Kenders' Musings

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

The ACLU thinks that parents have no right to know if their pregnant underage daughter is seeking an abortion.

vs. America

80% of Americans think that parents have the right to know if their minor daughters are seeking an abortion. (CBS News Poll July 13-14, 2005)
________________________________________________________________


The ACLU believes anyone, for any reason at any time should be allowed to abort a child.

vs. America

75% of Americans believe that there should at least be some restrictions on abortion. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll June 24-26, 2005)
________________________________________________________________



The ACLU opposes abstinence education.

vs. America

96% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that abstinence is the best approach to sex.
93% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that having sex leads to disease and pregnancy.
85 % of American parents with children under 17 want abstinence to be taught with at least equal emphasis as contraception receives.
79% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that teen sex leads to harmful psychological and physical effects. (http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1722.cfm)
________________________________________________________________





The ACLU has fought to have constitutionally-sound displays that include the Ten Commandments removed from public property.

vs. America

75% of Americans believe that the Ten Commandments should be displayed on public property. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll June 24-26, 2005)
________________________________________________________________

The ACLU is on record as supporting polygamy.

vs. America

92% of Americans think polygamy is morally repugnant. (The Gallup Poll May 5-7, 2003)
________________________________________________________________



The ACLU has filed cases across the nation to redefine marriage against the repeatedly expressed will of the people and, now the overwhelming affirmation by even Left-leaning courts that the state is justified in retaining the definition of marriage. (Note: the ACLU got smoked in an attempt to prevent Tennesseans from even having the opportunity to express their will at the polls this year.)

vs. America

21 states have recently voted to protect marriage by an average of 70%: Alaska 68%, Hawaii 69%, Nebraska 70%, California 61%, Nevada 67%, Arkansas 75%, Georgia 76%, Kentucky 75%, Louisiana 78%, Michigan 59%, Mississippi 86%, Missouri 71%, Montana 67%, North Dakota 73%, Ohio 62%, Oklahoma 76%, Oregon 57%, Utah 66%, Kansas 70%; Alabama 81%; Texas 76%

________________________________________________________________


The ACLU believes that children should be trapped in failed public schools, even inner-city children whose parents desperately want to escape the captivity of government education.

vs. America

69% of Americans believe that parents should be able to choose their child’s public school rather than being assigned based solely on residence location. (http://www.edreform.com/_upload/2005ncsw-poll.pdf).
63% of Americans believe that parents should be able to choose the best school for their child, whether public or private. (Zogby International Polling July 2002)
________________________________________________________________




The ACLU opposes personally-initiated prayer in school and moments of silence as well as individual acknowledgement of religious beliefs at public events.

vs. America

83% of Americans think prayer should be permitted during school activities including graduation ceremonies. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll June 25-27, 1999)
________________________________________________________________



The ACLU has filed lawsuits and threatened cities and schools all across the country to prevent Christmas from being openly celebrated in public fora.

vs. America

96% of Americans celebrate Christmas
87% of Americans believe Christmas displays should be allowed on public property.
(FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll December 3-4, 2003)
________________________________________________________________



The ACLU has attacked Mt. Soledad memorial in San Diego since the the very beginning of Bush the Elder's Administration because it includes a cross. This is just one of countless examples of the ACLU’s seek and destroy mission to eliminate all religious symbols from public grounds.

vs. America

76% of San Diegans voted to save the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial from the ACLU’s attack on behalf of a single atheist. That atheist, Jim McElroy was quoted as saying following the vote: “It still doesn't mean a damn thing," he said, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. “Voters should have never voted on it. It's a waste of taxpayers' money.”

_______________________________________________________________

The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: “What is right and Constitutional is not always popular.” Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU's pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So...the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right...does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can't we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself.

This has been a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

William H. Donahue is the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights based in New York. He received his Doctorate in Sociology from NYU in 1980. He is the author of three books, two of which are very critical on and revealing of the ACLU. We have quoted from his books on numerous occasions so it was quite an honor when he returned my call requesting an interview.

His first book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, was published in 1985. His second book, The New Freedom: Individualism and Collectivism in the Social Lives of Americans, was written while Bill was a Bradley Resident Scholar at The Heritage Foundation; it appeared in 1990. Bill's third book, Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU, was published in 1994 by Transaction Press; a new afterward to this book was published in 2001. Source

It was an honor that Mr. Donahue took time from his schedule to allow us an interview. It was even more encouraging that he had heard of Stop The ACLU and expressed his appreciation for what we do. I recommend reading his books to anyone that is interested in learning more about the ACLU and how their actions are actually harming civil rights.

