I always breathe a sigh of relief when I read a story that a child abducted is found:

RENO, Nev. (AP) - An 8-year-old girl was abducted by a convicted sex offender who took her to Mexico, where the two were found staying in a shelter, authorities said.

Officials in Mexico and the United States said the girl was sexually assaulted by Fernando Aguerro, who is accused of kidnapping her from her home near Reno on July 22.

The girl’s mother, who was reunited with her daughter Saturday, said she had a romantic relationship with Aguerro.

Authorities found the sex offender and the young girl in a low-income Ensenada shelter, and the mother was flown to San Diego to be reunited with her daughter.   

It was not immediately known when Aguerro may be extradited to the United States. He remains in the custody of Mexican authorities, who want to charge him with rape and kidnapping, NBC TV affiliates in Reno and San Diego reported.

If convicted in Mexico, Aguerro could serve up to 38 years in prison.

Aguerro - who was convicted in Los Angeles in the 1980s of lewdness with a child and served a year in prison - could receive life in prison without parole if convicted of kidnapping in the United States.

I have to say, perhaps we should leave the sicko in Mexico.  He was already a convicted sex offender walking the streets in the U.S.  Perhaps Mexico would actually *keep* him in prison.  Oh, and Mexican jails aren’t known for their amenities either.  However, he could receive life in prison without parole if convicted of kidnapping here in the states.  I’m not convinced that’s realistic, given the rash of sex offender cases that have popped up where a child (or children!) ends up dying because a sex offender, even with multiple instances of molestation, is still walking the streets.  It seems as though some in the judicial system are somewhat sympathetic to these criminals.  I’d almost rather bet my money on a 38 year sentence in Mexico.  By then, the guy would be elderly and hopefully out of commission if he didn’t die in prison first.

The girl’s mother said she did not know that Aguerro was a convicted sex offender until he and her daughter disappeared. "I’m glad everybody prayed" for the girl’s safe return, she said.

So I went to the state of Nevada’s Sex Offender Registry page, and of course this guy isn’t listed.  But further looking at the definitions at the site, if they deem a convicted sex offender low risk, they won’t even list them in the database.  I don’t know if this particular criminal registered or not, but this certainly brings to light for me, yet again, the problems with the state-by-state registry system.  As long as we put the responsibility into the hands of the criminal we cannot rely on this system.  Additionally, protecting the criminal by choosing not to list them on the registry is dangerous.  If Aguerro actually is registered and considered "low risk" - which is entirely possible given his conviction was in the 80s - it proves to me this system is flawed.

I’ve done a bit of reading tonight, but I’ve not come up with anything to write about!  A bit of linky love is way overdue, so what better time to do it when I have writer’s block, huh!

Jane Asks For Our Assistance…

Jane at Armies of Liberation tells us about a 14-year-old boy held in a prison in Yemen.  This young man, Ibrahim al Saiani, has an urgent need for medical attention.  Please see Jane’s post here and take the time to sign the petition here.  The petition asks for the boy to get medical attention and, if innocent, his release from prison. 

Beth Has the 411 on PETA Hippie Freaks…

That Beth at MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is at it again, keeping us informed.  She shares a warm tale of PETA yarn spinners and their comparisons of the plights of animals to slavery.  What a bunchacrap.  They’ll never get that lunacy doesn’t win over people.  Well, except the looney Hollyweird crowd.  Excuse me while I go flip my medium rare, cooked to perfection porterhouse steak, please.  Did I tell you I hate PETA even more than the ACLU?

Visit Basil, You Must!

With all the linky love Basil has sent to me, I can never seem to send enough his way.  So please, I beg you, go visit his site.  He has awesome articles, including this one, and this one.  Oh, and Blogroll him, because you will want to go back.

Plan to be Outraged…

Stop over at Hyscience and read "The MSM War On Christians ‘And America’ - They’ve Gone ‘Off The Charts’ In Bias." Oh, and plan to be outraged.  Here’s a sneak peak:

My Husband Vinnie….

