• The 2006 Weblog Awards

      Design by

The ACLU and Fred Phelps, Part II

Earlier a commenter had a question about which judge would be hearing the case filed by the ACLU on behalf of Fred Phelps’ organization, a.k.a. “Westboro Baptist Church.” As I was scouring around the internets, a post stood out over at Blogcritics.org. The title blared “It’s Painful, But the ACLU Should Defend Fred Phelps.” So…I could help but menader over to see why this would be so important.

It’s the same old story over there. People are so up in arms about “Free Speech! Free Speech!” that they simply cannot see the forest for the trees. Verbatim from Blogcritics.org:

It is important to forget the plaintiff in this case and instead analyze the law being challenged. Although protesting at the funerals of innocent and good people is a repulsive use of free speech, I believe this right must be upheld. If the courts allow free speech rights to be taken away during funerals, where else will lawmakers find a constitutional right to block protests or rallies? If gay rights advocates want to protest outside Westboro Baptist Church or another anti-gay religious institution, will conservative lawmakers pass a ban on protesting outside houses of worship? The precedent is a scary one and I commend the ACLU for looking past the plaintiff to realize free speech needs to be defended.

Based on this logic, shouldn’t I have the free speech right to threaten the lives of other people, or yell “fire” in a theater full of people? Shouldn’t I should have the right to stand in a mosque yelling “who wants bacon?” or a synagogue praising the Holocaust? Bluto says it best:

I support the Constitutional right to freedom of expression, but anyone with any common sense knows that it is not an absolute right. For example, I do not have the right to exhort people to murder the members of the Westboro Baptist Church or the ACLU.

The laws passed in Missouri and Nebraska do not take the rights of freedom or of religious expression away from this group, but protects the right of peaceful assembly these families of fallen soldiers have to honor their loved ones. But the ACLU doesn’t think of that, do they? Instead they think it is much more important for this group to throw hateful statements out in the midst of a funeral all for the sake of “protecting free speech.”

But back to our friends at Blogcritics…

These protests can help conservatives understand the viciousness behind anti-gay spokespeople and may result in changed hearts and minds.

First of all, this isn’t about a gay or anti-gay issue and it CERTAINLY isn’t a conservative issue. This is about rights and freedoms. Nothing more. Secondly, this isn’t an opportunity to “educate” conservatives on anti-gay sentiments - what does that have to do with the issue at hand? Anyone, conservative or liberal should recognize the hate this organization has for not only gays and lesbians but for soldiers, cole miners and every day citizens who just happen to get killed. Their stance is that we are all being punished because the U.S. supports gays and lesbians. Again, nothing more.

A final word from Blogcritics…

Where my frustration lies is not with the ACLU, which is acting appropriately, but with the lawmakers sitting in Congress and state legislatures throughout the country. I do not agree with laws banning funeral protests, but I wonder why such legislation is being proposed at this time. Why is it that lawmakers feel Phelps has crossed a moral line by protesting at military funerals, ignoring the fact that he has demonstrated outside the funerals of gay hate crime victims for years? Are dead soldiers on one side of a moral line and gay hate crime victims on the other side? Why didn’t lawmakers who believe in this law stand up for gay and lesbian people who have faced years of Fred Phelps’ torture? There is a true political calculation in those supporting this flawed law banning the protests.

And a final word from Merri….

I disagree that the ACLU is acting appropriately. The appropriate solution would be - as Captain Ed so eloquently states -

Fred Phelps could get a lawyer on his own; the ACLU and its donors have no obligation to assist him in mocking the loss of family members at funerals. The ACLU has put itself on par with these soulless freaks, and their donors should take note that their money now supports the Phelps traveling hate show.

This is yet another publicity stunt by the ACLU, designed for more attention drawn by huge controversy (in other words, “business as usual”). I love this little gem from Blogcritics: “Why is it that lawmakers feel Phelps has crossed a moral line by protesting at military funerals, ignoring the fact that he has demonstrated outside the funerals of gay hate crime victims for years? There is a true political calculation in those supporting this flawed law banning the protests.” Why does the timing of the law matter, when the law is all inclusive and not selective? Look at the laws in Missouri and Nebraska - it doesn’t say “only military services.” So be happy that families of gay hate crime victims won’t have to endure this either! And quit trying to turn this into a political motive. Again, the only groups with an agenda here are Phelps and his team of freaks and the ACLU, standing behind them.

