The Press-Enterprise reported:

The 76-year-old Mojave Cross war memorial in San Bernardino County’s High Desert has been torn down by vandals, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the religious symbol could remain — at least temporarily — on public land.

Sometime Sunday night, the cross was taken down from its perch atop Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, according to Liberty Institute, a group that represented veterans groups and caretakers of the cross in the recent Supreme Court Case.

“This is an outrage, akin to desecrating people’s graves,” said institute president Kelly Shackelford. “It’s a disgraceful attack on the selfless sacrifice of our veterans. We will not rest until this memorial is re-installed.”

The cross was erected in the 1934 by a veterans group as a tribute to their fallen brethren in World War I. It has been the subject of a decade long court battle between those who want it to remain and those who believe it violates the separation of church and state.

In a split decision late last month, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that the cross must be removed. The High Court remanded the case back to federal district court in Southern California. The ruling was a major victory for proponents of the cross, but the American Civil Liberties Union vowed to renew its opposition to the cross.

From Gateway Pundit

Karl Rove: Obama’s Banking Takeover Allows Feds to Monitor Checking Accounts & Credit Cards

Like with their nationalized health care bill, democrats want to ram their banking bill through Congress before the American public knows what’s in the bill. And, like with their nationalized health care bill, the state-run media is doing all it can to aide and abet with this immoral and possibly criminal act against the American people.

Karl Rove told Greta Van Susteren last night that the democratic banking bill will allow the feds to monitor checking accounts and credit cards.

also:

Unreal. Sebelius Admits Dems Have No Idea How Much “High Risk Pools” Will Cost

As if they had not blown enough money already…

The fact that democrats spent nearly a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus bill means nothing. The fact that they created no jobs means nothing. This group of looters and crooks rammed through their nationalized health care bill and now admit that they have no idea how much their “high risk pools” will cost the country.

Rehberg Grills HHS Secretary Sebelius on Health Care Costs

(more…)

Submitted by James

The ACLU has to rank as one of the lowest life forms to inhabit the planet earth. I can’t think of enough adjectives to describe the slimy vermin that takes every opportunity to destroy everything America stands for from religion, to Christmas to memorials honoring the men and women who gave their lives for our country. Sadly, the sacrifice of those gallant men and women gave these worthless s.o.b’s the right to make these attempts to desecrate and destroy the symbols that are America, and belong to America. The ACLU should stand strong under the Obama administration as they both serve everything Communist.
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GOD DAMN THE ACLU.

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts.

Okay, now I’m confused. As the links and excerpts below indicate, it seems the ACLU is supporting religious freedom and at the same time ignoring their long standing effort to eliminate religion using their questionable arguments on separation of church and state. Gee, wouldn’t a police department be viewed by the ACLU as the ’state’? And wouldn’t wearing a beard for religious reasons while working as a police officer or detective violate the ACLU’s sensibilities on the issue of separation of church and state? And then there is the upcoming trial to determine if said officer will be allowed to wear a yarmulke during work and the ACLU attorney is optimistic that his client, the officer, will be victorious. Is it just me or is the ACLU changing their tune on things religious? Someone tell me what they’re up to.

A Las Vegas Metro Police detective has won a partial victory in his fight to observe his religion. A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Detective Steve Riback, an Orthodox Jew, can wear a short, trimmed beard at work. But Federal Judge Roger Hunt ruled a jury must decide if Riback can wear a yarmulke on the job. He has been supported by the Nevada ACLU.

ORTHODOX JEW: Judge: Detective’s beard OK

Allen Lichtenstein, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada who represents Riback, and the department’s lawyers all said Hunt’s ruling pleased them.

“We knocked out seven of (Riback’s) nine claims,” Anderson said.

Lichtenstein said his client asked for two accommodations, and Hunt granted one while allowing the other to go to trial.