Oh, look!  My hubby has BlogAds on his site.  Take a look, and be sure to sign up - he has a great deal going on right now! [this plug brought to you by da wifey poo]

Hanoi Jihad Jane…

Michael, I couldn’t have said it better.  She’s gotta go. 

No, We Don’t Want Her in Office…

Raven reminds us that we’ve got some work to do…unless we want Hillary in office.  Oh my.  I think I need a Tums.

…and As Always….

Please come back here for more.  Hehehehehe

Rich Lowry has a great post up at National Review regarding Cameras and Terrorism.

The four would-be suicide bombers of the botched July 21 attacks in London have a big problem. They were caught on videotape. Their images have been broadcast in Britain and around the world, making their apprehension astronomically more likely than if they had escaped undetected.

And, as Rich says, "we have security cameras to thank."

London has half a million of them. According to one estimate, a person wandering around London will be filmed 300 times in a day. The city is a pioneer of a trend toward video surveillance that is also sweeping the United States and provoking howls from civil libertarians whose internal clocks are set to make a reference to 1984 every 15 minutes or so. Given the choice, apparently, they would prefer not to have the video of the July 21 bombers, which is an indication of the suicidal otherworldliness of ACLU-style civil libertarianism.

The biggest complaint from those who do not want security cameras is the argument that it would be an invasion of privacy, that it would be intrusive.  Rich hits it smack dab on the head… How is it an invasion of privacy when you are in a public place, where a dozen or more witnesses can see your every activity, every move?  There are security cameras at ATMs, in banks, in many businesses (including the building I work in).  If we had them in more public areas, not only would it deter crime, but those criminals dumb enough - or on a suicide mission (i.e. TERRORISTS) - could at least be caught on tape, which would make it easier to spot them, arrest them and convict them.

If they can’t brandish the Fourth Amendment, civil libertarians get down to practical policing and claim that cameras don’t really do anything to prevent crime; they only occasionally help solve crime after the fact. Even if this were true, solving one terror attack alone — and therefore perhaps unraveling networks that would attack in the future — makes the cameras worth it.

Cameras won’t deter suicide bombers — what will? — but they can tamp down other criminal activity. Cameras in Britain are credited with discouraging the IRA bombing campaign in the 1990s. On a less serious front, San Francisco — one of many jurisdictions, including New York, Houston and New Jersey, that have cameras in their train systems — saw vandalism drastically decline on subway cars after the installation of surveillance cameras.

Reducing crime takes the parks and the cities away from the criminals and gives it back to the citizens.  I think of our own "Central Park Mall" here in Omaha.  It is overrun by vagrants, criminals, sex offenders and the like.  More security cameras in strategic places would deter these criminals from setting up virtual residence in the park and more residents could actually enjoy the amenities the park promises.  I certainly don’t go down there after dark and I especially wouldn’t be there alone after dark or take my children there.  Sad, isn’t it? 

Then there is the last resort of civil libertarians. When no real harm can be demonstrated, they always discern a subtle “chilling effect.” “When citizens are being watched by the authorities,” says Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union, “they are more self-conscious and less freewheeling.” But urban areas, where the cameras are proliferating, are not notably bastions of inhibited behavior. City Journal’s Heather Mac Donald, who is nation’s foremost critic of the excesses of the ACLU, writes, “The only people whom public cameras inhibit are criminals; they liberate the law-abiding public.” When they move a camera out of a troubled neighborhood, Chicago police now get complaints from neighbors, who want pimps and drug dealers to be decidedly inhibited.

You are spot on Ms. MacDonald.

It’s very easy to see (as emphasized in the quote above and in looking at the ACLU’s website) what their opinion is on surveillance cameras.  In a hearing to discuss enhancing D.C.’s security camera network, mere months after 9/11, Johnny Barnes, the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, testified.  He cited the following reasons why a stronger surveillance camera network should not be deployed in D.C.:

1. Surveillance cameras are not effective at fighting crime.

Hmmmmm….there seem to be many instances that this is proven false (Rich names at least one instance in San Francisco as well as complaints when cameras were moved in Chicago, apparently causing the return of criminal activity once the camera was removed).