Pirate's Cove linked with WTW: Dumbazz Lebanon Vacationers File Lawsuit
The ACLU Publicity Machine Gets a Tune Up

The ACLU is up to their usual bullshit, this time filing a case on behalf of the religiopolitard Phelps and followers at the Westboro Baptist Church (ain’t the word “church” stretching it a bit?).

A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals across the nation filed suit in federal court on Friday.

The group claims a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Jefferson City on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church. Members of the church show up at soldiers’ funerals with anti-homosexual signs.

As you may recall, these freaks recently tried to interfere with the funeral services of fallen soldier Army Corporal Jeremy Jones. Luckily, many vets showed up and shielded Jones’ family and friends from being subjected to these whackos’ rhetoric.

Look, these people have the same freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression I have. No one is holding their tongues, no one is taking away their picket sign paper and markers. While the ACLU is so freaking worried about standing up for Phelps’ free speech, they lack any element of sheer respect and compassion for a fallen soldier who died to protect those very freedoms.

My Community Place linked with ACLU sues over law on funeral protests.
…Brought to You by the ACLU

On May 3, 2006, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered the city of San Diego to remove the mountain-top cross within 90 days or face a fine of $5,000 a day. This judge found (in 1991) that the 29-foot structure violates “separation of church and state.” The case has become an issue of public policy and has remained in the courts. This ridiculous situation was brought to you by none other than the ACLU.

In an effort supported by Christian advocacy groups nationwide, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders met with White House lawyers in Washington, D.C., to ask President Bush to issue an executive order that would save the Mount Soledad cross after a judge ruling in a case brought by the ACLU ordered it removed.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., also discussed the issue yesterday with Vice President Dick Cheney.

Sanders told the Copley News Service the president’s lawyers “indicated it’s going to be tough to get this done and we’re going to have to work real hard, and they’ll give us as many options as they can.

From Thomas More Law Center:

Please help the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) and other concerned groups and citizens to save the 43-foot cross that was erected atop Mount Soledad in San Diego, California 50 years ago to honor our nation’s veterans by signing the petition below! On May 3, 2006 Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered San Diego officials to remove the historic Mt. Soledad Cross in accordance with an order he issued in 1991. The City must remove the cross within 90 days or face fines of $5,000 per day thereafter. However, the fight is not over.

Ask President Bush to take the land under the federal government’s powers of eminent domain.

Please stop over at their website to send a note to President Bush and support this effort to preserve a part of American history.

For you “24″ Fans

Um, clearly another takeover is needed.

CTU was a shambles, so of *course* Homeland Security came in and saved the day. Thank GOD they arrived. I don’t know what would have happened without them.

But there’s so much hate. So much finger-pointing. So much that needs to be protected and fixed.

Which leads me to only one conclusion. The best way to fix this would be to stage another takeover.

…but this time it will be done right. Instead of sending in a department such as Homeland Security, an agency should come in that is impartial and only does what is right for everyone. And this agency has an acronym, so they would fit right in.

Bring in the ACLU!*


*um, if you believe I’m serious, you are either 1) a card-carrying member of the ACLU or 2) you are merely crazy or 3) all of the above.

The Anti-American “Civil Liberties” Union…at it Again

They are at it again - saying they are doing it in the name of “free speech:”

FRANKFORT, Ky. — The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging a Kentucky law aimed at preventing protests from disrupting funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq.

Members of a Kansas Baptist church have protested at military funerals, claiming soldiers’ deaths are a sign that God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality.

The new law, signed by Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher in March, bans protests within 300 feet of memorial services, wakes and burials.