“We are gratified that the judge ruled that when the Police Department allows beards for medical reasons that they can’t discriminate by prohibiting them for religious reasons,” Lichtenstein said. “We look forward to the trial on the question of the yarmulke and believe that the outcome at trial will again be favorable to Detective Riback.” (more…)

By Robert Farrow

Well, the Christian hating commie bastards are at it again:

The issue of teachers and coaches praying — or appearing to pray — in front of students is being hashed out in one New Jersey high school, which is trying to ban its football coach from bowing his head and kneeling while his players pray before games.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit heard arguments in the case earlier this month.

“All he wants to do is bow his head in the background,” said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group acting as co-counsel for coach Marcus Borden. “There’s a mentality out there among school officials that if it even hints of religion, it’s got to go.”

While there are “clear guidelines” for student-initiated prayer in school that grant students at least “minimal” rights, teachers “are being told they really don’t have religious freedom,” Mr. Whitehead said.

The case stems from an October 2005 policy at East Brunswick High School prohibiting any school representative from participating in student-initiated prayer.

The high school’s football players have been praying before games for more than 25 years, and the coach wants to continue to bow his head and kneel with them, according to the Rutherford Institute. School officials don’t dispute that student athletes have the constitutionally protected right to pray, but they say coaches do not, because they are public employees, the institute said.

A U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the coach in July, but that was challenged by the school and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

It is quite sad that so many have fallen for the lies of groups like the ACLU. It is sad that an organization claiming to protect our liberties is attacking them.

Moonbattery at its best:

Although totalitarian moonbats have not yet been able to take away the right of players to pray, coaches are alleged to be public officials not entitled to the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. According to the ACLU of New Jersey, Borden’s silent show of respect for God fosters a “destructive environment.” This satanic organization has taken the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Wars have been fought over far less than what the ACLU is doing to this country.

From Stop the ACLU

If the ACLU really gave a damn about the Separation of Church and State, (They Don’t) and if the Separation of Church and State was actually part of the Constitution, (It Isn’t) one might expect the ACLU to go after Muslims and their rights.

But the ACLU won’t, because they are Christian hating cowards. By selectively attacking one group, and ignoring others, the ACLU has shown themselves to be nothing but slimeballs and cowards. What else would you expect from a group that defends terrorists and child pornographers but attacks Christianity at any chance it can get.

Why?

“Communism is the Goal.”

Roger Nash Baldwin
Founder of the ACLU

by Laryn

Remember the former president of an ACLU chapter with kiddie porn in his possession – 7year!!!! Make sure to stop by StopThe ACLU, – and please put up the links on your posts and the link to his wife’s site – isn’t she an NAACP exec? IIRC. All of this stuff was in his home and agains IMMS, they had small children.

p.s. A SANE JUDGE ACTUALLY EXISTS! WOW!

Ex-ACLU Chief Rust-Tierney Gets Seven Years
This was an especially abhorrent case according to the judge during the trial. But he had a reason. Geesh!

Rust-Tierney says depression and “plummeting self-esteem” led him astray.

A former Arlington County youth sports coach and civil rights lawyer who once headed Virginia’s American Civil Liberties Union chapter was sentenced today to seven years in federal prison for buying child pornography that prosecutors labeled sadistic and masochistic.

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, pleaded guilty in June to downloading hundreds of pornographic images of children as young as 4. Authorities said Rust-Tierney used a computer in his 11-year-old son’s bedroom to view the files, which included a six-minute video that depicted sexual torture of children, set to a song by the rock band Nine Inch Nails.
by The link is here.

from Todd at Right is Right

From time to time, I like to post guest columns on other websites. One subject I’ve dabbled in is the irrelevancy of the ACLU, which began as a noble institution but has sunk to feebly attempting to overruling ordnances against sex offenders.

This sham of an institution is now bellowing on about the Bush administration’s NSA electronic surveillance program, stating that the program is 1.) illegal, and 2.) steeped in fear.

So what would the ACLU have the government do? The answer is simple: sit on its collective hands while terrorists plot and foment violence. Let’s apply common sense to their argument. They brazenly assume that the federal government eavesdrops on every citizen and that internet providers are constantly threatened to hand over email and internet histories.

Can someone step forward and state unequivocally that their first amendment rights have been violated?

Anyone?