2. Surveillance cameras reduce resources for placing police officers into neighborhoods where they are needed. 

They state that putting more cameras in would cause a need to pull officers off the street; therefore, decreasing police presence which would increase potential for crime.  Huh?

3. Surveillance cameras undermine individual privacy and are inimical to the American way of life.

Typical ACLU.  So, they bring up cameras at stop lights.  They say that while that has its own problems, at least the cameras are used to focus on one type of offense.  A network of cameras would be too intrusive as it would "track daily routines" versus specific criminal activity.  They say it would also undermine individual privacy and could deter, as an example, a citizen’s desire to demonstrate on the mall.  So if they aren’t breaking any laws, why worry?  It’s a public place that a person’s activities can be observed by numbers of people!  Besides, isn’t the point of demonstration for a cause to stand up and BE NOTICED?

4. Surveillance cameras should not be contemplated without obtaining the explicit permission of those they impact. Permission was not granted in the District of Columbia. 

I can’t help but quote directly from their testimony:  "Americans value the right to be anonymous in a big city. We value the right to go about our business without the sense that the government is watching us as if we were going to break the law."  Um, excuse me please.  I value feeling safe in my own country.  I’ll bet criminals value the "right" to be anonymous in a big city.  Why do you think we have so many "Wanted" posters, or Crimestopper segments on TV?

5. Surveillance cameras are subject to great abuse.

That’s why you put policies and procedures in place - DUH.

So what came of the DC security camera situation 3 years ago?  Security cameras had been installed, but guidelines and procedures were established that limited the use of the cameras. 

Those guidelines, which the council approved, call for the cameras to be used only to monitor traffic, large demonstrations and city emergencies. The regulations also say that the cameras can be installed only in public spaces where people would have a reasonable expectation of being videotaped, and they bar police from using the devices to watch for street crime. that did not allow the police to operate them 24/7.

When the London bombings occurred, the question came up "What are we doing to prevent terrorist activity in DC?"  Again the recommendation has come up to increase the use of security cameras in order to deter varying levels of criminal activity, and again, the "issue" of privacy has resurfaced.  Let the games begin again.

*****

Please stop by "Stop the ACLU!" for their weekly Blogburst!

Cheryl is a 17-year-old girl missing since the beginning of June 2005.  She was last seen in Marin County, CA.

Anyone who has seen this 17 year old girl please call 415-472-2994.  This is her mother’s phone number…please do not call unless you have information that would be helpful.

Or call the San Rafael police dept. @ 415-485-3000 or www.srpd.org
Any information or help would be greatly appreciated by her family.

Disclaimer:  Since there were no photographs associated with this news article, one cannot be completely sure the individuals in this story truly qualify as "White Trash" Wednesday candidates.  Please humor me, however. 

Okay, I apologize in advance to anyone who thinks it is acceptable for a 22-year-old pedophile to "marry" their 13-year-old victim.  NOT!  No apologies here and the only thing I’d do differently is go after the girl’s PARENTS for allowing the "marriage" to start with:

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - A 22-year-old man faces criminal charges in Nebraska for having sex with an underage 13-year-old girl, although he legally married her in Kansas after she became pregnant.

The man’s lawyer said the couple, with their families’ support, "made a responsible decision to try to cope with the problem."

Ahem…allowing a 13-year-old child to attempt to raise a baby is a "responsible decision?" 

Matthew Koso, 22, was charged Monday with first-degree sexual assault, punishable by up to 50 years in prison. He was released on $7,500 bail pending an Aug. 17 preliminary hearing.

After the girl became pregnant, her mother gave permission in May for Koso to take the young woman to Kansas, which allows minors to get married with parental consent. The girl is now 14 and seven months pregnant.

"The idea … is repugnant to me," said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. "These people made the decision to send their … 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile."

EXACTLY!  He’s a pedophile - not a responsible father-to-be.  What a sick-o. 