Our conversation was very laid back and informal. After some small talk and introductions I started the interview asking Mr. Donahue his general opinion of the ACLU. Mr. Donahue's answers will be quoted in the American Flag quotes.

I believe that the American Civil Liberties Union is based upon a noble purpose. However, they often work against that very purpose due to a radical interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I wrote about this extensively in my third book, Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU where I focused on how their view of liberty actually works against itself. They are an arm of the radical left. In my first book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, I also exposed just how phony their claim of being non-partisan is. The ACLU is not non-partisan. Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record is far from showing impartiality. It is full of attempts to reform American society according to the ideals of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization.

In your opinion is the ACLU simply misguided or do they actually have a more malicious motive and agenda?

I have asked myself that question a million times or more. I guess that I think that some of them are just wrong headed and sincere while others are actually more malicious and seeking to actually destroy America from its foundation. Some that are just misguided yet sincere truly believe that they have to defend the extremist speech in order to protect all free speech. Others are actually malicious.

Norman Siegal is one of the few who I believe to be honest and sincere in their passion for civil liberties. He has at least come out and debated his point of view and that is something that is due some respect. So many others are cowards with another agenda that works against the best interest of the country.

At this point I asked Mr. Donahue about other ACLU members that had come into conflict with the organization over their own views and his opinion on their sincerity. I specifically asked about Natt Hentoff.

Read the entire interview at Stop The ACLU

A double dose from Stop The ACLU!

First on the agenda....do your part and encourage your senators to pass legislation to put an end to taxpayer funding of the ACLU's anti-Christian agenda!

Second: Celebrate! The Senate just passed legislation to transfer the Mt. Soledad Cross land to the Federal government! A victory sure to be challenged, yet still a huge step in toward victory for freedom!

I have ordered a couple copies of this movie. Obession: Radical Islam's War Against The West

This is about radical Islam and the threat we face. We're going to host a showing here in a couple weeks- inviting several folks over to watch this with us. The idea is to create an awareness of the threat that we aren't getting from the MSM, Muslim advocacy groups and the left.

From the movie's web site:

Almost 70 years ago, Europe found itself at war with one of the most sinister figures in modern history: Adolf Hitler. When the last bullet of World War II was fired, over 50 million people were dead, and countless countries were both physically and economically devastated. Hitler’s bloody struggle sought to forge the world anew, in the crucible of Nazi values. How could such a disaster occur? How could the West have overlooked the evil staring it in the face, for so long, before standing forcefully against it?

Today, we find ourselves confronted by a new enemy, also engaged in a violent struggle to transform our world. As we sleep in the comfort of our homes, a new evil rises against us. A new menace is threatening, with all the means at its disposal, to bow Western Civilization under the yoke of its values. That enemy is Radical Islam.

Using images from Arab TV, rarely seen in the West, Obsession reveals an ‘insider's view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. With the help of experts, including first-hand accounts from a former PLO terrorist, a Nazi youth commander, and the daughter of a martyred guerilla leader, the film shows, clearly, that the threat is real.

A peaceful religion is being hijacked by a dangerous foe, who seeks to destroy the shared values we stand for. The world should be very concerned.

Get your copy...host a showing- invite people over and make a night of it. It's about educating those who don't understand; it's about activism and something EACH of us can do.

We're on the air, live. Come on over and give us a call at 1-888-4-07-1776

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

ACLU Website:

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND -- A United Nations human rights body expressed grave concerns today about the record of human rights in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union with a delegation of 10 and working with a broad coalition of other groups is in Geneva to monitor the examination of the United States the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC).


In a two-day session that concluded today, the committee members pressured the United States for answers on the following issues:


The sentencing of children to life without parole and the disproportionate incarceration of minorities;
The militarization of the border;
The failure to prevent human rights violations and respond in a non discriminatory manner to Hurricane Katrina;
The failure to end racial profiling practices, specifically the profiling of South Asian convenience store employees in Georgia;
Warrantless spying on ordinary Americans;
The abuse of women in prison; and
The indefinite detention, rendition and torture of non-citizens.

“The U.S. should be ashamed of itself,” said Ann Beeson, Director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “The review by the Human Rights Committee was a stark and all too accurate condemnation of the state of rights in America.”