Seriously, do groups like the ACLU realize what they’re doing to this country? Do they realize that they are attempting to completely emasculate us to the point of sheer defenselessness?

Here’s the issue: the National Security Agency (NSA) can monitor phone calls, primarily, originating from persons outside the United States with known or suspected links to Al Qaeda. THIS is what the ACLU is challenging.

Ultimately, its far-left groups like the ACLU that would contend that a war on terror even exists. Rather than stave off any terrorist attacks within the country, the ACLU would strike a blow FOR Al Qaeda.

Furthermore, its appeal by the 6th Circuit Court was thrown out because the ACLU could not prove that anyone’s telephone conversations were actually eavesdropped. So makes the ACLU so worried? Moreover, with what should an average, law-abiding citizen be concerned?

Essentially, the ACLU lacks the creativity to realize that the country has entered a new stage in its existence. Thus, because of this war, which they and other like-minded activists deny, they cannot fathom that the scope and breadth of the government has changed. No longer are we fighting a uniformed enemy.

No, this enemy fights dirty. They siphon money from charities, wage cyber jihad, and concoct terrorist plots with other members in other countries.

The government instead must resort to tactics that can potentially fall in the gray area between right and wrong. Until a systematic pattern of abuse were to EVER occur against God-fearing, law-abiding citizens, why the ACLU protest?

The ACLU would contend that the United States government will abuse its power and ransack all of our rights, turning our country to a totalitarian state. What they either fail to realize or fail to admit is that their actions have attempted to tear country apart, as well as make us vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.

So when terrorists attack us again, we know who to blame. Nevertheless, it doesn’t make me feel any better.

We read:

“Bayonne High School valedictorian Jeremy Jerschina had wanted to give a heartfelt speech at his graduation ceremony on Wednesday.

A religious young man bound for the Christian school Calvin College in Michigan this fall, 18-year-old Jerschina said that to speak from the heart as he addressed his graduating class, he had to speak to God as well.

But Principal Richard Baccarella and the Bayonne Board of Education would not let him speak if he included a prayer – so he didn’t speak at all.

Source

So one young man expressing his faith in God is the establishment of a religion?
from Stop to ACLU (more…)

by Kathy at Mister Politics

From Houston Chronicle:

NEW YORK — A Boeing Co. subsidiary that may have provided secret CIA flight services was sued Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three terrorism suspects who claim they were tortured by the U.S. government.

The lawsuit charges that flight services provided by Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. enabled the clandestine transportation of the suspects to secret overseas locations, where they were tortured and subjected to other “forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

The ACLU said the company “either knew or reasonably should have known” that they were facilitating the torture of terrorism suspects by providing flight services for the CIA.

Companies “are not allowed to have their heads in the sand, and take money from the CIA to fly people, hooded and shackled, to foreign countries to be tortured,” ACLU attorney Ben Wizner said.

Boeing itself is not named in the lawsuit and would not confirm the reports of a Jeppesen-CIA link, said spokesman Tim Neale, adding that customers have a confidentiality clause.

Jeppesen Dataplan says it provides services such as flight plans, fuel and airport data to airlines, private pilots and various companies, but it doesn’t ask its customers for details of their business.

“We don’t know the purpose of the trip for which we do a flight plan,” said Mike Pound, a spokesman for the Englewood, Colo.-based Jeppesen. “We don’t need to know specific details. It’s the customer’s business, and we do the business that we are contracted for,” he said. “It’s not our practice to ever inquire about the purpose of a trip.” Jeppesen had no immediate comment on specifics of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Northern California, but announced in New York City.

The three detainees have claimed through their family and lawyers that they have been tortured and abused against universally accepted legal standards. One claimed to have been routinely tortured under interrogation about al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Their attorneys appealed to the ACLU for assistance.

The cases involve the alleged mistreatment of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen, in July 2002 and January 2004; Elkassim Britel, an Italian citizen, in May 2002; and Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian citizen, in December 2001, ACLU officials said at a Manhattan news conference. Mohamed is currently being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Britel in Morocco and Agiza in Egypt, the ACLU said.