The ACLU says this goes way too far and limits free speech and expression too much. This is rich:

The ACLU argues that people could unknowingly violate it by stopping to chat on a public sidewalk near a funeral home. The civil liberties group said it could also prevent pro-military people from participating in counter-protests outside memorial services.

Oh yeah, sure. Here is Bob walking up the street and sees his friend Fred in front of a funeral home and they stop and chat. CHAT…not to demonstrate, not to protest, not to yell hateful things about a fallen soldier at his or her funeral, but to CHAT. And Bob and Fred would get arrested? What crap. …and I love the way the ACLU slips in that they are also challenging the law to protect the counter-protests. How admirable of them.

Let a family mourn the loss of their hero. No one is saying a person or people cannot protest, they just can’t sit by the casket while they are doing it.

Update: More at Protein Wisdom & Stop the ACLU!

The Sandbox linked with ACLU Fights Funeral Law in Kentucky
Stop The ACLU linked with ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Funeral Protest Bill
The ACLU’d Version of Twas the Night Before Christmas

Twas the night before RamaHanaKwanzmas, when all through the living area

Not a living organism was stirring, not even a mouse, cat, dog, parrot, oh, none of them.

The foot coverings were hung somewhere in the living area with care,

In hopes that the appropriate holiday figure soon would be there.

The people of a certain age were nestled all snug in their sleeping areas,

While visions of whatever appeals to them moved about in their favorite way in their heads (or other parts of their body if that makes them feel better).


MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy linked with Links awards stuff
sisu linked with "The foot coverings were hung somewhere in the living area with care"
Get A Clue, ACLU

Law enforcement works hard to keep our cities and towns as crime free as possible. When they get tips about criminal activity, they often do long investigations to get all the proof they need in order to prosecute the crime. This costs a lot of money, takes a lot of manpower, and should be respected. Along comes the ACLU.
Defending the criminals.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) came to the defence of the two US-based Indian shop owners, charged with selling a highly addictive drug, calling the police operation in the case as ‘’ill conceived'’.

‘’There are too many unanswered questions about the validity of evidence against these store clerks for the prosecutions to go forward in good conscience. We have launched a full investigation to determine the extent of police misconduct in this ill-conceived operation,'’ Christina Alvarez, a staff attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project said in a statement yesterday.

Once again, the ACLU is busy defending non-Americans. Wasting more money to start a “full investigation” that has already been done.

Two convenience store owners, Falgun Patel and Sudhirkumar Patel and workers of Indian origin were recently arrested for selling items that could be used to make methamphetamine, a highly addictive drug that is sweeping the rural United States.

The civil liberties group promised a thorough investigation into claims that law enforcement selectively targeted the Indian community based on national origin and race in ‘’Operation Meth Merchant'’.

It said besides the Patels, more than three dozen other Indian merchants were targeted in the sting operation, which was carried out in coordination with the US Drug enforcement Administration.

Of the 49 retail clerks and convenience store owners charged, 44 were Indian. Many shared the same last name — Patel.

Law enforcement will not look into possible crimes/criminal activity if they don’t have good reason to do so. In spite of what some want us all to think, LE knows a strong case vs. a weak one. Unfortunately, groups like the ACLU jump in and make such a big fuss about these things- it undermines the time and effort put into the case.
For this particular case, it sounds like the ACLU came along to defend a NAME and NATIONAL origin…I say they are using this case to further their agenda.

Federal law prohibits merchants from selling products knowing — or with reason to believe — the products, which could be used to manufacture methamphetamine.

But in the aftermath of the 18-month investigation, several of the 44 Indian suspects claimed a language barrier confused the process. At least three suspects claim that they were misidentified by the police informants who secretly taped the alleged transactions using hidden microphones or hidden cameras.

Besides taking up the case against two of the accused, Falgun Patel and Sudhirkumar Patel, the ACLU has launched an investigation into claims of selective arrest and prosecution based on national origin and race.

If successful, such claims could result in the dismissal of all defendants’ cases based on the fact that the US Constitution prohibits prosecution based solely on national origin and race.

