The Imaginary Book
Gimme some love
Warning Will Robinson!
Feel free to post comments, rants, or even personal attacks. It simply shows your wish for taunting if you do the latter.
You can say anything you want here. But if you get stupid I reserve the right to point it out, call you lots of inventive names and laugh like hell.
- ► 2010 (17)
- ► 2009 (29)
- ► 2008 (218)
- ► 2007 (74)
- ▼ September (4)
- ► 2005 (378)
Blogs I Like
Note: "right" either means this blogger is correct or that they lean right. I know what I mean by it. How do you take it?
- RG in The Low Country!(Right)
- Mackers World(Right)
- Ric and Georgina at Release The Hounds!(Right)
- RN at Dead Republican Presidents!
- Kat, sometimes in pajamas!
- Madtom at ThisFuckingWar! (Right)
- Michael J. Totten sets things straight!(Right)
- Maxedoutmama is a research Goddess!(Right)
- Andrightlyso! smacks on idiots!(Right)
- Where's Your Brain?(Right)
- Warm'n'fuzzy conserva-puppies>(Right)
- Crymeariverbend2 has a gnarly truth stick!(Right)
- Jeffrey at IBC is HQ for Iraqi bloggings(Right)
- The Sandmonkey cuts through the APU!(Right)
- The Lone Ranger
A Man of Rare Integrity! (Right)
- Out of the Ashes(Right)
- Tazmedic(Right) (Read the archives!)
- Amandarin(Right) (A clever friend from the other side of the street)
- Literal Lunacy
A Most Beloved Friend!
The Other Side Of The Street
(for NY Libs)
The name say it all
See? I told you I had a liberal friend!!!
In case you haven't heard, a group of dissenters from the ACLU are rebelling and calling for a change in the current leadership of the main organization. The summary of things this new group is fed up with is hypocrisy and the ACLU is full of it. Purging the ACLU of its hypocrisy is bound to be a Goliath task.
Where do we even begin with the ACLU's hypocrisy? How about its odd stance on the Second Amendment? They have decided that the term "the people" that is contained in the Second Amendment does not apply to "the people" as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. They defend even the most radical in free speech for individuals, but somehow have adopted the opposite position on the Second Amendment. Surely it couldn't be that the Second Amendment doesn't fall within the boundaries of their liberal agenda! Could it?
In August of 2005 the New York ACLU sued against random bag searches on the NY Subway. Ironically the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.
The ACLU have fought tooth and nail against the Bush administration's NSA program, a program designed to track international phone calls being made to or from suspected terrorist organizations. They have hailed themselves defenders of the right to privacy and labelled the program an illegal "secret" program of "domestic spying". All the while the ACLU has its own "secret" program of domestic spying of its own members and their personal financial information. This program has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with the real bottom line of fund-raising. Former ACLU board member Michael Myers was shocked at this discovery.
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.
After spending 23 years on the ACLU board, the “defenders of free speech” issued gag orders to him, not to speak about the issue. Now thats free speech for you.
When it comes to free speech the ACLU claim to be its most steadfast defender. Now, I am not an absolutist on unlimited free speech. However, most people would think that an organization arguing for hate cults to protest with "God Hates Fags" signs at military funerals, neo nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods, and that child porn distribution is protected by the First Amendment are about as absolutist as it gets. Not so!
When it comes to pro-life protesters the ACLU could care less about their free speech rights. As a matter of fact they actively fight against pro-life protesters' free speech and have even tried RICO lawsuits on them. It is scary to see just how far the ACLU will go for its unrestricted abortion agenda. Free speech definitely takes a backseat to their pro-abortion agenda. They have even listed it as their number one priority pushing the defense of the First Amendment, the alleged heart and soul of the ACLU’s mission, down to third on the list, after civil rights.
But don't just take my word for it, listen to the words of a former Executive Director:
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.
Defending NAMBLA to print material advocating for sex between grown men and boys is the definition of defending "robust freedom of speech" in the ACLU's book, but defending people's right to protest against killing the unborn somehow fails to make the list.
But the hypocrisy does not end there. When it comes to protecting religious expression the ACLU has proven itself to be number one in America's religious censors. They have consistently shown themselves to be hostile towards Christianity in particular. When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be erected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. Currently when the ACLU wins a case from attacking religious expression it is awarded attorneys fees, often in the millions, at the expense of the American taxpayer. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized this abuse and passed the Public Expression Of Religion Act to put a stop to it. However, the threats and abuse will continue however if we can't convince the Senate to pass this as well.