No, the ACLU should be ashamed of itself. The review by the Human Rights Committee which includes member states Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China ,and ensures that violaters are included, is a joke and nowhere near accurate.

Jim Hoft has covered this well.

Religious persecutors, Womens Rights violators, Communist Regimes, and illegal organ harvesters will make up the new UN Human Rights Council.

And this is the organization that the ACLU want to hold the U.S. accountable to? The ACLU, and the U.N. are the two most dangerous organizations in the world. They are both seeking to destroy America’s credibility and soverignty. The U.N. are a corrupt joke when it comes to human rights, and they have absolutely zero credibility to make any judgement on America in that area.

The ACLU, who provided the list called "Dimming the Beacon of Freedom", to this corrupt organization that can't even clean up its own human rights violations are an embarrassement to this great nation. It is shameful that their list included our efforts to spy on the enemy, protect our borders, and several other accusations without evidence. I also wonder if their accusation to "abuse" of women in prison would be not providing them with abortions at the expense of taxpayers.

Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation's sovereignty and national security.

For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, "With today's action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations." Source

Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.


All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn't directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU's embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.

In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add "sexual orientation" to the UNHRC's discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a "showdown with religion," clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source

The ACLU's actions are a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, religious exercise, security, and soverignity. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.

If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs...why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America's freedoms, and our very soverignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU's vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churchs and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them. To many Americans, these sound more like human rights violations than anything on the ACLU's list.

On October 27, 1787, Alexander Hamilton predicted that a “dangerous ambition” would one day tyrannize the gangling young American Republic, all the while lurking “behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.” It could almost be said that Hamilton had a prophecy of the ACLU.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

I am going to assume that most people can agree that America's population is found across a vast political spectrum. From libertarians and liberals to moderates and conservatives we find each other across a broad field on ideas and issues. Many times we can all agree that certain things are problems within society yet be on the opposite extremes on how to solve that problem. One of the problems of society that most people can agree on is that of crime. The solution to reducing this problem most likely is found somewhere in the middle and not the extremes.

One of the purposes of the Constitution is to ensure domestic tranquility. Due process, the Fifth Amendment right, is a procedural right, one that defines the methods that can properly be used to ensure domestic tranquility. Without both, there can be no liberty. Domestic tranquility can easily be achieved without respect for due process, as dictatorships throughout history have shown. It is also quite possible to have a society where due process is respected-even considered sacrosanct-and still lack for domestic tranquility. The latter predicament more closely resembles the situation in the United States today.Source

The ACLU in its extreme ideals of society unravels due process from the reasons it was created to serve. The ACLU maintains that it is their purpose to ensure due process and the police to tend to domestic tranquility. I agree that the roles should be separate. I think the opposite would be an invitation to disaster. The ACLU's sincerity in their statement might be more believable if, as we shall show, they were not so often in opposition of law enforcement. It is generally accepted that domestic tranquility is absolutely necessary to the process of liberty. What is often less understood is how the exclusive concern for due process can also be damaging to liberty.

I think we can all agree on how important domestic tranquility is to maintaining liberty. What good are all of our freedoms if we are afraid to practice them? The only liberties worth having are ones that we can enjoy without fear. This simply can't be done if a society is filled with crime and violence.

The ACLU do not share these moderate views on society. They have a much more extreme viewpoint.

"According to the ACLU," writes Jeffrey Leeds, "there is no right to live in a quiet or pleasant society, but there is a right to speak, to seek to persuade, to have unpopular or even stupid views. Moreover, there is no right even to live in a safe society. The ACLU will work to vindicate a convicted criminal's rights to due process, even if it means setting a killer free."Source

Leeds isn't exaggerating. One ACLU official Dorothy Ehrlich can be quoted as saying, "the citizens' need to be 'free from criminal activity'....is not, in the legal sense, a 'right' at all (and thus is nowhere mentioned in the Bill of Rights) but, rather, an essential social good, like fire prevention, or adequate medical care, or the prevention of famine." Source

Funny that an official from the ACLU is stating that if a right isn't mentioned in the Constitution then it isn't a right at all. After all, this is the organization that defends abortion on demand, and the sale of child porn. These are not mentioned in the Constitution either.

The ACLU's skewed views toward crime can also be seen in its approach toward crime victims. The ACLU has shown very little interest in the rights of crime victims. When it comes down to it, the rights of criminals seem to always override the rights of the victims. For example, the ACLU opposes the use of a crime victim impact statement in capital sentencing because it "unconstitutionally requires consideration of factors which have no bearing on the defendant's responsibility or guilt." Of course the courts have ruled otherwise.

