• The 2006 Weblog Awards



      Design by





























ACLU: The Left Hand Doesn’t Know What the Right Hand is Doing!

Most everyone has read the most recent case the ACLU has inserted themselves into.  The case involves a second-grader who wants to sing “Awesome God” at a voluntary, although school endorsed, talent show.  Here’s a brief snapshot of the ACLU’s position (emphasis mine):

"There is a distinction between speech by a school and speech by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York City. "The Constitution protects a student’s individual right to express herself, including the right to express herself religiously."

According to the complaint filed by the second-grade student and her parents, an elementary school in Frenchtown prohibited the student, Olivia Turton, from singing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The talent show was open for anyone from first through eighth grades who wished to play solo instruments, dance, perform a skit or sing to karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits so long as they were “G-rated.”

Because the school left the choice of songs up to each individual student, the ACLU said, no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the content of each student’s selection.

On the outside, one could think this was a favorable move by the ACLU.  One may actually believe that the ACLU is doing what we expect and encourage the ACLU to do - stand up for the civil liberties of an American.  Perhaps this is the case, but do you recall the position that the ACLU has on Boy Scouts chartered via public schools? (emphasis, again is mine)

The Boy Scouts of America is pulling the charters of thousands of scouting units from public schools in an effort to spare them from lawsuits threatened by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a letter sent to the BSA last month, the ACLU vowed to take legal action against public schools and other taxpayer-funded governmental agencies that charter Scout groups, claiming their sponsorship amounts to religious discrimination and violates the separation of church and state.

The ACLU specifically takes issue with the Scouts’ pledge of allegiance to God and country and the organization’s prohibition of homosexuals as scout masters.

What, my friends, is truly the difference between the two and why does the ACLU have completely different positions in these cases?

  1. Both take place in the public school building
  2. Both are "endorsed" by a public school
  3. Both are voluntary
  4. Both take place outside of school hours
  5. Both have religious components

No one is obligated to participate in the talent show and no one is obligated to show up to watch the talent show.  Boy Scouts - if you don’t want to belong, you certainly don’t need to show up after hours at a school to participate.  In both the case of the second-grader’s song and in the tradition of the Boy Scouts, clearly there are religious components.  Why is it that the ACLU would come to the defense of the second grader under the disguise of "freedom of religious expression" and comes out fighting against the boy Scouts under the umbrella of "religious discrimination" and violating "separation of church and state?"  Aren’t we dealing with cross-purposes here?  Whoops….I probably shouldn’t use the word "cross" huh?  …and, again, this quote:

Because the school left the choice of songs up to each individual student, the ACLU said, no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the content of each student’s selection.

Whether or not the school picked the songs for the students, it is a SCHOOL SANCTIONED EVENT and a natural conclusion can be drawn that the school was aware of what the students were doing - heck, they even established guidelines for them, right?  So, according to the ACLU, the school should allow her to sing religious songs at a SCHOOL SANCTIONED EVENT but does not feel that schools should endorse a group that has religious beliefs?

…and then they wonder why their organization has lost credibility on both sides of the proverbial fence.


The ACLU Grows a Brain

Okay….so I know the title is a little too promising, but they did at least sprout one brain cell:

OMAHA, Neb.The Nebraska chapter of the Americans for Civil Liberties Union told KETV NewsWatch 7 that it will not appeal a ruling to keep the Ten Commandments monument in a Plattsmouth city park.

Okay, so maybe I’m giving them too much credit.  Perhaps it’s not because they are wiser, or have employed a level of common sense.  More than likely they’ve realized the fame and fortune they sought to achieve here dried up.  But I’ll take it.  Any time the ACLU recognizes that they have LOST and CANNOT WIN is a good moment in time.

Update:  Welcome Jawa Report readers!  Thanks for stopping by!


Stop The ACLU linked with ACLU gives up commandments fight
The Jawa Report linked with Run Away!!! Run Away!!!
The ACLU Doesn’t Always Get Its Way

Level 3 sex offenders are deemed as sex offenders whose risk of reoffense is high and the degree of danger posed to the public is of concern enough that a substantial public safety interest is served by active dissemination.  These criminals are usually put on public databases and they are required to report their address and other such information should they move.  They are generally limited to where they can live (i.e. they cannot live within a certain distance of schools, parks, etc.).  As a parent, I appreciate that, if the judicial system can’t keep this scum in a prison (my first residence of choice for these criminals), there are at least limitations to where they can live.  Well, the ACLU doesn’t necessarily agree - heck, they want the criminals to live wherever they want:

The ACLU filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of Kyle Lewis, a Level 3 sex offender, and his mother, who owns the property where her son lives. The Issaquah ordinance passed last month also makes it illegal to rent homes to sex offenders in prohibited areas.