He said the marriage is valid, thanks to the "ridiculous" Kansas law, "but it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to stand by while a grown man … has a relationship with a 13-year-old - now 14-year-old - girl."

Bruning, who has said he will seek a second term in 2006, has aggressively prosecuted sex crimes against children since he was elected in 2002

The couple were married in May by a judge in Hiawatha, Kan., just across the state line from Falls City.

Nebraska requires people to be at least 17 before they can marry.

Kansas law, however, sets no minimum marriage age, although case law sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls. The marriage must be approved by both parents or guardian, or by a district court judge, said Whitney Watson, spokesman for Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. A judge also must approve if only one parent approves.

Sounds to me like a law in Kansas should be reviewed and amended, perhaps? 

Koso’s lawyer, Willis Yoesel, said the girl’s mother and Koso’s parents approved of the marriage. He said the girl’s father has not lived with the family for some time.

"It seems to me like they, as much as they could, made a responsible decision to try to cope with the problem," Yoesel said.

"The families are all united in this effort," Yoesel said. "I don’t know who is complaining. … What benefit is there to anybody in the prosecution of this young man?"

There was no comment from Koso, who does not have a listed telephone number.

My question is this.  Kansas has convicted pedophiles in prison.  Why, then, do their judges allow and endorse the marriage of victims of pedophilia to their assailants?

Please visit our fine WTW participants around ye ole trailer park (and a special callout to Mr. Neocon, who certainly can see into the future!):

Did they think they wouldn’t be recognized?  And who did their hair and makeup?  Wow….these guys sure needed a lesson or two before they decided to shop lift disguised (?) as cross-dressers.  Perhaps they needed some new makeup, or new tweezers?  Or a new wardrobe?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 

This week, the Cotillion officially moves to its new home!  New design, new home - what more could you ask for?  How about a housewarming party?!?

Well, even if you didn’t ask, I’m telling you that this week’s party is being hosted by four amazing conservative women:  Fistful of Fortnights, Who Tends the Fires, e-Claire and My VRWC.  Please be sure to stop by and thank them for such a great time!

I hate writing this, but a good guy is grieving. Ron G., who writes the hilariously funny blog The Therapist, lost his father today.

Please send him your best, no matter what side you’re on.

True story….

I needed some stamps, so I went to the post office this morning. 

As, we were waiting in line, my daughter points to the collections they have on display.    Her first exclaimation was "Mommy, look at Mickey Mouse - there’s candles here!" (there was a display that had Mickey Mouse candles and some stamps with it). 

At the next display…  "Mommy, look at that guy on the stamps!"  I told her "that guy" was Ronald Reagan.  Right behind me was a couple, and the guy said to the girl something along the lines of "I don’t know why anyone would even waste the paper to put Ronald Reagan’s picture on it.  He was one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had."

Me, being the ever-polite person - and for fear of police action - chose not to turn around and deck him.  Instead, when it was my turn to buy stamps - and in a very loud voice - I asked the clerk "Do you have any of those Ronald Reagan stamps in stock?  I’d like to buy some!" 

I could feel the redness in his face across the room!

Cross-posted at MVRWC

Over the course of my work life, I have been in positions that I am responsible for people.  Their successes, their failures.  Whether I hire them or not.  Whether I keep them at the company or not.  I’m in - oh no - MANAGEMENT.  I’ve been told I’m a pretty nice person - heck, I even got 100% on my performance ratings from the people who report to me this year.  But underneath my work disguise, I am NOT politically correct.

In my work experience, I have had to "separate" a person, or "end their employment arrangement."  Nope, I can’t fire them.  An employee can’t suck at what they do, they are "underperforming."  I see it in the school system, too.  Remember the days of grades A, B, C, D and F?  The only "F" I see anymore is on "The Fairly Odd Parents" (dear ole Mr. Crocker).  My son brings home O, S, N and the like, and soon to come more "normal" grades such as 1-5 (finally, as he hits 3rd grade).  Teachers in the UK don’t want to use the term "fail" and think they should use the term "deferred success" in order to reduce the risk of demoralizing the student.  Teachers here don’t want to grade with red ink, as it hurts the student’s self-worth or self-esteem - instead they want to grade in purple ink.  Next, they won’t grade at all!  Perhaps the student should decide what grade they get - then they’ll be "bought in."  You know the banter - I’m sure most of you have experienced it either in your own job, in your children’s education or even reading the mainstream news. 