While the ACLU says they have our liberty as its mission, its policies in the area of criminal justice have only aggravated and accelerated the already terrible problems of maintaining domestic tranquility. Their opposition to the death penalty doesn't bother me by itself. It is the ACLU general attitude toward criminal justice as a whole that I deem dangerous. Throughout its history it has fought many court battles to:

Eliminate all prison sentencing from criminal judicial procedure except in a few "extreme" cases of utter incorrigibility-and only then as the penalty of last resort.Source

Let me briefly interrupt my list for a little perspective on this particular policy.

In conjunction with their opposition to the death penalty in all cases this particular policy is quite disturbing to me. It would seem that the ACLU wants rehabilitation and probation to be the primary means of preventing crime in all but the most extreme cases.

"Deprivation of an individual's physical freedom is one of the most severe interferences with liberty that the state can impose. Moreover, imprisonment is harsh, frequently counterproductive, and costly." This explains why the ACLU holds that "a suspended sentence with probation should be the preferred sentence, to be chosen generally unless the circumstances plainly call for greater severity." The Union favors alternative sentencing and lists the reintegration of the offender into the community as "the most appropriate correctional approach." Here's the clincher: "probation should be authorized by the legislature in every case and exceptions to the principle are not favored." Prior to 1991, when this policy was revised, the Union said that only such serious crimes as "murder or treason" should qualify as exceptions. The explicit referencing of those two crimes was deleted because of the public embarrassment it caused the organization.Source

Let us continue with the list:

Disallow capital punishment in any and all situations as a violation of the constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause;

Discredit deterrence as a basis for incarceration;

Oppose rehabilitative confinement;

Block all sentencing guidelines that seek restitution to the victims of criminal behavior;

Mandate suspended sentences with probation as the primary form of "treatment" for criminal offenders;

Restrict all court sentencing discretion through the legislative process or direct judicial intervention in trial proceedings-thus severely crippling the principle of trial by jury;

Eliminate all mandatory sentencing laws;

Facilitate mandatory early parole and release programs;

And, oppose new construction or expansion of jails, prisons, and detention centers. Source

In addition the ACLU is also involved in limiting the power of law enforcement to maintain domestic tranquility:

Severely restrict search and arrest procedures even when evidence of guilt is available;

Hinder protective or corrective police action at crime scenes;

Invalidate airport bomb detectors, drunk driving checkpoints, periodic or random drug screening, and other preventative security measures;

Prohibit the free exchange of criminal records between law enforcement agencies;

Limit even the most sound and non-prejudicial police interrogation and investigation techniques;

Institute national or regional bureaucratic control over law enforcement agencies-thus effectively, removing local accountability;

Severely restrict riot control, swat team, and antiterrorist activities and efforts;

Make most surveillance operations, stakeout procedures, and community crackdowns illegal;

Prohibit the eviction of drug dealers and other incorrigibles from public housing projects;

Deregulate and decriminalize all "victimless crimes"-such as prostitution, drug use and abuse, gambling, sodomy, or the production , exhibition, and sale of vile and obscene materials-despite the proven link between such vices and serious crime.Source

There is one recommendation that the ACLU makes on how to stem crime: strong gun control legislation. It adopted its first gun-control policy in the late sixties which was actually pretty reasonable. For the sake of brevity on such a broad topic I will not quote it. Suffice it to say that most of today's liberals would not agree with it.

However...

In 1971 the Union took the position that the ownership of guns, any guns, aside from guns owned by the militia, was not constitutionally protected.Source

The ACLU's policy towards the second amendment is:

"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."

It is strange for the ACLU to use such a dated ruling as precedent, when many more recent cases have ruled otherwise.

The ACLU's approach to crime, its prevention, and punishment clearly are not in the mainstream opinion of most Americans. The organization has consistently been an adversary of law enforcement. The Union's perspective is almost entirely focused on the criminal which makes many people conclude that rather being a defender of civil liberties, the ACLU is actually the champion of criminal liberties.

Roger Baldwin once actually admitted that he could not in good conscience serve on a jury because he simply "would never take part in convicting anyone." When asked how society could possibly continue to exist without some sort of penal justice system, eh tersely snapped, "That's your problem."Source

The ACLU's pandering to criminals, lack of interest in true victims, and opposition to law enforcement are not solutions to society's burden with crime. I advise everyone to use common sense, and not to follow the extreme positions of the ACLU when it comes to preventing and punishing crime.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Come on over and check us out.