Did you read the part that said– 18 months? Why would any LE agency spend THAT much time on a case based soley on RACE and ORIGIN? Get a clue, ACLU.

Cross Posted @ ARS

11/10/05 Edition Stop The ACLU

The ACLU has breaking news for everyone:

ACLU and Diverse Coalition of National Non-Profits Win Major Victory in Challenge to Misguided CFC Government Watch List and Contribution Policies


ACLU: Panhandling = Freedom of Speech

In an effort to curtail panhandling, the Pittsburgh City Council passed some ordinances relating to when and where panhandling would be limited.  The mayor was expected to approve these recommendations on Wednesday.

In a last-minute amendment, council added a provision to keep panhandlers at least 25 feet away from church entrances. The ordinance also would prohibit begging between sunset and sunrise, within 10 feet of a bus stop or street food vendor and within 25 feet of a sidewalk cafe or a line of people waiting to enter a theater or buy tickets.

As is always the case, the ACLU has to leave its footprint on anything they interpret as "a no-no" (emphasis mine):

Barbara Feige, president of the Greater Pittsburgh American Civil Liberties Union, said she doesn’t plan to challenge the ordinance’s constitutionality in court now, but she wouldn’t rule it out if people complain. Feige said it’s unconstitutional to restrict freedom of speech from sunset to sunrise, which is too vague to be enforced properly by police.

I felt the need to go to my trusty dictionary to get some definition behind these basic concepts.

Sunset:  The event or time of the daily disappearance of the sun below the western horizon.

Sunrise:  The event or time of the daily first appearance of the sun above the eastern horizon.

Panhandling:  To approach strangers and beg for money or food.

Call me a simpleton, but last I checked, it was pretty simple to determine what sunset and sunrise are.  Even my local weather celebrity tells me the exact hour and minute of sunrise and sunset every day.  So the whole sunset/sunrise issue is resolved.

Now, my trusty dictionary says that panhandling is approaching strangers and begging for money or food.  I cannot be convinced that panhandling falls within freedom of speech.  I would actually go a step further and say that after sunset, a person who is a stranger to me approaching me would actually be quite frightening (whether they are panhandling or not).  I think the limitations make perfect sense and are not out of line in any way. 

Who is the ACLU fooling?  Someone will complain, more than likely the panhandler who isn’t getting his or her "fair share" of income due to the limitations, and the ACLU will put on their cape and swoop down in an attempt to "save the underdog."  At the risk of sounding completing heartless (okay, a risk I have to take), I have to wonder if a panhandler’s income is being reported to the IRS?  What would the ACLU accomplish by fighting for a panhandler’s right to panhandle after dark?  Why wouldn’t they just offer the panhandler a job in order to truly help?  [crickets chirping]

Okay, I think you get the point.  I just think the ACLU could do so much more by actually HELPING someone.  Instead, they focus on these types of cases in an effort to help "the little guy" defeat the big, mean system.  This doesn’t help anyone, and is truly a waste of our time.


Please stop over at Stop the ACLU! to read more about the ACLU’s involvement in issues you may be surprised about!

Halloween Could Bring Out Real Ghouls - Watch Your Kids!

I remember when I was a kid, we had to start looking at the candy we got after Trick-or-Treating, just to ensure there were no razor blades in apples or pins in candy bars after some idiots decided it would be entertaining to do such stupid things to kids. 

Now that I have my own children, worrying about pedophiles and child molesters is on the list of "safety tips" for Halloween.  I truly believe that as a parent, I am the number one protector of my children - no one can do it better.  Either my husband or I will go out with the kids as they trick-or-treat, ensuring they are safe from traffic, other kids out to cause trouble, or adults who would enjoy inviting kids in for an inappropriate visit.

There are many communities who are focused on how to protect kids from sexual predators who may be "tempted" by children parading up to their homes - and I applaud their efforts!  There are various approaches to this, ranging from increased in-home visitations to the homes of sex offenders on Halloween night to proposed laws banning sex offenders from participating in Halloween altogether.  Here’s a glimpse:

About 45 registered Level 2 and 3 sex offenders who live in Westchester County, just north of New York City, will receive special invitations to attend an educational program between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Oct. 31, under an initiative spearheaded by Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano. Those who don’t attend will receive a personal visit from probation officers and police. Level 1 sex offenders and those on probation who have committed crimes of a sexual nature will also receive a home visit, according to a statement released by Spano’s office.