But not everyone agrees with the ACLU’s high level of criminal support:

Last week, a court commissioner denied an ACLU request for a temporary restraining order to block the ordinance until the preliminary-injunction hearing date of Sept. 23. The city then began issuing fines of $250 a day to Lewis and his mother.

Lewis didn’t want his mother to be penalized and has agreed to move out of Issaquah, said ACLU spokesman Doug Honig.

"The lawsuit is proceeding, just on a slower schedule," Honig said. A trial date is set for Feb. 27, 2007, but a summary judgment could be issued earlier, he said.

The ACLU withdrew their motion seeking to bar the city of Issaquah from enforcing an ordinance restricting where sex offenders can live.  In other words, when things weren’t going their way, they pulled back.

I find this interesting.  If you dig for a bit on the Internet, you will find these little stories hidden in the corners - hidden in quite a number of corners.  When the ACLU wins a case, or depending on what the subject matter is, the MSM generally picks up on the story and makes it a national news event.  When the ACLU withdraws, or loses, it’s buried on page seven - not nearly as newsworthy.  I also find that stories relating to sexual predators, or other such criminals tend to get less media attention (and the ACLU tends to brag less about these cases).  What they are doing is so political in nature and is more about the money they want to win, the notoriety they hope to achieve and the leaders’ own personal agendas.  I find it disgusting, and absolutely criminal.  As is the situation in the aforementioned case, the criminal is represented, the victim(s) and potential victims are not.  It’s good that the judicial system put the hammer down on this one - that’s one for the victim(s), zero for the ACLU. 


Stop The ACLU linked with ACLU Adopt A Sex Offender Challenge
It’s a Druid Thing? Nope, it’s an ACLU Thing…

About three weeks ago, I wrote a post regarding a couple who were pulled over for traffic violations and had a bumper sticker "It’s a Druid Thing" on their vehicle.  The couple claimed they were only pulled over because of this bumper sticker, seeming to leave out the part about all of their violations.  The ACLU took up their cause and demanded an apology. 

Recently, a police officer involved in the traffic stop left the following comment on my blog:

"I am the Police officer that was involved in the traffic stop. For almost three months I have been silent. I have noticed that the internet has mostly slammed me.

Most of the sites and chat rooms are not interested in the total story, just the lies told so far.

I am ashamed that so many people will listen to the loudest voice regardless of what is being said.

Most recently the ACLU called me a stalker and asked the Greer Police department to issue a restraining order against me.

To view more of these details, visit my churces website and look at the MLB in the news link.

There have been a lot of Christian support and I am very thankful for websites like yours. You are however in the minority as most sites side with the ACLU.

Ex-Officer - Tony Stewart

Tony Stewart was a reserve officer for the Greer, S.C. police department for 14 years when this event unfolded.  When the couple’s allegations came forward, officer Stewart was placed on administrative leave while an internal investigation took place, and was cleared, with the issues that this couple brought forward unsubstantiated - well, by the internal investigation team anyway.  Enter the ACLU, coming to the defense of these troubled and picked on people.

Now, Officer Stewart, as a reserve officer, did not issue tickets (he never drove a cruiser or wrote tickets during his time of service).  The actual traffic stop and citation(s) were not initiated by Officer Stewart.  However, he has faced a mountain of accusations - one of them being stalking - from any number of websites, news bureaus and, of course, the ACLU.  Around the time this issue was escalating, the four reserve officer positions, including Stewarts, were cut and he was without a job.  The timing seems very interesting to me, but here is what Tony says about it:

The motives for the Gaineys to make charges against me were two fold. One of those was to make enough noise so as to force the police department to drop their charges. The dismissal of all four of the reserve officers due to budgetary reasons came at an unfortunate time, which may have looked suspicious to some. I can only say that I hope a creative approach to solving their budget problems will one day allow them to reinitiate this program, as it was a resource that helped the other officers do their jobs more safely. I doubt that I would ever be asked to return, but I have no hard feelings. I enjoyed serving the people of Greer.