The ACLU says the suspects were apprehended under the U.S. government’s “extraordinary rendition program.” Extraordinary rendition is the clandestine capture and transfer of suspects to be detained and interrogated in countries where the protection of U.S. laws do not apply, according to Wizner.

“American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable.”

Neither the CIA nor the U.S. government is named in the lawsuit. Wizner said the executive branch has evoked a state secrets defense in similar lawsuits. The Bush administration has insisted it receives guarantees from countries receiving terror suspects that prisoners will not be tortured.

The ACLU is siding with terrorists over the taxi (plane) ride? Notice this paragraph from this article; “Neither the CIA nor the U.S. government is named in the lawsuit.”, now it would seem to me and most reasonable people that the terrorist would want to sue those responsible for their supposed torture. They would have if it were true!

The fact they are not suing either the CIA or ANY government in this case is quite telling. This appears to be nothing more than a scare tactic against corporations and Jeppsen in particular to discontinue their involvement with the United States government. Proven by this statement; “American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable.” (more…)

by Kathy at Mister Politics

From Roanoke News

A judge in Alexandria today scheduled a plea agreement hearing for 51-year-old Charles Rust-Tierney of Arlington. It was not clear what charges would be included in the plea agreement.

A grand jury indicted Rust-Tierney earlier this month on one count each of receipt and possession of child pornography. According to federal sentencing guidelines, a conviction at trial on both counts could have resulted in a prison sentence of 11 to 14 years.

Rust-Tierney — who also coached Little League baseball in Arlington — has been in jail since his arrest.

At pretrial hearings, two judges refused to grant bail, describing the pornography in question as some of the most sickening they had ever encountered.

A sentence of 11 – 14 years is not long enough for this type of crime; the pornography this guy was looking at was the violent rape of children. They should throw away the key on this one.

Ironically; this is the kind of “free speech” the ACLU wants to protect. An excerpt of the ACLU’s position on Child Pornography:

[3] Why does the ACLU support pornography?

Why are you in favor of child porn?

The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring “bad” ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.

(more…)

“Communism is the Goal”

Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU.

ACLU Challenges School Board-Approved Bible Class

by Nathan Bradfield

The ACLU is challenging an elective Bible history class, which was approved by the Ector County School Board in December 2005, that it is “promoting religion.” Quick question: do science classes “promote science?” Just wondering. Another question: Are electives optional?

The course [called “The Bible in History and Literature“] is now taught in two high schools in Odessa, Texas — Permian High School and Odessa High School. Rather than teaching about the Bible objectively in a historical or literary context, the course promotes religion, as well as a particular religious viewpoint, that is not shared by Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and many Protestants. The course uses the King James Version as its main textbook, which is not the Bible of choice for a wide range of Christian denominations, nor for members of the Jewish faith.

The KJV is about as neutral as you can get in a Bible history class. There is no way to please every person in every religion in every denomination. Hence the board’s choice to make the class an elective and to use a widely-read version.

“Parents, not public schools, should teach religious beliefs to children,” says Dr. T. Jeremy Gunn, Director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Governments and public schools have no business deciding which religious beliefs are true and then using public schools to proselytize children.”

Exactly! I couldn’t agree more. Wonder where Dr. Gunn stands on evolution. Abstinence programs. Handing out condoms. Bet I know. And he wants to accuse the Bible elective class of proselytizing. Thanks for the laugh, Doc. If this is what a “highly qualified education” in one of our fine liberal, humanist universities does for you, no thanks.

“It’s important to remember that the Bible could be taught constitutionally in schools,” says Gunn. “Bible education per se is not unconstitutional if the course is designed to be objective.”

The lawsuit asks that the Ector County School Board be ordered to refrain from teaching the Bible course or any course like it that would unconstitutionally promote religion or particular religious beliefs. (more…)

by Susie Hassan
Monday, April 16, 2007
ABC7 News Online
COLLIER COUNTY:

A Collier County man who hands out bibles to Collier County high school students is under fire by the American Civil Liberties Union. Officials with the ACLU spent Monday night talking to Collier County democrats about the issue.