"We’ve done home visits on Halloween nights in the past, but this is the first year that we’ve asked sex offenders on probation to come in to our offices," said Victoria Hochman, assistant communications director for the county executive.

Hochman said kids present the same temptation to sex offenders that alcohol presents to alcoholics. Rather than have sex offenders at home and in the position to be tempted by parades of children coming to their doors, Hochman said, the county will offer probationers something constructive and hopefully put parents at ease.

The Halloween initiative does not come in response to a spike in molestations or abductions on the holiday, however. "We have never had an incident on Halloween night," Hochman said. But highly publicized cases of brutal child abductions in recent years have heightened citizen activism and put pressure on local authorities to monitor sex offenders more closely. Westchester County was also the first in the state to use active Global Positioning System bracelets on sex offenders under the supervision of its probation department.

"Given the high recidivism rates with this type of crime, people are very concerned. This could provide some relief for people," Hochman said.

I like this idea, and in my mind it seems as though this would be the best approach.  Removing any high risk offender from the situation all together seems to make the most sense with follow-up for those who don’t attend the activity.

Here are what a few more communities are doing:

  • New Jersey’s state parole board is putting a curfew on some 2,200 sex offenders it supervises.  Sex offenders need to be indoors by 7pm on Halloween and can’t answer their doors.  They can’t attend parties where children are present as well and can’t take children - including their own - out to trick-or-treat.

  • In Parker County, TX (west of Forth Worth), 42 registered sex offenders on probation will have to spend the evening at county offices.  They state, again, that this is proactive, in order to prevent any issues as well as "protect" the sex offenders from any false accusations.  Eh, the latter isn’t as important to me, but it may temper the heat the ACLU may attempt to throw their way. 

  • Lastly, a Michigan state lawmaker wants to ban sex offenders from Halloween. State representative Fran Amos of Waterford introduced a bill that would prohibit convicted sex offenders from handing out candy and could be passed in time for Halloween.  This most recent action has ruffled the feathers of the ever criminal protective ACLU, who states this is unconstitutional.  I say let’s invite said sex offenders over to the house of the ACLU’s Shelli Weisberg on Halloween - she can entertain them.  Oh, and let’s hope she doesn’t have young children.

Again, the best thing we can do is be good parents - get out with your kids to ensure their safety.  And if you’re like us, maybe you can "trick-or-beer" at the same time!


Punta del Cappello to Jay and Ace of Spades 

Portia Rediscovered linked with Freedom Fighters
Cotillion linked with Freedom Fighters
Stop the ACLU! - Don’t Pick on those Poor Illegal Immigrants!

The ACLU in Ohio is at it again:

LIMA — After the head of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio accused Sheriff Dan Beck of racial profiling Tuesday, he fired back saying she had no evidence of such actions.

"It’s interesting that a group of attorneys that are supposed to represent civil liberties make serious accusations without the first thread of truth. There’s no complaints. They’re on a witch hunt,” he said.

Yanno, even if there *were* complaints, it isn’t proof of racial profiling.  Aren’t complaints supposed to be investigated before they are turned into "truths?"  The ACLU wants everyone to be treated as innocent before proven guilty, right?  Ahem.  Read on…emphasis mine:

Chris Link, the executive director for the ACLU of Ohio, sent out a written statement Tues-day titled “ACLU calls for Beck to end race-based profiling.” When asked if she had proof of race-based profiling, Link said she did not but said she worries there is something to all the concerns about which she has heard and read.

So she has no proof of race-based profiling, but standing behind the 4-letter-agency she turns her worries into reality?  She’s worried about "ALL" the concerns she heard and read, but has no proof?  Isn’t the ACLU supposed to be for civil liberties, or am I sorely mistaken?