With all he’s been through, he is most gracious, isn’t he?

I encourage you to go see Tony’s comments on his church’s website.  There is a lot he can’t disclose or discuss due to the pending legal matters surrounding the case, but on the flip side, he does give you some perspective of what happened and what he is going through.

One particular item in Tony’s comments caught my attention:

As a Christian and a volunteer police officer, I constantly desired to help people. That night I heard a cry for mercy from a lady who told of hard times and living on food stamps. I heard that the trip to Walmart to get needed groceries was unfairly interrupted by the arrest of her husband. And the towing of a car that could not be legally driven without insurance or tags would add further burdens to a family she described as without hope. I heard that some of the groceries would spoil and that they had no money to replace them.

This was the chance that I prayed for.  I responded by asking her if I could mail her a letter about a bible study and Mt. Lebanon Baptist church where I told her the search for answers to the questions she asked could begin.  I wanted her to meet my Pastor Mark Smith who god used every day to show people the way to better days.  I wanted her to know what the support of a church family like mine would do for her.  Before we parted I resented her with $40 dollars to help with the spoiled groceries.

Why did that catch my eye?  Well, my initial throught was that an officer should not be witnessing to a person while on the job.  Not so much the church versus state idea, but more along the lines of keeping it "about the job."  I truly believe his intentions were good.  Do I think he should defer from witnessing about his faith while on the job?  Perhaps.  Do I think that his witnessing in the case of this couple had a direct impact on the officer’s descretion in handling the situation from a law enforcement perspective?  Absolutely not.  The driver was driving with a suspended license, had no insurance and other such significant violations warranting the traffic stop.  The sole reason for the traffic stop was related to their violations, NOT whether they were druid, blue with stripes, orange with dots, Catholic, etc.  Hence, the danger of the ACLU. They don’t use common sense and rational thought, while looking at the big picture. If there had been any evidence tying the traffic stop merely to the bumper sticker, I wouldn’t be writing about this.

…and what of Ex-Officer Tony Stewart? He has many opportunities coming his way such as public speaking opportunities and because of his faith, Mr. Stewart sees the blessings in this course of his life.

Mr. Stewart, best of luck to you in your endeavors. Hold onto your positive outlook and you will get through this trying time and it will have made you stronger. The ACLU doesn’t win them all - I don’t think this will be in the “winner’s” bracket for them, either.


NIF linked with Labor Day Weekend
Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - Yet Another Double Standard

Back in July, I did a post regarding the ACLU and their position against putting additional security cameras in cities with a higher propensity for terrorism and other criminal activity.  The ACLU cited concerns with the intrusion on privacy for every day citizens (even though they were in public places!).  Well, when the ACLU wishes to follow Americans who want to protect our borders, they have no issue tailing them and capturing their actions on camera - a practice not too far removed, it seems, from every day paparazzi:

SANTA FE - Used to be, Gary Buie and his family could go down to a local buffet in Birmingham, Ala., and fill up on comfort food and familiar eats.

Slowly, the all-you-can-eat buffet began to change. Six months ago, he and his family made the trip and were the only ones speaking English, he said in a telephone interview from Birmingham.

Alabama’s immigrant population is growing, and residents like Buie are noticing.

To help the U.S. Border Patrol, the 53-year-old civil engineer and others from that state plan to drive to New Mexico in October to watch for and report undocumented border crossers.

Members of the group, the Alabama Minutemen Support Team, aren’t anti-immigrant, Buie said, but "rules apply to everyone."

"I can see that through uncontrolled border access, people are coming through, and we don’t know who they are."

Organizers say they hope 125 people will make the trip. About 30 have signed up so far.

These travelers will not be alone.  In addition to being joined by the New Mexico Minutemen, members of the ACLU won’t be too far away.

While the Minutemen get ready for their duty, ACLU members today will start training legal observers, who will follow, photograph and videotape the Minutemen.

Ray Ybarra, an Ira Glasser Racial Justice Fellow with the national ACLU, will conduct the training.

"I hope the people of New Mexico aren’t going to sit and let these vigilantes come to their communities and wreak havoc," he said.