People on one side of the argument say it’s not a separation of church and state issue while the other side says it is in fact a perfect example and neither side is backing down.

The debate begins with bibles handed out by Jerry Rutherford to Collier County high school students. He says there’s no harm in what he’s doing.

“This is not a church and state issue. It’s a free speech issue,” said Rutherford.

But the ACLU says the separation of church and state is exactly the issue.

“There is a time to speak you religious beliefs and that is in your church. *But the public education is not the forum for bible distribution,” said ACLU Attorney Yale Freeman.

Typical ACLU position in their ongoing attempt to remove Christianity from the public sphere, and contain it to a more localized, segregated place in society.

Yeah, I’ve heard all the lefts’ defense of the ACLU, saying that the ACLU has defended Christians in the past. Small cases that didn’t amount to much of anything other than PR and to give the appearance of equal treatment. If Labor Unions represented their members in the same manner, members and liberals would be going ballistic.

Thomas More Law Center To Argue For Reversal of Decision Permitting Public Schools to Teach Students to “Become Muslims”… where was the ACLU?

Public Minnesota College to Install Foot-Washing Basins for Muslim Students…where is the ACLU?

Seattle Airport Removes Christmas Trees Instead of Putting Up Menorah…ACLU?

Muslims Seek Prayer Room at Airport…ACLU? (more…)

….a really good read, check it out:

….in short, I am very, very tired of devout Christians claiming that they are somehow “oppressed” because they are no longer able, thanks to our Establishment Clause jurisprudence, to use the machinery of government to broadcast a particular religious view to the masses. Be grateful for the Establishment Clause, since the neutrality that it imposes on the state is likely RESPONSIBLE for the freedom with which religion flourishes in America.

Your favorite whipping boy, the ACLU, thinks so too. The following links describe cases in which the ACLU defended the rights of Christians to worship freely. I know that even more exist, but I haven’t the patience to find them. Please read every single one before you ever bash the ACLU again.

Also, try reading the Supreme Court cases that eventually held that school-led prayer was unconstitutional; the original plaintiffs in those early cases were Christian.

S.C.

My response-

Thanks, SC.

I haven’t read through all your points, but I suggest you drop the ‘Treaty of Tripoli’ argument from your forte.

1. The ‘Treaty of Tripoli’ was written in order to free some of our sailors who were being held hostage by Muslim pirates.

2. There’s disagreement over who wrote the ‘not a Christian nation’ line in the first place. See here

3. The treaty was deratified.

4. A deratified treaty is not the equal of our founding documents, which mention God and providence many times over.

Whenever I see someone mention ‘Tripoli’ it’s a flag that they shouldn’t be taken seriously, even though they may have better arguments.

For what it’s worth, I agree, if that’s your point, that America is not a Christian nation. It’s a republic, which (should be) good enough. Where I think we differ is the restrictions placed upon free speech. I say, if you truly want free speech, you have to suffer Christianity even if expressed on government property and time. That’s what ‘owning government’ means. Government isn’t meant to be an impersonal monster which runs over people, it’s supposed to have a soul, and I think you’ve noticed the evidence of officials feeling instinctively that this is true when they introduce retch-worthy PC substitutes for verboten personal faith expressions, the latter of which some people will always find offensive but which work a heck of a lot better than the ‘safe’ alternative. By making government a no-man’s land of personal (religious) expression, you’ve replicated the extremes of King George to their polarity, which is just as revolution worthy. If (just for argument allow me the pronoun) ‘you’ try to shut up Christians just because you have a giant Jones against hearing what you don’t want to, and you manipulate our freedoms to achieve that end, the result will be the mess we live with now and the subsequent loss of free speech, which includes the loss of trust in government as being a reflection of our character. Promoting the fake and civil rights damaging ‘I have a right not to hear someone’s else’s free speech’ argument just shoots off your own foot and by definition restricts your own freedom.

I really hate this argument because, contrary to popular belief, I’m not a ‘Christianist’. This sounds disingenuous because I’m famously a Christian, and a bad one at that, but I know that if the religious freedom canary dies in the coalmine, other freedoms follow. Freedoms ‘granted by God’ can’t be withdrawn by man, who by nature aims lower.