Beck said she has nothing and cannot find anything to show his deputies have profiled anyone based on race. Beck said the bigger issue is that Link and her agency are trying to put pressure on police agencies that address the illegal immigration issue.

“She is trying to justify her existence and the existence of the American Civil liberties Union,” he said.

Link, who has not spoken to Beck, also said the sheriff and his agency have no business getting involved in immigration law. She said there are plenty of federal agencies to do that work.

“The federal government has failed to put another man on the moon but I don’t consider it my responsibility to do that,” she said.

But Beck said federal agencies are not doing their job and are allowing the problem to grow. As sheriff he has a job to uphold the law, which also includes upholding laws pertaining to illegal immigrants, he said.

Sheriff Beck made about the only common sense statement in that entire snippet.  Upholding the law is his job, which includes upholding laws pertaining to illegal immigrants.  Oh, and that the ACLU is just trying to justify their existence through inappropriate means.

Link, the 4-letter-agency representative, says that Sheriff Beck’s focus on illegal immigrants takes his focus off the "real criminals."  Um…I thought ILLEGAL immigration was, well ILLEGAL.  ILLEGAL = CRIME.  Duh.  And this last comment was, well, just ridiculous (and of course Link’s).

Do we have to be reminded that we are all immigrants,” she said.

No, we don’t.  I was born in Nebraska, and you forgot the word "illegal."


Stop over at Stop the ACLU!  There are 100+ blogs on board, letting the public know what the ACLU is all about.  Jay also has an interview up with Alan Sears, President of the Alliance Defense Fund.  Check it out!

An ACLU Meme

So, Teach over at Pirate’s Cove tagged me for a meme that’s right up my alley: my, um, love for the ACLU.  Here’s the sordid details:

“If you could hang a sign on the ACLU building to …draw attention to it, what would you put on your sign?�

So…to answer this question:

Okay - so not the best photoshop - but I’m no expert.  You get the point, though.  Heh.

I have to think of who I’d like to tag with this one.  But even if I don’t tag you, feel free to have a little fun!

Oh - and Teach, thanks for talking up my site - flattery will get you everywhere!  Hehehehehehe!

Oh, and while we are talking about the ACLU - stop over at Jay’s - he’s having a trackback party!

Pirate's Cove linked with ACLU: What's Your Sign?
ACLU: Forced Tolerance Training for Kids?

I’m genuinely amazed each time I hear what the ACLU is "fighting" for.  Just when I think I’ve seen it all, or thought they’ve gone as far as they can go, they take that extra step into Stupidville.

In a nutshell, the ACLU is threatening a court date if Kentucky’s Boyd County School doesn’t force all of its students to participate in "tolerance training."  No, this isn’t the "normal" tolerance training - it’s homosexuality tolerance training.  I read a great article over at TheRealityCheck.org written by Richard Mullenax.  His thoughts on this issue summarize my thoughts rather succinctly.

After all, the ACLU wants kids to receive oral sex training and have all the condoms and morning-after pills at every school’s disposal.  Plus, you can’t talk about religion in school (unless it’s about Islam) or else the ACLU believes it’s a violation of "Separation of Church and State." When the ACLU wanted tolerance, it meant tolerance towards homosexuality.

It appears that many parents were unsupportive of the efforts to have this type of training presented to their children. 

District figures illustrates 105 of 730 middle school students opted out of the training video and 145 of 971 high school students did, too. On the day scheduled for training, 324 students didn’t show up.
..and guess what, ACLU?  The parents have every RIGHT to keep their children away from this type of training - it is a choice that they should be able to exercise freely.  This is America, right?!?
There is a reason that some of the Kentucky students did not show up for the training course. The ACLU doesn’t have the power to have students tolerate homosexuality if the students don’t approve of it.  Plus, the ACLU shouldn’t force this subject on students unless the school has parental consent to do so.
But the ACLU does not see it that way. The intolerant organization along with the Gay-Straight Alliance believes it has a right to force-feed homosexuality down the throats of the American people.  Perhaps there should be a separation of "Homosexuality and State" if the ACLU and gay radical groups continue to impose their ideology.
Hammer to the nail, Mr. Mullenax.  But the ACLU doesn’t agree with you.  They think kids should be FORCED to learn to tolerate homosexuality.
James Esseks, litigation director for the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project says: "The schools have great latitude in what they want to teach, including what’s in training programs, and the training is now part of the school curriculum." Esseks goes on to say, "Parents don’t get to say ‘I don’t want you to teach evolution or this, that, or whatever else.’ ‘If parents don’t like it they can homeschool, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school.’ "

