• Design by





























Stop the ACLU! Blogburst

Please visit Stop the ACLU! for their weekly blogburst.  Learn about the many ways the ACLU is attempting to destroy America.

***

So the ACLU is "Dismayed at Lack of Reprimand For Top General" with regard to a government inquiry into interrogations conducted at Guantanamo Bay.

WASHINGTON - In anticipation of the release of a long-awaited government inquiry into the interrogation practices used by American personnel at Guantánamo Bay, the American Civil Liberties Union today said that the government broke the law and failed to hold the higher levels of the military accountable. The failure to reprimand the commanding general at Guantánamo was another demonstration of the military’s inability to hold itself accountable.

The investigation was headed by Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt of the Air Force, and is expected to be delivered to the Senate Armed Services Committee at an open hearing today.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director:

"It is irrefutable that the government violated the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual.

I’m sorry, but it most certainly is *not* irrefutable.  According to the Geneva Conventions, "Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war."  When was the last time you saw a terrorist follow a chain of command, let alone one that was "well defined?" How many terrorists distinguish themselves from the civilian population?  They don’t carry their arms openly and they sure as hell don’t obey the laws of war.  Let’s get back to ACLU henchman Anthony Romero (emphasis mine):

"…The report backs up claims by FBI agents that the government was breaking the rules at Guantánamo Bay. As before, low-ranking men and women will take the full blame while the higher ups get off scot-free. Despite General Schmidt’s recommendation to reprimand the commander of Guantánamo Bay, General Geoffrey Miller, a higher-ranking general refused to punish General Miller. Once again, we have abuse without high-level accountability. That will only encourage impunity and allow the abuse to continue."

Not surprising, the ACLU fails to mention that the reason Gen. Bantz Craddock overruled the recommendation to reprimand Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller was because there was no finding that U.S. law or policy was violated.  Because of that, there is nothing for which to hold him accountable.

I think the ACLU has forgotten this (graphic images, but a good reminder of why we are in this war on terror).  Let’s not forget that the terrorist is a terrorist, not a victim. 

2 Comments
Jay said:

Great job! You always do great research! You can stop trying to send a trackback cause it is screwed up..a bug I still have to work out. I can't quite figure out. I may have to move off of wordpress. I'm not sure. Thanks for helping us fight! Jay



AmyAllen said:

Good post!




Stop the ACLU! Blogburst -

Anyone who reads through my site will conclude fairly quickly my lack of love for the ACLU.  As a matter of fact, I truly believe that the ACLU shakes the very foundations of the freedom I am afforded as an American.

There is a great article over at GOP USA I encourage you to read.  I think the author summarizes a number of my concerns up nicely.

For years the American Civil Liberties Union has pushed its agenda as to what the Constitution "really says," and what freedom "really means" through judicial extortion.

The ACLU’s attorneys are akin to the old "ambulance chaser" adage…targeting particular hot bed situations and finding "the offended" who are willing to have the ACLU champion their cause. 

Many who have dared to stand up against the ACLU might have won the battle in the court room, but lost the war as their organizations were driven into bankruptcy under crushing legal bills.

I think the author, Justin Darr, is right on when he says:

However, in the last few years the tide has started to turn. Alternate civil liberties groups, such as The American Center for Law and Justice, conservative radio commentators, and even some in the media, have drawn attention to the ACLU’s pattern of abuses, fanatic beliefs and outright hypocrisy. For the first time the ACLU is faced with legitimate public outcry over their tactics and slowly those who once would quietly give up their freedoms have been instilled with the will (and pro bono legal support) to fight. In addition, despite the efforts of obstructionist liberals in Congress, the court system is being given a much needed infusion of new judges who recognize that their interpretation of the Constitution should in some fashion be similar to those who wrote it. The ACLU understands its days of forcing Christianity, traditional values, and freedoms out of American public life are numbered.