Oh, c’mon, Ray.  VIGILANTES?  These are American citizens with one idea in mind - to peacefully protect our nations borders from being crossed by individuals who are entering our country illegally.  The hope is that they can prevent potential terrorists, criminals, illegals and other known law breakers from entering our country.  Oh, yeah.  I forgot.  The ACLU is on the side of the terrorists.

This isn’t the first time the ACLU has "observed" minutemen.

Ybarra said about 150 observers were on the scene in Arizona in April, when a similar Minutemen operation was conducted. He also plans to hold trainings in Las Cruces and El Paso.

The ACLU conveniently forgets that the governor in New Mexico called for a state of emergency due to the issues they have faced with the surge of illegal immigrants crossing their border.  While New Mexico is doing everything they can to increase police and border patrol in the area, 125 willing volunteers certainly can’t cause any harm in the interim. 

I just have to ponder…who would come to these volunteers’ rescue if they raise concern that their "right to privacy" is being infringed upon by the very group who screams for that right on behalf of so many others?

***

This post is part of the Stop The ACLU Blog burst. If you would like to participate please Register At Our Portal.


Stop The ACLU linked with Late Announcements
The American Princess linked with Don't Worry Everyone, I Am Fine
Cotillion linked with Okay, Everyone, I Am Fine
NIF linked with Bahng Chicka Bonck Beow
Finally! Someone in Robes Slapped Down the ACLU!

Does this look ominous to you?  Frightening?  Does it cause you pain and discomfort? 

This monument, donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1966, is on property adjacent to a public park.  I can remember walking by this monument on my way to the park on many occasions as a kid.  I thought it was beautiful and it never crossed my mind that anyone would think it was offensive and needed to be removed.  Then "John Doe" comes along in 1991 to complain that he is an atheist and he has to see this monument on his drive each day and doesn’t think it should be there.  The ACLU jumped up quickly to support "Mr. Doe" in his efforts.  The citizens of Plattsmouth were not amused, and even discussed selling the property the monument was on for $1 (to a private citizen) so they could preserve it.  Oh, and the Omaha World Herald outed "John Doe" (his real name is Ron Larsen), and of course he felt that his life was in danger after that - poor victim that he is. 

Following much legal wrangling, appeals and other legal stuff, it appears as though there might be a win for the citizens of Plattsmouth! 

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a ruling last year from one of the court’s three-judge panels that said the monument must be removed from the park.

The appeals court cited a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that said it was constitutionally permissible to display the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. In that case, the high court said the monument was a legitimate tribute to the nation’s legal and religious history.

Lawyers for Plattsmouth had argued that the monument is simply a gift from a prominent civic group and not an endorsement of religion.

It’s nice to see that common sense *can* prevail in society - and it just happened to be in my old stomping grounds.

Update:  Be sure to stop by my hubby’s Cafe Press store to buy some fun stuff - he even has a design inspired by this story!


Vince Aut Morire linked with Chill The Fuck Out, Peeps
Cotillion linked with The women are back, and they're in the Cotillion
Cotillion linked with What Is It About Boots?
Aldaynet linked with ACLU runs afoul of common sense
Guide to Midwestern Culture linked with Saturday Blog Fights
Stop The ACLU linked with Victory Dance For Moses
Vince Aut Morire linked with Take Two Tablets And Call Me In The Morning
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy linked with Take Two Tablets And Call Me In The Morning
Stop the ACLU! - People Praying is Comparable to Terrorists?

In yet another display of their radical views, the ACLU has opened mouth, inserted foot yet again.

A local ACLU director [Joe Cook, ACLU of Louisiana] equated al-Qaida terrorists with members of a Louisiana school board seeking to open their meetings with prayer.

Excuse me?

Referring to the school board, Cook said, "They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London."

Mike Johnson, senior counsel and southeastern regional coordinator for the Alliance Defense Fund, said it best:   

"It shows the ACLU has become more and more extreme and marginalized," said Johnson. "So, to that extent, I like it when he talks, because he simply reveals who they are."

Johnson said the ACLU tries to "come across as champions of liberty, but the truth of the matter is they are extremists."

Yes, Mr. Johnson.  I would agree that he is the poster boy for ACLU propaganda.  Hammer to the nail, I say.