Launch of Wide Awakes Radio occurs on July 4th at 6 A.M. Pacific. For those of you that can't figure time zones that is 7 A.M. Mountain, 8 A.M. Central and 9 A.M. Eastern.

We have some of the top independent (not MSM related) political bloggers from the Right Side of the Aisle to tell you all about True Conservative Values, what the hell is wrong with the country and how to fix it, and why, if you don't agree with us, you are most likely an idiot.

As a side note this certainly doesn't mean that we will agree on everything with each other. We are Conservatives, which means we THINK about the issues, apply LOGIC and REASONING, and look at the world with a COMMON SENSE VIEW that precludes being a wishy washy dumbass that relies on FEELINGS to form their worldview.

Now some people have told me I should tone down the rhetoric, especially telling people that if they don't agree with us they are idiots, and they probably won't listen.

That's fine with me. Frankly, I don't want the lefty idiots listening to us. They don't have the balls to debate their views or stances, (as I proved at The Kos Kamp in Vegas), and they talk real big online behind the safety of their screen, but in person, and that includes on the phone, they are cowards that can't back up their shit.

So I won't tone down the rhetoric. Leftys are cowards, plain and simple, and won't listen anyway.

See you guys Tuesday Morning.

With a tip o' me tam to Euphoric Reality for the heads up on this story.

The Marines that have been wrongfully accused of murder in Haditha by the left, the MSM and those that seemingly hate the military WILL NOT be charged with any crime.

Murtha will be proven a big fat lying scum-sucking piece of shit that doesn't deserve to hold his office.

Apologies that should be forthcoming won't be, and certain people will continue to lie about Haditha and claim "cover-up."

Go read the story linked in the title. It outlines exactly how the "insurgents" (i.e. pigdogs that don't care who they hurt or kill) use civilians as shields and place them directly in harms way. Those Marines did the job they were trained to do, exactly how they were trained to do it, and no apologies should be made when our enemy uses innocents to hide behind and places them directly in harms way and they are harmed.

I know many in this country would rather have our guys have opened the door and looked around before tossing a grenade into a room full of unknown targets, but after having taken fire from the house they were standing in the only reasonable response is to clear that house with overwhelming force.

When the military refuses to file charges after finding that those Marines were simply doing their job, how fast will Murtha the Mouth and others start yelling about a coverup? However long it takes for them to start yelling is about how long someone else should wait to file a lawsuit against them for defamation of character.

And that's just my nickel, folks.

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Via The Rutherford Institute

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have agreed to represent a high school senior whose microphone was unplugged by school officials after she began to speak about her Christian beliefs during her valedictory address. When Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb began reading a speech that contained Bible verses and references to God and her faith in Jesus Christ during her commencement speech on June 15, 2006, officials with the Clark County School District unplugged the microphone. Institute attorneys plan to file a First Amendment lawsuit against the school district for having violated Brittany's constitutional right to free speech and equal protection under the law.

"This is yet another example of a politically correct culture silencing Christians in order to not offend those of other beliefs," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Brittany McComb worked hard to earn the right to address her classmates as valedictorian and she has a constitutional right-like any other student-to freely speak about the factors that contributed to her success, whether they be a supportive family, friends or her faith in Jesus Christ."

Isn't it ironic that it was probably the fear of a lawsuit that prompted the school to censor Brittany's speech in the first place? It is sad that our culture, including many Christians, have bought into the politically correct culture and allow this censorship to go on. It has gotten to the point that our First Amendment has been turned on its head by activist lawyers like the ACLU. This should be a clear cut case of violating the First Amendment, yet our culture has accepted the insane secularist theories that the First Amendment means the opposite of what it was intended to mean. The old cliche that it is "freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion" are appropiate words of wisdom in our day and age.

Rutherford Institute attorneys plan to file suit in federal district court in defense of Brittany's First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

We wish Brittany and the Rutherford Institute the best of luck with this case.

You can support the Rutherford Institute here.

See the video of Brittany McCombs on Hannity and Colmes here.