I’m sorry, James you incompetent boob, but *I’M* the one in charge of my child.  I have EVERY right to shelter him or her from teachings that go against our morals and beliefs.  This is a topic that *I* as a parent should address - my kids don’t need to learn about homosexual behavior from a video and a quiz.  And guess what?  I PAY TAXES AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT MY CHILD LEARNS AS I AM PAYING FOR THEIR EDUCATION IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL.  IF YOU DON’T LIKE THAT I WOULD PULL MY KID OUT OF THIS KIND OF TRAINING IN LESS THAN A HEARTBEAT, WHY DON’T YOU HOMESCHOOL YOUR OWN KID?  Now, go in the corner and curl up into the fetal position and whine that I’m not tolerant of you.  Go ahead, I dare you.

Meanwhile, Mr. Mullenax is on a roll:

The ACLU shows its true colors everyday by its never-ending liberal bias. What right does it have to take Christmas out of schools when former president Ulysses S. Grant made Christmas into a National Holiday in 1865? What right does the ACLU have to attempt taking "Under God" out of our pledge when the Deceleration of Independence says that our Creator endows us? And most importantly, what right does the ACLU have to take away our moral conscious when over half of the country voted based on moral decisions? The answer is simple: The ACLU has no right, but its leaders think they have the right to tell us what we should tolerate and not tolerate.
Stop over at Stop the ACLU! and see what other idiotic endeavors the ACLU is taking on.  You’ll be grateful for the insight!

UPDATE:  Thanks to the Gray-Tie for blogging on yet more fun ACLU stuff.

The Gray Tie linked with Yeah, I Take Issue..
Stop The ACLU linked with Carnival of True Liberties II
Criminal Background Checks Racist?

What happened with Hurricane Katrina is tragic - lives were lost, homes destroyed, many people were displaced.  Many states have opened their doors to evacuees needing shelter, and a fresh start.  I’ve been awed by the outpouring of support Americans have provided to their fellow citizens. 

A number of states decided it was best to do criminal background checks on evacuees coming to their state - just as a means of protecting citizens as well as other evacuees who would be housed together for what was an unknown period of time.  The ACLU, however, thinks the background checks are racially motivated.  But if you do a background check on all evacuees, how can it be perceived in this way?

I personally think states have an obligation to do criminal background checks to ensure their citizens are protected from thugs like this.  It’s natural that a criminal wanted for homicide, such as 53-year-old James Camper, would attempt to escape via the evacuee route - I’m sure as screwed up as the media made the rescue and evacuation efforts appear, the criminal mind would think it is the perfect escape.  Any smart law enforcement agency would know this as well, hence the background checks. 

ACLU - get your heads out of your asses.  You are livin’ in a dreamworld.

Not A Desperate Housewife linked with Racism Again
Jo's Cafe linked with Heading Exploding Stuff
The ACLU: Are They Trying to be Mom or Dad?

The ACLU is currently on a campaign to discourage the continuance of abstinence programs in junior and senior high schools.  There are 18 states specifically targeted for this campaign, called "Not in My State" (my state, Nebraska, is one of those targeted states).  Here is their position on the matter:

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today launched Not In My State, a nationwide action aimed at combating dangerous abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula. In a coordinated effort, ACLU affiliates across the country are sending letters to local officials calling for careful scrutiny of health and life-skills curricula.

“Today’s action should be a wake-up call for many states,” said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “State officials need to ensure the health and safety of students by taking responsibility for the curricula taught in their classrooms.”