The ACLU has changed their strategy, broadening the circle with their court cases by including leaders and private citizens who are leading causes against the ACLU.  The best known case of this is the ACLU’s focus on Sean Hannity and his "crossing" of the US/Mexico border while interviewing Minutemen in Arizona.

…the ACLU, which led the good fight by trying to obstruct the Minutemen and goad them into conflicts while enabling the rampant invasion of illegals into our nation, decided this was an offense that could not be tolerated. Apparently upset at Hannity’s drawing interest to the good work of the Minutemen, Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, under the auspices of the ACLU, demanded Hannity’s arrest. 

This was not motivated due to a need to uphold immigration law.  This was "personal."  But as Darr writes, this is a larger issue than the ACLU just embarrassing Hannity.

It is indicative of a terrifying new trend from the ACLU where they are attempting to hold individual citizens legally liable for doing nothing more than thinking they are wrong. With large organizations starting to resist them, the ACLU must now found a new defenseless target unable to afford to fight them: private citizens.

There are several other cases Darr mentions that have recently presented illustrating this point:

  • In Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, the ACLU has called for the arrest of school teachers and administrators because the ACLU does not feel they adequately exorcised all Judeo-Christian influences from their classrooms and cafeterias.
  • In San Diego the ACLU is suing five local personalities, including Rush Limbaugh sub Roger Hedgecock, because they do not like the wording they have chosen to represent the "Arguments For" section of a local ballot initiative to save the Mt. Soledad Cross.
  • In the Keystone School District in Clarion County, Pennsylvania, even after the school board caved into the demands of the Pittsburgh ACLU, the ACLU is still suing the district because they felt that some in the community still "hoped" that there would be a prayer offered at the high school graduation.

Hmmmm…isn’t hope constitutional?  Last time I checked it was.

Obviously, the ACLU’s approach is alarming, but I can tell you that slowly their "minions" are starting to lose faith, tearing up their membership cards.  An ACLU who supports criminals more than victims, protects child molesters more than the child, initiates ridiculous cases to remove Ten Commandment monuments from public land and shreds their own documents is not the ACLU most want to support, even the most liberal souls out there.  There are just some things (can you say NAMbLA?) that even the most liberal liberal will refuse to support.

Today is Stop the ACLU! blogburst day!  Please head over to Stop the ACLU! and offer up your support.  There are many involved who continue to fight the good fight and you will find substantial information about the ACLU with just one stop!

1 Comment
Jay said:

Excellent job! Thank you so much. I saw the article you are referring to. The man is right on the money. Great job!




Stop the ACLU! Blogburst

It’s that time of week again - time to ponder what the ACLU has its hand in today and what it plans to have its hand in tomorrow. 

Normally, I spend quite a bit of time writing a nice article, or I borrow Jay’s weekly blogburst information and post it here.  However, there are two articles on Stop the ACLU! that I encourage you to read, so I’m choosing to refer you there. 

One discussion involves the ACLU’s involvement in abortion "rights."  As a society, we are so worried about the rights of the person in the "right now" - so much that a law was passed to legalize abortion, to me known as the murdering of innocent babies.  The ACLU is involved in this due to the lucritive financial opportunities presented.  Sure, they go off on their tangents and support organizations such as NAMBLA, or prisoners who are being "mistreated" (shoot, they get better treatment than innocent babies), but the financial opportunities aren’t as prevalent there.  This article on Jay’s site has some great debate going on so I urge you to take a peek!

Also, please don’t forget to check out the Blogburst post - this ties nicely into the aforementioned post - selective civil rights.  While it’s stated that "everyone" has a right to speak their mind, have peaceful protest, etc., when it comes to pro-life, the ACLU is reluctant to support those pro-life protesters. 

"To the ACLU, anti-abortion protesters are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60’s, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom.

I’m so tired of the double-standard and tired of being put down for my beliefs - if a person speaks of pro-choice, it is a "right."  If a person speaks of pro-life, they are imposing their religious beliefs.  I could care less if anyone has the same religious beliefs as me, as a matter of fact, my religious beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to how I feel about abortion. 