But the hypocrisy goes even further. The ACLU's disdain for free speech outside of its agenda extends beyond Christians and pro-lifers to its own dissenting members. Very recently the ACLU attempted to put forth a policy restricting the free speech of its own members.
Natt Hentoff, another former ACLU board member, was incredulous.
“For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists.”
After a huge controversy, media coverage, and public concern of the NY Attorney General’s office the ACLU dropped the proposal. Instead they switched to more effective measures of replacing or voting out the members that were not in line with their agenda.
When it comes to principles the ACLU has none other than lining their pocketbooks and furthering their own liberal agenda. As I said at the beggining of the article, cleansing the ACLU of hypocrisy will be a mammoth task. I don't think its possible. I'm more hopeful that their own greed and corruption will eat them from the inside. I think we are beggining to see the cracks and hopefully enough light will shine through them to wake people up to the truth.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism.
"We are pleased the court recognized that attorneys should not be forced to sign these ineffective and offensive pledges," said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link. "The Ohio Patriot Act is an assault on the fundamental liberties of all Ohioans. Hopefully, this decision is a stepping stone to reining in this overreaching and flawed law."
I have only one question here. Why does the ACLU of Ohio have a problem giving an oath that they are not terrorists and are not involved with terrorist groups? What the law is attempting to do is ensure people have not supported terrorist organizations.
The law requires applicants under final consideration for a government job, contract or license to complete and sign questionnaires to determine if they have supported organizations on a federal list of terrorists.
Actually this isn't suprising.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because they objected to promising that none of the funds would be used to engage in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state. They got the provision scrapped after a long and vigorous fight, then accepted the funds.
The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations today said they have 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.
So what was it in this that the ACLU objected to? Here's what the CFC letter said.
"I certify that as of (date), the organization in this application does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on the following terrorist related lists promulgated by the U.S. Government, the United Nations, or the European Union. Presently these lists include the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Nationals List, the Department of Justice's Terrorist Exclusion List, and the list annexed to Executive Order 13224. Should any change of circumstances occur during the year OPM will be notified within 15 days of such change."
Obviously the ACLU had a problem ensuring the exlusion of terrorists from its funds and employment. What a shame.
It isn't difficult to understand why the ACLU would object to such terms, after all they have defended numerous terrorists, including an individual that participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. With the help of CAIR, they also defended an admitted agent of Al Qaeda that has confessed to attending jihad camps in Afghanistan, and is being charged with lying to the FBI about his terror ties and activities. Palestinian terrorists have also found a friend in the ACLU.
I don't see what the problem is. The State doesn't want its money going to individuals that might support terror. What problem does the ACLU have with not supporting terror? Why don't they just come out and say that they do support it? What is absurd is that no one is investigating the ACLU for terror ties. Start out with one or two of its employees, and go from there.
It isn't suprising that the ACLU were quick to react to Bush's jaw dropping speech admitting to secret CIA prisons and pushing Congress to pass legislation that would put captured terror supspects under the rule of a military tribunal.
America is a nation dedicated to upholding the rule of law. However, President Bush’s draft proposal for military commissions fails to meet the standards recognized by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The court held the President’s initial military commission scheme was illegal because it violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the most basic standards regarding treatment of detainees. The new proposal has nearly all of the same problems, and will eventually be found to be illegal. For example, it would allow a person to be convicted based on secret evidence and would allow the use of evidence obtained as the result of horrific abuse.
Of course the ACLU automatically accuse the U.S. of using horrific abuse to obtain our evidence without any evidence whatsoever to back that claim up. You can also bet that if one of their terrorist plaintiffs were to go before our court system they would make the claim that any evidence we have against them was obtained through such procedures and argue it was inadmissible. This is only one of hundreds of reasons that Congress needs to pass the legislation the President is requesting so these terrorist creeps, several of which are in the top Al Qaeda chain of command, need to go before a military tribunal. They are not American citizens and we can not afford the dangers involved in allowing them to be represented before the U.S. courts, in all probability represented by the ACLU.
"The president should have listened to the current Judge Advocates General for the four military services, all of whom have urged close adherence to the court-martial procedures, and all of whom oppose the use of secret evidence and coerced evidence. By contrast, Senators John Warner (R-VA), John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are reportedly following the advice of these top generals and admirals and supporting due process protections that are more in line with the time-tested courts-martial procedures.
"The president also proposes to gut enforceability of the Geneva Conventions by amending the War Crimes Act to completely immunize from prosecution civilians who subjected persons to horrific abuse that may have fallen short of the definition of ‘torture.’ As a result, government officials and civilian contractors who authorized or carried out waterboarding, threats of death, and other abuse would get a ‘get out of jail free’ card under the president’s bill. The nation’s soldiers and sailors would remain liable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but civilians would be immune from prosecution under the only statute that applies to many of these acts. That is simply wrong.