I can’t say I find this the equivalent to terroristic activities:

The board – which has opened each of its meetings with a prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, for more than 30 years – argues the invocations impose no restriction on any religious viewpoint, and any person who wants to lead the prayer may do so regardless of his religious beliefs.

Of course, someone had to complain and the ACLU had to come running.  I picture Joe Cook, tongue dangling out of the corner of his mouth, salivating at another chance to put the kibosh on prayer.

In an ACLU-mandated world, a person can’t pray, but they can watch child porn.  If a person doesn’t like their spouse, who just happens to be on life support, they can pull the plug without their confirmed consent.  Gosh, criminals are now the victims, and the victims are the one who have to do the community service.  For that matter, let’s pay child abusive murderers, who are card carrying members of NAMbLA so they have an easier time in prison.  Remove the Ten Commandments because they are just so offensive, take "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance as it is inappropriate and remove crosses and other symbols from the public eye.  Do not *ever* utter the words "Merry Christmas" and be sure to put the "It’s a Druid Thing" bumper sticker on your car so you can get out of those tickets you don’t want.  Laughable?  Hardly.  Almost all of this is happening today.   

When will the pendulum swing the other way?  At some point, will the ACLU come to my defense because I want the right to pray before a school board meeting if I so desire?  Will they defend me if I say that I reserve the right to say "Under God" because I believe in God?  Will they defend me if I say that I got a speeding ticket only because they pulled me over when I didn’t have my "It’s a Druid Thing" bumper sticker proudly displayed?

The ACLU’s extremist views continue to poison our society with ridiculous notions about what is "right" and what is "wrong" and the organization seems to get away with comments that were comparable to a famous talk show host, who ended up without a job because of the outcry following his comments about the "brave terrorists."  Where is the public outcry with this moron?  I, myself, will continue to speak out against the evils of the ACLU for as long as I can, or until they pry my rosary and my crucifix from my cold, dead hands.

****

This post is part of the Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to participate please Register At Our Portal.

****

Thanks to TJ and Zeke for their trackbacks and linky love!


dangerous liberty linked with La. ACLU Head: Theism=Terrorism?
CHAMPAIGN(, IL) MEDIA WATCH linked with http://www.blogontheweb.com/hmmm/archive/0001/01/01/82024.aspx
CHAMPAIGN(, IL) MEDIA WATCH linked with http://www.blogontheweb.com/hmmm/archive/2005/08/19/82024.aspx
NIF linked with The Division of Indefinite Timeframes
It Is What It Is linked with Is voting a right or a privilege?
Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - It’s a Druid Thing

I’ve been ranting for quite some time about the ACLU and their, well, wacky ways.  Just when I think I’ve seen everything, they manage to raise the stupidity bar a tad bit higher.

Now they are demanding that the city of Greer, S.C. drop charges and say "sorry" to a couple that are insisting they were picked on by police because they had a religious bumper sticker on their vehicle. 

Tony and D.J. Gainey said police pulled the couple over in May because of the bumper stickers on their car. 

One of the stickers read, "It’s a druid thing."

The Gaineys said they believe in druidism — a nature-focused religion.

Okay.  So the Gaineys say that the bumper sticker saying "It’s a druid thing" is the reason the officers pulled them over.  Um, I think the Gaineys overlooked some other rather important reasons:  driving with a suspended license, not having proper license plates or proof of insurance. 

But the ACLU, in all of their "social cause" wisdom, support the Gaineys and have demanded that all charges be dropped and an apology be issued because they were being singled out due to their religious beliefs.  …and ole Mr. Gainey has some pearls of wisdom, too:

"I shouldn’t been driving. I am guilty of that, but the stop never would have taken place if they wouldn’t have violated our rights," said Gainey.

HOW SMART YOU ARE!  You are so right!  You shouldn’t have been driving with a suspended license, no insurance and improper plates.  You were <gasp> BREAKING THE LAW.  Because you were BREAKING THE LAW, you were pulled over by law enforcement.  This isn’t being singled out….this is some guy trying to get out of a criminal offense. 

The ACLU continues down a path that excludes logic, rational thought, common sense and credibility.  Part of me wants to rant forever about how idiotic the ACLU’s position and actions are as they relate to this case.  But the wiser, more reasoned part of me knows it isn’t necessary.  Their actions and their positions speak louder than any words I could possibly utter.