As a woman, I know what I need to do to prevent pregnancy.  That’s my responsibility and my obligation if I do not want a child.  Abortion shouldn’t be used as birth control and if I become pregnant after being careless, I shouldn’t kill my baby because of my own stupidity.  If I don’t want my child, there are others out in this world who are incapable of bearing a child, but have a heartful of love to give.  My father was adopted and I know quite a number of others who are adopted as well, and greatful that they didn’t end up as "medical waste" following an arranged murder by their own mother. 

I would add that it is completely unfair that a man does not have the right to be involved with what happens to HIS child.  The baby didn’t arrive in the woman’s womb due to some fluke - he is as responsible as she is and should have the right to say that he wants her to carry the child to term so he can raise the child.  He should also have the right to say that he doesn’t want his baby killed and would like him or her adopted by a caring family.  Does the ACLU step up for these dads?  Absolutely not. 

4 Comments
Jay said:

Excellent! Especially the passionate rant at the end! Thanks!



Great post! Thanks for being here to speak up. I love your site. And thanks for answering those silly, but fun, questions at my place.

I saw those comments over at Jay's place and was very impressed. I loved what you had to say, here, with regards to abortions and your beliefs. I'm with YOU.



Carol said:

I'm always amazed at how the "pro-choice" people can constantly overlook the fact that the CHOICE is made when a woman (couple?) CHOSES to skip using birth control. (Not counting the special circumstance of rape.) I'm appalled that "choice" has come to equal "abortion" in so many minds.



Merri said:

Thanks so much, Carol (Ms. Housewife!)! I had fun answering your questions - I'm all about "lite fare" every once in awhile! I appreciate your kind words!

Carol - I agree and would take it even a step further. You're right that the choice takes place when a couple choose to skip birth control, but I'd add that they make the choice when they decide to have sex (there's always a chance...).

I had an acquaintence who worked in a woman's clinic for, I think less than a month, prior to working at the company we worked at together. She said there were women who used abortion as birth control. When she looked at one woman's chart, she had been in for 4-5 abortions in less than 3 years. The woman didn't use contraceptives because 1) the pill made her break out and 2) because she didn't like the feel of a condom. Give me a break - she should get her tubes tied then! When this girl went to work at the clinic, she didn't feel she had an opinion on abortion, but left because she had formed one and didn't want to be a part any longer. It's sad when you think of how many lives have been lost because of someone's selfishness and stupidness.




May 19th, 2005

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst
Sex For Sale

The ACLU’s Policy 211 is straightforward. "The ACLU supports the decriminalization of prostitution and opposes state regulation of prostitution". They base their argument on several points, including that existing laws are discrimination against women, and the right of individual privacy. They argue that what two consenting adults in private do is their own business.

Prostitution is private? But isn’t the prostitute engaging in business, isn’t she providing a service? Would we not regulate and license a business? You wouldn’t want a general contractor to work on your house without a license would you? That would be unsafe as is an unregulated prostitute.

However, the ACLU doesn’t believe in that philosophy. The question of privacy comes in if the government is allowed to regulate the oldest profession.

As for it being a privacy issue, it seems a contradiction to me when they also state that the "public" solicitation of prostitution is "entitled to the protection of the First Amendment". "It’s not just the bedroom that the ACLU wishes to make off-limits to public censure, but also the local street corner, presumably even if that corner is regularly used by school children crossing the street." Source

Privacy applies to two consenting adults when no contract is involved; a date with no expectation of performance is a far cry from paying for a service.

And what good would it do for women’s rights to decriminalize this? One could argue that women should not be punished for their own exploitation. But how does decriminalizing pimps, buyers, procurers, brothels or other sex establishments offer any solution to this? Decriminalization would do nothing but expand the sex industry and send a message to society that it is acceptable. And a system unregulated would do nothing for women’s health, and would only promote the spread of disease.

