsung Heroes

I have been lax in my postings as of late, mainly due to the requirements of my new job and family. But rest assured that all changes today. I was without Internet for most of the day due to traveling but I did hear about the Abramoff case and I will comment on it shortly. Today I want to talk about the unsung heroes of our military and how they do their job without expectation of glory or riches. They just do their job and make something of their lives like countless of others before them have done.

In my new job I will have an opportunity to travel across this great national and meet all kinds of people. Every time I travel and cross paths with a member of our military, I do a couple of things. I ask them where they are headed and spent a few minutes talking to them about their service and most importantly, I thank them for their service to this nation. I thank them on behalf of my family and friends, and I thank them on behalf of the freedoms that we all enjoy. Hell, I even thank them on behalf of each and every person who seeks to trivialize the sacrifice that they and their family make every day.

Can I tell you that without exception every single service member that I have spoke to over the last 60 days simply tells me that they are just doing their job and it’s not a big deal. Not a big deal? I humbly beg to differ. It is an enormous deal to leave family and friends and serve your country in the defense of the ideals that it was founded upon. Of course our thoughts turn to service members that are directly in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan, but every member of the military from the Marines guarding the United States embassy in France to Air Force Technicians in Alaska keeping an eye on the North Koreans deserve our thanks in equal measure as their brothers and sisters who serve in combat zones.

You might ask what brought on this glowing praise of the military; well I am going to tell you faithful reader. Two reasons spurred me to place fingers to keyboard this evening, the reaction of fellow travelers when I stop and thank members of the military for their service and the cowardice of one Jack Murtha as chronicled here. Most people either through their own shame or just not wanting to interact with their fellow Americans turn away or display looks of confusion when I thank service members and spend a few minutes speaking with them. That reaction literally breaks my heart because I know that most people are grateful for the service of our brave men and women in uniform but lack either the courage or moral conviction to act upon their innermost feelings. We used to be a nation of people who stuck to our beliefs but that seems to be passing as the Dodo bird passed from the Earth. We timidly accept the erosion of this countries core beliefs and look the other way as those who seek our destruction run rampant. Folks I have to say that enough is enough. Stand up and do what is right regardless of the consequences.

If you think we should honor and thank our military for their service then let them know when you come across them in your daily travels. If you think that the military is overrated and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is wrong then speak your mind but do not ever forget where that right came from. Our right to free speech did not come from a journalist who broke a story or an ACLU lawyer who bullied a local, state, or federal government branch with a trivial lawsuit. That right is paid for in the blood, sweat, and tears of our brave men and women in uniform and it continues to be paid by the young and old of today’s service members. So if Jack Murtha wishes to express his self shame about a life of government service that includes honorable service in the United States Marine Corp then he should do so. He illustrates the freedoms that the military strives to protect and ensure for all Americans. So if Jack Murtha no longer has the moral courage to suggest military service then we need to know that since he serves at the pleasure of the folks from the great state of Pennsylvania. I will predict that Murtha will not run for another term but will instead retire before his constituents can vote him on his ass. I would also say that since Mr. Murtha does not feel that military service is no longer honorable in his opinion then perhaps he should just retire now and save everyone the trouble of having to like to his incessant whining. But he is more then entitled to his opinion and while he has lost his moral courage, I still thank him for his service to this country as a Marine and as a Congressman. I do think I am quite a bit more generous then his fellow Marines.

Folks, do this country a favor and thank someone for your freedom. Here’s a hint, the people to thank are the ones in uniform who quietly go about their business and do not seek publicity. Have a great day everyone and God Bless our men and women in uniform and this great country.