Everywhere, words have evolved into some homogenized version of what they used to be.  These changes have a direct and distinct impact on our society and how we perceive what is going on around us.  Here’s just a few, across the spectrum, with some help from Wikipedia:

• Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” became “Person of the Year”

• Chairman was replaced by chair (policeman or policewoman was replaced by police officer, so on and so forth)

• "Merry Christmas" is often replaced with "Happy Holidays".

• Blacks became Negroes, then became blacks again, then became Afro-Americans, then became African Americans

• The elderly became senior citizens.

• Foreign students became international students.

• “English as a Foreign Language” became “English as a Second Language," then "English for Speakers of Other Languages."

• The ghetto became the inner city.

• "Alms" evolved into "poor relief" and became "welfare," which in turn morphed into "public assistance."

• Genocide became ethnic cleansing.

• Terrorist has been replaced – via the MSM - with insurgent or bomber or protester or poor guy who is just misunderstood (okay, this one I embellished on a bit).

• Problem or conflict became issue

• "Hospital" became "Health care center."

• Doctor or nurse became health care provider.

• Backward became mentally retarded, which in turn became slow, then mentally handicapped, then mentally challenged.

• "Heart attack" became a "cardiovascular event."

• "juvenile delinquents" became "children at risk"

• The Department of Prisons became the Department of Corrections.

• The "War Department," together with the "Navy Department" became the "Defense Department."

• Illegal alien became Illegal immigrant (though many if not most illegals are not by definition "immigrants," or people who intend to relocate to the United States permanently), which has recently been replaced with the term undocumented worker.

It’s hard to keep up with some of these changes.  Not that I necessarily disagree with some changes to the words we use to describe situations or people.  As a manager of people, telling someone that our employment arrangement needs to end versus "you are fired" makes it a bit easier on me.  But is it really appropriate to call a terrorist something by any other name? 

I truly believe this "dumbing down" of society as a whole will not serve us well in the future.  For example, isn’t competition part of success?  If every little Janey or every little Johnny gets the same grade, or they are all told they are doing well, where is the competition?  If everything is sugar-coated, how do people know the truth?  I’ve seen the impact in the working world - there’s a strong sense of entitlement from a higher percentage of people new to the workforce now than early in my career.  And I can’t speak about it with them in a way that is straightforward without risk of someone filing some kind of claim (either via a law suit or a myriad of other avenues).  These are people that come in, do the bare minimum or less, but get pissed when their performance review is just average or below average when compared with their peers.  Growing up, they were TAUGHT that they were good, even if they are not.  They are not expecting this kind of news - I’ve even been told in the most egregious example of "underperformance" by an employee "well, there’s *some* work in there."  What a rude awakening, this whole working world thing.   Oh, and I don’t write my performance reviews in purple ink, either. 

Update:  tee bee over at Guide to Midwestern Culture has a response, a Merri response.   

I do think they are jealous.  Rachael is quickly becoming "everyone’s Emeril" with her quick cooking meals and easy ingredients.  I think it’s pretty hard to "hate" her, so envy must be it.  Slate’s managing editor has a great article, and talks about Rachael Ray’s successes as well as the challenge to actually cook meals in 30 minutes. 

To her credit, Ray has always cast herself as a sort of anti-Martha, offering options for those who want to save money, eat healthfully, and cook at home but don’t have the time or budget to entertain the Turkey Hill way.

That’s the main reason I like her.  Okay, I admit it.  I can’t STAND Martha Stewart!