The more I learn about the ACLU, the more I am convinced that they want to establish a new society based on everything immoral. They are blinded by their elitist ideology to the point they can’t even conceive of the possible consequences that will result if they are enacted. The scary thing is that they hold so much power, and lack so much responsibility. They must be stopped.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additonal advantages and features that will be available for you there…you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU Freedom Of Thought Mad Tech Respublica The Wide Awakes Angry Republican Mom Kender’s Musings American Patriots What Attitude Problem? Life Trek Gribbit’s Word Def Conservative An American Housewife A Tic In The Mind’s Eye Cao’s Blog Regular Ron Freedom Of Is This Life? Patriots For Bush California Conservative 4 Truth NIF Obiter Dictum PBS Watch Xtreme Right Wing Daily Inklings Miss Patriot Jack Lewis.net Conservative Dialysis Conservative Angst Kill Righty American Warmonger Birth Of A Neo-Con The Nose On Your Face The View From Firehouse Ogre’s View Fundamentally right Conservative Rant My Political Soap Box Common Sense Runs Wild Redstate Rant Time Hath Found Us American Dinosaur Merri Musings And Rightly So Sweet Spirits of Ammonia Smithereen’s Files Pulpit Pounder Ravings of J.C.B. Is It Just Me? Blogtalker Parrot Check Stuff You Should Know Rancher Blog Christmas Ghost Vista On Current Events

Cross Posted at Stop the ACLU!

2 Comments

I guess it's time to start learning Dutch.



Jay said:

Thanks Merri!




May 12th, 2005

Stop the ACLU! Blogburst

There have been a number of issues in recent days that have come up that the ACLU has had their grubby little hands in.

Poor Little Sex Offenders

Hawaii’s sex offender listing has been very busy as of late, due to the enactment of a new law, Act 45, that "…gives the public immediate Internet access to information on registered sex offenders who are repeat offenders, whose crimes are punishable by at least five years in prison or who have committed certain other aggravated offenses.  The new guidelines resulted in the immediate posting of 1,416 convicted sex offenders, up from 74."

Unfortunately, Hawaii now has one of the most restrictive laws in the country, and there’s no evidence to suggest that it will increase public safety," said ACLU attorney Lois Perrin.

Hmmmmm…and just how does the ACLU proclaim to know this?  I would bet that if Lois Perrin knew about the sex offender next door, the kids would be under lock and key versus visiting said sex offender’s house, away from those prying parent eyes.

Defense attorney Bill Harrison said:

…one of his clients was convicted of date rape in 1986, went to prison and successfully completed sex offender treatment.  The man is now married and a law-abiding citizen who is a heavy equipment operator.  "Today, he saw his picture on the Internet, and it was shocking for him," the attorney said.

Awwww…poor Mr. Sex Offender.  And does anyone wonder how "shocking" it was for the girl when he raped her?  And how *does* Bill Harrison know that this man is rehabilitated…did he merely ask him?  I’m sooo certain his client would tell an attorney that he was out on a raping and pillaging rampage last week.  C’mon now.

ACLU Finds Rise in Wyoming Prison Violence

Innocent title by itself, isn’t it (emphasis is mine)? 

CASPER - Violence is rising at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is closely monitoring the investigation into a disturbance last month that may have been motivated by racism.

"There’s been an escalation of violence recently that is very concerning," said Steven Pevar, an ACLU attorney from Hartford, Conn., who represented an inmate attacked at the Rawlins prison six years ago.

In a letter to the Casper Star-Tribune, Christopher Pullie and Darrell Booker identified themselves as two of the five black victims of the April 20 attack, which they contend was racially motivated.

Pullie and Booker said 15 to 20 officers and administrative officials did nothing to stop the "mob beating" by 30 to 40 prisoners.