****

Weekly, Stop the ACLU! has a blogburst with multiple participants shedding light on the wacky ways of the ACLU.  Please stop by! 


NIF linked with Chief of Black Helicopters
Guide to Midwestern Culture linked with Zip
Civil Rights Vs. The Uncivil

The NY chapter of the ACLU, NYCLU- is barking up that tree of selfishness again, putting at risk the lives of people who live in NYC.

The New York Civil Liberties Union will file suit against the city Thursday to keep police from searching the bags of passengers entering the subway, organization lawyers said.

The suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, will claim that the two-week old policy violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures, while doing almost nothing to shield the city from terrorism.

It argues that the measure also allows the possibility for racial profiling, even though officers are ordered to randomly screen passengers.

“While concerns about terrorism of course justify — indeed, require — aggressive police tactics, those concerns cannot justify the Police Department’s unprecedented policy of subjecting millions of innocent people to suspicionless searches,” states the suit, a partial copy of which was provided to Newsday.

The policy does nothing to sheild the city from terrorism? How do they know that? Based on what happened in London (and Madrid, and over 2000 other places since 9-11) it doesn’t take a PhD to see that had the terrorists been caught before the bombs went off, lives would have been saved.
I haven’t been around to keep up on too much of this story, but I would have read about any alledged racial profiling carried out by the NYPD. They have searched old ladies and kids; not the young, angry, nervous, sweaty and sultry Muslim men. I would have searched the very people who appear to be likely to carry out an attack. Racial profiling or not- it has to be.

Names of the plaintiffs — subway riders who object to the searches — were redacted in the copy, but are expected to be released Thursday morning.

A city Law Department spokeswoman said that since officials had not yet received the suit, she could not yet comment.

The city is named as a defendant, along with the police department and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

Thursday, before the suit was released, Kelly said that the searches were “just one more layer, one more tool.”

“No one thinks that will be the solution, but it does give a potential terrorist something more to think about,” he said.

And I bet these plaintiffs were hired by the ACLU/NYCLU to stand in and do this. I bet they purposely drew attention to themselves to warrant a search. That’s how these civil liberty groups work. It’s all a play, complete with actors who are willing to play these stupid roles. It’s a symptom of a much bigger issue- toying with the safety of the American people in general. Coughing up big lawsuits with lots of media coverage; the MSM will attach itself to this and promote it on all the AM talk shows. The NY Times will place this on it’s front page…There is a pattern.

The civil liberties union has criticized the searches as over-reaching since Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the measure on July 21, after terrorists targeted London’s mass transit system for the second time in two weeks. It also calls the stops ineffective because terrorists can walk through entrances where police are not screening.

You mean to tell me that if the police did their searches outside the entrances of the subway stations, these groups wouldn’t be putting up such a fuss? Yeah right.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of law enforcement to conduct random searches, said Barry Kamins, a professor of criminal procedure at Fordham and Brooklyn law schools. But it found that those checks can be considered unlawful if their primary purpose is for law enforcement, such as searching for evidence of a crime. Rather, police must use the stops chiefly to preserve public safety, he said.

The suit comes as elected officials continue to tussled over racial profiling. Nine City Council members Thursday asked Bloomberg to direct officers to note the racial or ethnic identity of people searched.

The call came after a city councilman and a state assemblyman suggested young Arabs should be targeted for searches to prevent terror attacks.

Robert Lawson, a Bloomberg spokesman, said that the police already have adequate safeguards. “The mayor has repeatedly stated since the start of this policy that there would be zero tolerance for racial profiling,” Lawson added.

Zero tolerance wouldn’t be my policy, but I’m not interested in being in charge of this. Those in charge need to, they must have the safety of the public in sight when they decide upon this stuff. Civil liberties are important; but we must never forget the enemy is not interested in being civil with us.


Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - Say Cheese!

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!


NIF linked with Teenage Mutant Ninja Knight
Merri Must Rant

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.            


The Jawa Report linked with Late Night Loser Religion of Peeps Roundup
Cotillion linked with "Merri Must Rant"
Stop the ACLU! Blogburst - That Dastardly Roberts!

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!


Political Satire Fake News: The Nose On Your Face linked with ACLU Sues Bush For Discrimination Against 296,675,358 Americans Not Nominated For High Court
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. 