Via ACLJ

Yesterday evening the City Attorney in San Diego along with Mayor Jerry Sanders decided to take the Mt. Soledad case to the Supreme Court of the United States. I have already assembled one of our Supreme Court teams to file briefs on behalf of the Members of Congress that we represent, as well as ACLJ Members across the country in this important case. It appears at this time that the City will be asking for both a stay of the Ninth Circuit decision as well as a petition for writ of certiorari. The stay of the decision will allow the monument to remain while the litigation is pending at the Supreme Court. The petition for certiorari will ask the Court to grant plenary review of the Ninth Circuit decision.

Generally, under Supreme Court practice, the Circuit Justice in charge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has the authority to grant the stay. In this case, the Circuit Justice is Anthony Kennedy. Justice Kennedy can either grant the stay, deny the stay, or refer the stay to the entire Supreme Court for determination. It takes five votes to obtain a stay. In order for the case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court on the merits, it only takes four votes.

Read more about the background on this, and sign the petition asking President Bush to take the land under the federal government’s powers of eminent domain.

Or so claims the stupid bitch in the video that is linked in the title.

Webtback, Nigger, Kike, Wop, Honky, Cracker, Spic, Chink.......these are words that divide and insult, but also words we have the right to use.

Most people don't say these words anymore, especially if they are whi...err, Caucasian, because someone will generally get angry with them.

So why is it that "people of color" as they so euphemistically call themselves, seem to be able to use them at will and never get taken to task?

I don't think the woman in the video should be fired, or sent to a "diversity class" or anything else. I do think she needs a lesson in the history of the U.S.

I find it ironic that the very same country that is set up for her to become a lawyer and a teacher and gives her opportunities that she would likely not have in any other country in the world is the one she attacks and vilifies.

If America didn't exist what do you think the chance is that she would be a barefoot and pregnant housewife in the middle of some God-forsaken desert in the middle of Mehico popping out kids and rolling tortillas?

Viva la revolucion my ass.

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU



Hat tip: Danegerus

The American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal judge to stop the Miami-Dade County school district from removing a series of children's books from its libraries, including a volume about Cuba which depicts smiling kids in communist uniforms.

The ACLU and the Miami-Dade County Student Government Association argued in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Miami on Wednesday that the school board should add materials with alternate viewpoints rather than remove books that could be offensive.

Last week, the board voted 6-3 to remove "Vamos a Cuba" and its English-language version, "A Visit to Cuba" from 33 schools, stating the books were inappropriate for young readers because of inaccuracies and omissions about life in the communist nation.

The book, by Alta Schreier, targets students ages 5 to 7 and contains images of smiling children wearing uniforms of Cuba's communist youth group and a carnival celebrating the 1959 Cuban revolution. The district owns 49 copies of the book in Spanish and English.

To the ACLU it doesn't seem to matter that the books are misleading, inaccurate, and inappropriate for this age group. It doesn't matter to the ACLU that the book is pure propaganda. To the ACLU it is a book ban. It just so happens that the message portrayed in the book seems to go along with their founder's beliefs.

"I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities...and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. 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."

~ Roger Baldwin-founder of the ACLU~

Here is another one from Mr. Baldwin.

"Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise...We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."-Baldwin's advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People's Council in Minnesota.

I'm sure the ACLU's founder would be proud of the ACLU's move to protect the propaganda of his ideology. The ACLU's main point of argument is that banning one point of view is the wrong way to deal with the situation is lost when it is five year olds potentially being exposed to this crap. To the ACLU this is nothing more than a book ban, and they are asking the school to include more alternative views instead of banning unpopular ones. No one has to ask if they would fight this hard to keep a Bible in the school library, or whether their strength would be focused on getting rid of it. Take this however you want, but the ACLU has never strayed very far from its founding principles.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

just click the title will ya?

Now, in these final days before launch, life is hectic. Having secured equipment, show hosts and all of the necessary sundries that go into such an undertaking, (including a matched set of Law Dogs, you know the kind, big brass balls, huge fangs, eat-steel-and-piss-napalm-chew-out-your-nads-and-make-you-wish-I-had-never-been-born Law Dogs) I find that these last days are swamped with little details.

Once we launch maybe life will settle into a quiter routine, but I doubt that also. My hosts are chomping at the bit, straining at the ropes and restless in the gate. Some dumbasses seem to think that Wide Awakes Radio is Cao's undertaking. Not so. It's mine. The fact that Jack Idema will have a show on this network really bugs the stoopidpats, that stalwart band of Columbia Communists that steal school resources for their countless and baseless attacks on Idema, Cao and all of our patriotism in general.