The two main groups of attackers, they wrote, were Hispanic and American Indian inmates who were joined by white prisoners.

My concerns are simple.  Why are we jumping to conclusions that this "attack" was racially motivated?  Who were the attackers? This article mentions that the two main groups of attackers were Hispanic and American Indian with some white prisoners.  So were there any black attackers in the group? 

Incarceration rates in Wyoming clearly show that per 100,000 population, the highest rate of incarcerations (and thereby the highest percentage of the prison population) occur with black, non-Hispanic people.  It is entirely possible that this was not an attack based on race, but merely due to the fact that the majority of prisoners are, indeed, black.  This is one of many issues I have with the ACLU.  There tends to be an immediate jump to judgment that situations occur due to racial motivations.  This can be dangerous. As a society, we regularly seek to ensure that there is not discrimination, but isn’t jumping to these conclusions discrimination in and of itself?  I think knee-jerk reactions such as this tend to set us back versus moving us forward.  I support efforts to discourage discrimination, but we should be prudent and cautious in our approach.  Prudent and cautious are words absent from the ACLU’s glossary of terms.

The ACLU Seeks to Protect ILLEGAL Activities

The U.S. Senate voted 100-0 to pass the "Real ID Act" and President Bush is expected to sign this new act this month (again, emphasis mine). 

The law’s backers, including the Bush administration, have said it will make the country’s borders safer by stopping illegal immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses. The hijackers who attacked U.S. targets on Sep. 11, 2001, carried valid driver’s licenses, they added.

I haven’t forgotten the 9/11 attacks, have you? 

‘’Giving state driver’s licenses to anyone, regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally, is an open invitation for terrorists and criminals to exploit,'’ Sensenbrenner said.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), and other groups countered that the bill represents a crackdown on immigration and rolls back asylum laws.

‘’The Real ID Act won’t make America any safer,'’ said Wade Henderson, the LCCR executive director. It ‘’will open the door to widespread discrimination, create bureaucratic nightmares, and undermine public safety by increasing the number of unlicensed drivers on our roads.'’

I find it irresponsible to continue to attempt to extend protection to people who, increasingly, are in our country ILLEGALLY.  They are breaking laws and should not be given access to the same services that those immigrants who follow all of the rules and enter this country legally as well as those who are currently US citizens.

The act would give states until May 2008 to make changes requiring applicants for a driver’s license to prove they are in the country legally. Those able to do so would be issued with licenses accepted as a form of federal identification for purposes including traveling by rail or air and opening a bank account.

Why is this a bad thing?  If they aren’t in this country legally, why should they be able to take advantage of what our great country has to offer?  I don’t think this is rocket science, those of you who are card-carrying ACLU members - again, THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY, BREAKING THE LAW!

Groups that sought to mobilize members and the public against the measure ran the gamut from LCCR and the ACLU to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Amnesty International and the Hispanic National Council of La Raza, to online activists concerned about privacy and technology.

What infuriates me is that eleven states allow immigrants to obtain licenses regardless of their legal residency status (aiding and abetting a known criminal?).  The argument is "for public safety."  This supposedly ensures a higher level of safety in that drivers have passed tests and are insured.  Would we have had more population in NY and in DC if the terrorists had been snagged when applying for a driver’s license? 

This, of course, just screams "ACLU"

Some state officials and civil libertarians are weighing challenging the new law in court.

No, really? 

Please be sure to visit http://stoptheaclu.blogspot.com to learn more about the ACLU’s attempts at putting more and more Americans into harm’s way.


NIF linked with Gardener of The Ridiculous Army
Uttered da Merri | ACLU Musings | Link
2 Comments
NIF said:

Gardener of The Ridiculous Army

Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … It’s Stop the ACLU Thursday! … NIF limited blogation rules in effect; so it’s a comment+trackback fiesta!

12.05.05 um 6:43 am


Jay said:

Awesome job!

12.05.05 um 7:09 am