Regular cooking shows are rife with annoying you’ll-never-be-able-to-replicate-this moments. When the chef begins, meticulously prepared ingredients lie at the ready; he breezes through instruction and then—poof!—pulls out the perfect frittata that’s been waiting in the oven.

Can you say Emeril?

The show is also fantastically entertaining. It’s suspenseful: As the minutes tick by, Ray becomes frenetic—will she finish? (She always does.) And it’s educational: As Ray trims her asparagus and frantically wraps prosciutto around the green stems, she offers tips. Use a "garbage bowl" to collect debris as you’re cooking.

I’ve got one!

Chop chicken into small pieces so it cooks faster.

I do it!

Roll citrus before you cut it, and you’ll extract more juice.

Do that, too!

Forget about measuring—"Eyeball it!"

A regular occurrence in my kitchen! 

Then came the true test, the editor tried to actually cook one of Rachael’s meals in 30 minutes (actually she tried 21 recipes!):

My most successful effort was Ray’s "Back in the Day" menu:  Super Sloppy Joes, Deviled Potato Salad, and Root Beer Floats. I prepped with the same care as Ray—produce pre-rinsed, garbage bowl at the ready, pantry items near at hand—but it took me 49 minutes and 51 seconds (and I skipped the Root Beer Floats).

Rachael can do it though - proven time and time again before live audiences - she’s the real deal.  Cool thing is, I may not have done the Deviled Potato Salad, but I’ve done her sloppy joes well within 30 minutes - and throw in a side dish or two, I am usually very close to 30 minutes.  HOWEVER, I’m not explaining what I do to a camera, I’m not following tele-prompters, and worrying about staging and other such stuff. 

It truly doesn’t matter if these gourmet-style chefs welcome her in their circles or not.  What it boils down to is the fact that she caters to "us" - the parents, the career people, the people who can’t afford expensive ingredients, the people who don’t have time to prepare a meal over the course of 4 hours.  Oh, and she has a special place in the hearts of men who can’t seem to get enough of her shows or her spread in FHM.  Rachael Ray vs. Martha Stewart?  I’d bet on Rachael Ray any day!   

Yet another monster who thinks they should play God…

DYER, Ind. — A northwest Indiana mother has been charged with two counts of murder.

Police said she beat her two sons to death with a 10-pound dumbbell because she thought they’d be better off in heaven.

Magdalena Lopez was arrested after police officers answered a 911 call and found her 9-year-old son Antonio and 2-year-old son Erik dead in separate rooms of the family home in Dyer, Ind.

A police report said as officers approached the house, the mother walked out, her clothes and feet spattered with blood. She told officers she had to kill the children because she couldn’t take care of them anymore, saying, "They’re in a much better place now."

Relatives said Lopez was being treated for bipolar disorder but had been coping better recently. The boys’ father was at work when he was told of the deaths.

I don’t particularly care that Lopez was "being treated" for anything - I’m certain that little "issue" with bipolar disorder will set up Lopez for a nice little "innocent by reason of insanity" plea.  She does not deserve to breathe fresh air outside prison walls ever again.  These were innocent children - HER children.  Unbelievable. 

Okay, anyone reading my blog will know that I’m not a fan of the ACLU.  There just flat out is no need for an ACLU any more, particularly due to their extreme positions on the most basic things in life.  As a parent, and as a human being, I’ve just had it today.  My hubby pointed me to Little Green Footballs and three articles laden with ACLU bullshit.  You can read them here, here, and here.  I’m done, and the gloves are OFF.

I awoke today to yet another report of terrorist bombings in London.  I think everyone knows that it is very possible that similar acts of cowardice could take place here in the U.S. - it’s only a matter of when.  So in an effort, undoubtedly, to deter such acts it is reasonable that security measures get stepped up.  The NYPD announced that they would do random searches of bags for those commuters on buses, railways and subways.  The ACLU is saying that this goes against the very basic principles of the constitution.  I have to wonder, what do the card-carrying members of the ACLU have to hide?  Are they worried that the NYPD might find their drug stash? (They’ve got to be high the way they act…that’s the only thing that could explain it, right?)  I think that security measures will help lessen the threat of terrorist acts, even if it is only a little bit.  And just which side is the ACLU on anyway - the terrorists?