Emporer Misha, our Dark Imperial Lord of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is smiling evilly and chuckling darkly at the thought of the mounds of roasted moonbats that all of us will soon be feasting on, in a metarphorical sense, and frankly I don't expect anyone that stands against The Emperor to have the balls to call him and argue, ever.

My friends, Wide Awakes Radio will be an outlet of rational right thinking talk, that truly focuses on what you care about. Unless you are a leftist twit. In that case it is simply going to be one more chance for you to prove your cowardice and thr narrow focus of your indoctrinated little head.

In the words of that most Immortal of Philosophers, Al Bundy, "Let's rock!!!"

According to Time who gets the info from a book excerpt.

Al-Qaeda terrorists came within 45 days of attacking the New York subway system with a lethal gas similar to that used in Nazi death camps. They were stopped not by any intelligence breakthrough, but by an order from Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Zawahiri. And the U.S. learned of the plot from a CIA mole inside al-Qaeda. These are some of the more startling revelations by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind, whose new book The One Percent Doctrine is excerpted in the forthcoming issue of TIME. It will appear on Time.com early Sunday morning.

U.S. intelligence got its first inkling of the plot from the contents of a laptop computer belonging to a Bahraini jihadist captured in Saudi Arabia early in 2003. It contained plans for a gas-dispersal system dubbed "the mubtakkar" (Arabic for inventive). Fearing that al-Qaeda's engineers had achieved the holy grail of terror R&D — a device to effectively distribute hydrogen-cyanide gas, which is deadly when inhaled — the CIA immediately set about building a prototype based on the captured design, which comprised two separate chambers for sodium cyanide and a stable source of hydrogen, such as hydrochloric acid. A seal between the two could be broken by a remote trigger, producing the gas for dispersal. The prototype confirmed their worst fears: "In the world of terrorist weaponry," writes Suskind, "this was the equivalent of splitting the atom. Obtain a few widely available chemicals, and you could construct it with a trip to Home Depot – and then kill everyone in the store."

The device was shown to President Bush and Vice President Cheney the following morning, prompting the President to order that alerts be sent through all levels of the U.S. government. Easily constructed and concealed, mass casualties were inevitable if it could be triggered in any enclosed public space.

Having discovered the device, exposing the plot in which it might be used became a matter of extreme urgency. Although the Saudis were cooperating more than ever before in efforts to track down al-Qaeda operatives in the kingdom, the interrogations of suspects connected with the Bahraini on whose computer the Mubtakkar was discovered were going nowhere. The U.S. would have to look elsewhere.

Conventional wisdom has long held that the U.S. has no human intelligence assets inside al Qaeda. "That is not true," writes Suskind. Over the previous six months, U.S. agents had been receiving accurate tips from a man the writer identifies simply as "Ali," a management-level al-Qaeda operative who believed his leaders had erred in attacking the U.S. directly. "The group was now dispersed," writes Suskind. "A few of its leaders and many foot soldiers were captured or dead. As with any organization, time passed and second-guessing began."

And when asked about the Mubtakkar and the names of the men arrested in Saudi Arabia, Ali was aware of the plot. He identified the key man as Bin Laden's top operative on the Arabian Peninsula, Yusuf al Ayeri, a.k.a. "Swift Sword," who had been released days earlier by Saudi authorities, unaware that al-Ayeri was bin Laden's point man in the kingdom.

Ali revealed that Ayeri had visited Ayman Zawahiri in January 2003, to inform him of a plot to attack the New York City subway system using cyanide gas. Several mubtakkars were to be placed in subway cars and other strategic locations. This was not simply a proposal; the plot was well under way. In fact, zero-hour was only 45 days away. But then, for reasons still debated by U.S. intelligence officials, Zawahiri called off the attack. "Ali did not know the precise explanation why. He just knew that Zawahiri had called them off."

The news left administration officials gathered in the White House with more questions than answers. Why was Ali cooperating? Why had Zawahiri called off the strike? Were the operatives planning to carry out the attack still in New York? "The CIA analysts attempted answers. Many of the questions were simply unanswerable."

Read the whole thing.

Allah Pundit says the point to take away is Al Qaeda has crude WMD capabilities. Have a great evening!

Suitably Flip feels better and better about that 40% cut in New York's federal anti-terror funding.

AJ Strata wonders if Time and Suskind expose a critical US intelligence asset inside Al
Qaeda's organization simply to make money? It seems likely - sadly. But hey, I'm sure they think it was worth the Pulitzer.