The ACLU Makes Me Crazy

One of their latest stunts?  Read on:

(07/06/05 — KNIGHTDALE) — The ACLU says it’s ready to go after Knightdale’s crackdown on gang violence.

The civil rights group says the town’s new teen curfew is violating teen’s rights. They’re hoping parents and teenagers who are tired of the new rules will go to a forum July 28 at 7 p.m. at the East Wake Regional Library.

"Something we’d like to look into is the timing restrictions, the lack of a First Amendment exception and the gathering of four or more minors together," said ACLU lawyer Shelagh Kenney.  

Knightdale police and community leaders say the month-old curfew is working. Officers say they’ve handed out only six warnings and no citations.

"We were having all kinds of calls," said Knightdale Town Councilman Mike Chalk. "We were having 15 or 20 calls a week, and we’ve only had six since the ordinance has been put in place."

Bwhahahahahahah - this is so ridiculous - right up the ACLU’s alley.  I know the answer, but I have to ask the question:  When is the ACLU going to realize that it’s frivilous crap such as this that just adds to their crackpot reputation?  I know, they never will - they don’t get it.  I could talk forever and not run out of things to say about the ACLU’s ineffectiveness and stupidity.  Which is okay - it keeps my little blog going. 


basil's blog linked with Brunch: 7/9/2005
Stop the ACLU! - Just Which Side Are They On, Anyway?

Five Muslim-Americans Detained In Iraq (emphasis mine)

WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) - The American military is holding five U.S. citizens, apparently including a Los Angeles filmmaker, among more than 10,000 detainees in Iraq on suspicion of possible terrorist or other criminal activity, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

All of the five are being held without charges or access to lawyers. Three have dual Iraqi citizenship, one dual Iranian citizenship and a fifth man, arrested late last year in Iraq, dual Jordanian citizenship. Of the four arrested this year, one was taken into custody in April, two in May and another in June.

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to identify the five. But the New York Times (of course!) on Wednesday identified one as Cyrus Kar, 44, an aspiring filmmaker from Los Angeles who was arrested in Iraq in May.

The newspaper said Kar, a naturalized American born in Iran who had enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1983, traveled to Iraq in mid-May to work on a documentary. He was arrested when he was stopped in a taxi in Baghdad by Iraqi security forces, who found what they suspected what might be bomb parts in the car. Whitman said they included “several dozen” washing machine timers.

Kar’s relatives told the New York Times that on June 14 an FBI agent, John D. Wilson, returned items seized on May 23 from Kar’s Los Angeles area apartment and assured them the FBI had found no reason to suspect Kar. “He’s cleared,” one of Kar’s aunts, Parvin Modarress, quoted Wilson as saying, the newspaper reported.

The Pentagon, however, remained tightlipped. “I’m not going to get into any detail,” Whitman said.“ What I will say is that one of these individuals was believed to have knowledge of planning associated with attacks on coalition forces. Another individual had in his possession possible IED (improvised explosive devices) components. One individual was possibly involved in kidnapping and another was engaged in what was described as ‘suspicious activities.’”

Ahem.  I would think that the reasons noted above would be more than adequate to detain these individuals.  Apparently the ACLU doesn’t think so, at least for the, um, "aspiring filmmaker" Cyrus Kar:

Saying Kar is being held unjustly, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the government on Wednesday in an effort to secure his release.

It never fails to amaze me that this pedophile-worshipping, teen-abortion-exhaulting, "poor criminal" advocating group tends to align with the individual(s) who set out to cause harm.  Screw the victim’s rights, screw the safety of our troops, screw the facts.  Sure, ACLU, let’s release this guy.  While you’re at it, why don’t you ship him back to Iraq so he can continue on his "filmmaking trip?"  Oh, and why don’t you just give him some timers to put in the trunk of his car?  Um, didn’t anyone tell you that we are at war with terrorists?  If it looks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, if it is carrying bomb parts in the trunk…

Punta del capello to Little Green Footballs (and to my hubby for pointing this out to me!)


Cotillion linked with The Gloves Come Off
Cotillion linked with The Gloves Come Off
Villainous Company linked with The Gloves Come Off
Stop The ACLU linked with A Landmark Day For Stop The ACLU Blog
« Previous PageNext Page »
    July 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Oct    
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031