As the parent of a Cub Scout, I’m furious about the ACLU’s fervored war against the Boy Scouts.  If the ACLU had their way, the Boy Scouts would 1) allow girls to join 2) would be ran, all the way down to the den leader level, by pedophiles 3) would not be able to teach the scouts morals, and would instead show child porn videos.  Yes, part of what a scout learns is related to "love of God," but look deeper into the lessons taught to these boys.  The difference between right and wrong, treating people with respect, doing your part in society - when did these lessons become dangerous?  Even a family who doesn’t practice religion can find value here and these young boys grow into young men who can and do hold leadership roles in their communities.  Scouting has been well-established for years and years and no one has been harmed by allowing long standing relationships between the Scouts and military organizations (or other similar types of organizations).  The Jamboree has been held at Fort A.P. Hill for 25 years.  What the hell has happened in recent time that all of a sudden makes this relationship wrong, requiring the ACLU to sue to get it stopped?  Just because this event is sponsored there doesn’t mean that the main reason they sponsor the event is because the Scouts have "God" in their oath.   

The ACLU’s positions are extreme, they advocate the criminal far more than they advocate the victim.  They don’t think an opinion or idea is "right" unless it is one they belive in.  They have managed to manipulate so many in order to realize their goals and objectives (if you even could call them that).  And when they start screwing with my son’s organization, they’ve crossed the last proverbial line.  I realize we are in a country that affords us freedoms and these very freedoms allow this group to be in existance and have the agenda they do.  But when do *I* - normal, every day Amercian citizen Merri - get my voice heard?  I don’t WANT child porn legalized, I don’t WANT the ACLU to tell me what I can’t do, or what my son can’t do.  I don’t want the ACLU telling others what is right for me and "representing" me.  They don’t have a clue what is right for me - they haven’t even bothered to ask me - and I’m not sure who they are representing, but it sure as hell *isn’t* me.

I just had to get that off my chest.  And that is all.            

He said "poop."

Seems as though I’m a bit tardy in posting about this, but I just can’t help it.  In just one article, the ACLU confirmed my thoughts - that Judge John Roberts is an OUTSTANDING nomination for the Supreme Court.  Read on…

WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed deep concern about some of the civil liberties positions advocated by Judge John Roberts, President Bush’s choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.  While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest.

"All these positions were rejected by the Supreme Court," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU’s National Legal Director. "But the Supreme Court remains closely divided on many of these questions."

So, if I’m reading this right, what the ACLU means is that the Supreme Court can have opinions and outcomes, only if those opinions and outcomes are sanctioned by the ACLU.

As a senior Justice Department official, Roberts was in a position to help shape the government’s legal positions as well as represent them.

At a minimum, the Senate should determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts’s personal views.

C’mon.  Roberts could support abortion, legalize child porn and create a National Hug Your Tree holiday and these liberals would STILL find something wrong with him.  This statement could be made about ANYONE on the Supreme Court past or present.  That’s the beauty of justices being selected over the course of time and by different leadership in Washington - it brings a varied background, which helps to balance the court.

Judge John Roberts was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2003. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University and clerked for Justice Rehnquist. He served in a number of positions in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, including as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993.

"The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in advancing freedom," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."

"The stakes could not be higher," Romero added.

How right you are, Mr. Romero.

The ACLU will only oppose a Supreme Court nominee on a majority vote of its 83 person national board.

Why should we care what the ACLU’s national board thinks?  First of all, it’s 83 people - big whoop!  And NONE of those 83 people represent my thinking or my opinion (Ahem.  Can you say NAMbLA support or legalization of child porn?).  And there is nothing they can do about it should the nomination move ahead.  I thought the ACLU was supposed to support those people whose "rights" are being violated?  What rights has Roberts violated here?

***

Be sure to visit Stop the ACLU! and all of the participants in their weekly Blogburst!