I wonder if this will change the ACLU's mind about random searches in the NY Subway. Time says they will have more tomorrow, but the main question will remain: Why was it called off?

Jeff Goldstein:

My preliminary thoughts are these: whatever you happen to feel about George Bush, one thing is clear: When it comes to defending the homeland against al Qaeda, he has not hesitated to act in the decisive way he and his advisors see fit. To that end, he has proven himself unafraid to use substantive military force, and largely immune to the opinions of both the western media and international elites. Whether or not this factored into al Qaeda’s thinking is dubious. But I have long believed that one of the reasons we haven’t seen the kind of attacks here that we see in, say, Israel, is that the US, should it ever decide to go on the full offensive, cannot be restrained—particularly if public opinion shifts toward a desire to see the enemy eradicated, even if doing so requires a shift in the collective moral calculus of the nation.

Macsmind reminds us that we should take this news with a grain of salt.

Back in 2004, Powerline caught Suskind perpetrating a hoax with his hit book on Bush, using proven liar Ex Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil as a witness.

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

LATEST POLLING IN TEXAS SHOWS


Forty-three percent of all TEXANS say that immigration is a serious problem.



The other 57 percent said, "No hablo inglés"

Crossposted from: Stop The ACLU

Via Miami Herald

The recently passed Florida law that essentially bans state academic travel to Cuba promised to escalate into a constitutional battle when Gov. Jeb Bush signed it into law last month.

.......snip...

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing several professors from state universities, filed a lawsuit against Florida officials in federal court, claiming the travel ban is unconstitutional. The group also demands a temporary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect while the case is in court.

''This act is terribly misdirected,'' Randall Marshall, legal director of the ACLU of Florida, said of the new law. "This is unconstitutional, and we hope to have this law struck down very shortly.''

The Florida Masochist has the right question:

Tell me Mr. Marshall where it says in the constitution that taxpayer money must be used to support travel? Anywhere in the world? I'll await your reply but I doubt I'll get one.

The new law prohibits spending state money on any aspect of organizing a trip to any of the five nations on the U.S. State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Other plaintiffs named in the suit include the faculty senate of FIU; Jose Alvarez, professor emeritus at the University of Florida; Carmen Diana Deere, director and professor at the University of Florida's Center for Latin American Studies; Houman Sadri, associate professor at the University of Central Florida; and Noel Smith, curator of Latin American and Caribbean Art at the University of South Florida.

The academics worry that the travel ban will discourage top students who have an interest in studying Cuba or other countries on the list from remaining at Florida schools.

This law is a very responsible move on the part of the state. The argument that it will discourage study in these countries and therefore diminish our security is crazy. We are at war despite the attitudes of some to recognize it. Why in the world should the state use its funds to put Americans in harms way where they could be taken hostage and a myriad of other terrible things done to them?

I will repeat my opinion from when the ACLU first announced their opposition to the law.

This law is straight up common sense, and if the ACLU were truly concerned for the security of Americans they would be applauding it. The law does not prevent anyone from actually travelling to these countries, it only prohibits taxpayer funds from paying for it. If professors and students want to travel to these dangerous countries they can do it at their own risk, and their own dime. Perhaps the ACLU are disappointed that the taxpayer will not be paying their fare to visit their clients? If so, I’m sure they have plenty enough duped supporters that would gladly donate.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

No-Frickin-Where that's where!!!!!!From a CAIR press release comes this little gem of turdiness that just happens to highlight the complete hypocrisy of the ACLU:

CAIR-SAN DIEGO PARTICIPATES IN FAITH LEADERS FOR PEACE EVENT

(SAN DIEGO, CA, 6/15/06)- The San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-San Diego) recently took part in a day-long prayer and fasting event to promote peace sponsored by the Faith Leaders for Peace at the Federal Building in downtown San Diego.

Throughout the day, event participants shared teachings on peace from our various faith traditions and invited congregations to join in the event. Shaykh Taha Hassane, Imam of the Islamic Center of San Diego and also an active member of the Faith Leaders for Peace, led the mid afternoon prayer for Muslims.

"We applaud the efforts of the Faith Leaders for Peace for sponsoring this event and for the promotion of peace for all people and faiths," said CAIR-San Diego Director of Public Relations Edgar Hopida.

(emphasis mine)

Let a Christian Church do this and watch the moonbats fly.

Damned hypocrites.