The ACLU relies on a single report prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).  Said report states that "many abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula used by federally funded programs contain false and misleading information and perpetuate harmful stereotypes."  It goes on to state that "the curricula misrepresent the effectiveness of contraceptives by vastly understating the effectiveness of condoms at protecting against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and preventing unintended pregnancy."

Here in Omaha, a well-known news anchor, Julie Cornell, took a look at the abstinence program taught in the middle schools back in May.  The program is called "WAIT" and it stands for "Why Am I Tempted?"  Here are the basic principles of the WAIT program:

The program teaches that there are various steps of intimacy, with many of those steps reserved for marriage.

Teens learn why to wait, how to wait, and they get support in the process.

"Love" has different meanings, and trainers help kids classify different relationships.

Respect is a basis for the program. Teens are told that the boy or girl they’re dating right now will be someone else’s bride or groom in the future, and to treat that date with respect, the same way you would want your future spouse to be treated.

STD facts. Kids learn that condoms are not 100 percent effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, and they learn in great detail about more than 20 sexually transmitted diseases and the life altering consequences of living with an STD.

Marriage training: Teens learn that they’re chances of bonding with a marriage partner greatly increase when they have fewer sex partners.

Julie Cornell’s article is good as it points out the reason Nebraska schools employed WAIT’s program versus a straight "here’s how to put a condom on" approach (emphasis mine). 

The program was formed in 2001, in response to growing numbers of sexually transmitted diseases, high teen pregnancy rates, and increasing divorce rates. Recent federal grants supporting abstinence education have made it more possible than ever before for young people to gain the courage and knowledge necessary to hold off on making adult decisions too soon.
Wait (pun intended).  These programs were put in place to combat the very things the ACLU wants you to believe they inspire (STDs and teen pregnancy).  Gotta love that ACLU spin.
"This is not a ‘just say no’ approach," Donahue explained to about 30 parents on a recent night at OPS headquarters.
WAIT training is a three-pronged approach, teaching teenagers "why" to wait to have sex, "how" to hold off, and giving them support in the process.
Now just a minute.  The ACLU implies with their "abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula" label that programs such as WAIT just tell teens "don’t have sex until marriage" without delving into the other issues such as STDs or teen pregnancy (why to wait to have sex).  They imply that abstinence programs actually omit information, putting teens at risk for increased STDs and unwanted pregnancies.  From WAIT’s informational site:
We are not about witholding information but about giving information to teens.  It is how the information is given that is important.  For instance … there are thousands of teen pregnancy prevention programs all over the country.  The problem is not teen pregnancy it is teen sex.  Teen pregnancy is a symptom of a much larger challenge.
How true!

Omaha’s rate of sexually transmitted diseases - in particular Chlamydia and gonorrhea - is almost epidemic, according to health experts.  The age group most affected is the 13- to 19-year-olds.  Abstinence based sex-ed is very new in Omaha - only in place for a few years.  Health officials report that teen pregnancy rates are down following implementation of the program, but also note that because the abstinence program is just a few years old, they don’t expect to see an impact on STD rates for several years.  The ACLU is reacting in typical knee-jerk fashion.  Let the program stay in place long enough to establish its impact at the very least! 

As a parent, I feel it is *my* role to teach my children about sex, about marriage, about love and making the right decisions (as well as learning from their mistakes).  If my child makes an adult decision to have sex at a young age, it is MY charge as a parent (before anyone else) to arm my child with information on what the consequences may be.  I think programs in schools should support my role as a parent, not contradict it.  Teaching children how to put a condom on by having live demonstrations on cucumbers, for example, contradicts what I hope to convey to my children.  Abstinence is the ONLY sure way to face a 0% risk of pregnancy and STDs.

This is no place for the ACLU to butt in.  No one’s civil liberties are being violated here.  Enough’s enough.  To you, ACLU: "NOT IN *MY* STATE!"


Please visit Stop the ACLU! and visit other blogs participating in the weekly Stop the ACLU! Blogburst.      

Next Page »
    October 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Oct