No, what is "simply wrong" is that cowards committed to terrorism and jihad against America that do are not signatories of nor abide by the Geneva Conventions should be afforded the protections of it. The sickening fact that the ACLU would steep low enough to represent an enemy of our nation to sue a military member for doing their job in capturing and interrogating these killers. This is exactly what the President is asking Congress to keep from happening. The President is asking Congress to make it clear what our protectors can and can not do and to protect them from prosecution of being sued by the very scumbuckets they protect us from.
"The new Army Field Manual avoids some of the worst problems with earlier drafts and clarifies that those held by the military or at military facilities must be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, it then creates loopholes for so-called ‘unlawful combatants’ by depriving them of the same protections--and specifically authorizes holding persons in isolation. And, the new manual does not apply to those held by the CIA. The Bush proposal is lip service unless the executive branch actually holds people accountable for violating it.
"So called" unlawful combatants? If you are not abiding by the rules of being a lawful combatant then you aren't one. It is that simple. The ACLU are the ones looking for loop holes in the system, and the very reason they are so up and arms on this is that it closes them up. What the President is asking is for Congress to make the definitions clear. In the Hamdan case, which the ACLU played a major part in, the door was left wide open for Congress to clarify and create legislation making military tribunals the main process for due process dealing with terrorists caught on the battle field. What does the ACLU have against bringing these murderers to justice?
The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended 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.”
They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, to stop what they call profiling (we will never see a Protestant white middle-aged woman as a terrorist working with an extremist Islamic organization) by race, sex and religion, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations.
They tried to kill the Patriot Act because they see the rights of an individual who may or may not be an American citizen as more important than the safety of the nation at large. They want the borders open because they see that as an infringement of the rights of non-Americans to become Americans however they can manage it. They want to have military and intelligence sources, activities, and planning revealed to the public so they can "watch dog" and ensure freedoms of individuals and/or groups are not being compromised, but in doing so will enable those very individuals and/or groups under surveillance the ability to avoid surveillance and possible capture before they do something destructive to American citizens.
When it comes to America's enemies you can count on the ACLU to be there to defend them.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already onboard.
In our first month, Rightroots raised roughly $47,500 and Jack Kingston's PAC chipped in another $14,000 to our candidates. That's not a bad start for a virgin effort. Still, there's a lot more to do on the fund raising front, especially with the GOP still struggling to retain the House.
That's why we've decided it's time to take it up to the next level with Rightroots. First of all, we've added three new candidates, all of whom are trying to knock off Democratic incumbents. Those candidates are (Details about each candidate are on the Rightroots page):
Ralph Norman (SC-05)
Andrea Lane Zinga (IL-17)
Mike Bouchard: Michigan
More importantly, in order to drum up support for these candidates and for the original 18 candidates we selected, we've decided to approach things from a different angle.
Over the next 15 days, our goal is to pull in 100 donations per candidate. That won't be an easy goal to hit and I can tell you definitively that if the right side of the blogosphere doesn't help us out and promote this effort, we will not make it. So, if you could give us a link and/or if you could spread the word, it would be much appreciated.
This is a great opportunity for your readers to make a difference in some key elections, even if they don't live in those districts. Remember, November is not far away, but we're have to live with the results for two long years. Do we really want to risk having Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid running the show?
More on the challenge from:
Right Wing News
Folks, we're off to a GOOD start BUT more needs to be done. Really! Check out the new candidates and see how worthy they are of getting OUR help. The crunch time is NOW!
Get your change bucket out, cash it in and donate it.
Get together with some politically like minded friends and take up a collection and donate it!
Don't have a lot of cash or don't think that $20.00 will help? Think AGAIN. Donate it!
Let's keep MoveOn and it's elk out of Washington. Let's get rid of the corrupt Democraps and far left liberals who WILL be running the show if we allow them to do so!
PLEASE JOIN OUR EFFORT HERE! Go to the RightRoots page and grab a graphic; write a post about this and promote this!
If you are a blogger and want to be part of the effort, there are several ways you can do that. One way is to run a free Rightroots blogad on your site. If you would like to run a Rightroots blogad, please email John Hawkins and let him know so he can hook you up.
Another way to support the Rightroots effort is to add your name to the list of those endorsing it and to post a permalink to the Rightroots site on the main page of your blog. To get the name of your blog listed on the Rightroots endorsement page, simply trackback this post. If you are not able to trackback, you can express your wish to be added to the list of endorsers in the comments section or by emailing me. Please include both your name and the name of your blog.