You quote Jefferson in your arguments, but I could post many, many more quotes from Jefferson in favor of Christianity. Jefferson was completely free when, as the first rector of The University of Virginia, he allowed and encouraged on-campus bible study.

Jefferson was also the author of this- (more…)

Bill would halt legal fees for ACLU in establishment cases

It’s not fair for taxpayers to pay the legal bills for organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), says Sen. Sam Brownback.

The Kansas Republican has reintroduced the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), which seeks to change how attorneys’ fees are granted in cases involving the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The original Bill H.R. 2679 was authored by IN Congressman Hostettler and was posted here June 1, 2005 and House Passes Public Expression Of Religion Act: 244 to 173

Current law allows attorneys to recover their fees in many kinds of cases, including suits against government dealing with civil rights and the Establishment Clause, which says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” For instance, if an attorney wins an Establishment Clause case asking a city government to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse, the city may be required to pay for the removal and the legal fees for both sides of the case.

“Currently, many small towns comply with the demands of the ACLU rather than risk going to trial and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to the ACLU if they lose the case,” Brownback said.

Supporters of the bill include the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, American Legion, Religious Freedom Coalition, Eagle Forum, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, American Civil Rights Union, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Prison Fellowship Ministries and the National Religious Broadcasters.

“We believe it’s an important bill to remove the financial incentive as motivation for filing First Amendment lawsuits,” said Barrett Duke, the ERLC’s vice president for public policy and research

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU have condemned the measure, the latter calling it a direct attack on freedom of religion..

Americans United Blasts House For Passage Of Fee-Stripping Bill

“Senator Brownback and those who support the Public Expression of Religion Act seek to put roadblocks in the way of those who want to protect their constitutional rights by filing cases charging violations of the Establishment Clause,” said Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United.

Supporters of the bill want it to ensure that each party in a lawsuit involving a public expression of religion shoulders its own cost. The bill would make sure the states and localities are on equal footing with those who are suing them, supporters said.

“Under the current law, the ACLU and its affiliates have a win-win situation. They often get their desired result just by threatening these localities,” according to a paper from a congressional office. “It is the localities who must decide whether to roll the dice and gamble by going to court where jurisprudence is unclear, or to capitulate to the ACLU.” (more…)

by Laryn

Speechless! I am just Speechless!

Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

“This is unbelievable,” said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. “It’s not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they’ve essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it.”

It should be pointed out that minors can’t enter into a binding contract. Therefore, “confidentiality agreements” are illegal, worthless and total BS.

It also shows that the school knew what it was doing was wrong, just by the fact that they wanted to keep it from the parents.

In what CWA called a “shocking and brazen act of government abuse of parental rights,” the school’s officials required the 14-year-olds to attend a “Gay Straight Alliance Network” panel discussion led by “gay” and “lesbian” upperclassmen during a “freshman advisory” class which “secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors.”

“This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda,” Barber said. “The professional propagandists in the ‘gay-rights’ lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated.”

He said not only is forcing students to be exposed to the pro-homosexual propaganda bad enough, but then school officials further required that students sign the “confidentiality agreement” through which they promised not to tell anyone – including their own parents – about the seminar.

Barber said that also aligns with the goals of the disinformation campaign being run by those in the pro-homosexual camp. “That’s what homosexual activists from GSA are attempting to do, and that’s what DHS is clearly up to as well.” (more…)

by Kathy at misterpolitics.com

The ACLU is getting involved in the local politics of Hazelton, PA. on behalf of illegal aliens. A new local ordinance:

[...]authorizes penalties against a landlord only if he “knowingly allows an illegal alien to use rent or lease” his property, and against an employing business only if it does not act “with due diligence to verify the legal work status of all persons whom it employs.”

Businesses also face a five-year ban on receiving or renewing a business license, grant or contract from the city for the first offense of “funding or providing goods and services to illegal aliens.” The second offense invokes a ten-year ban. None of the provisions applies to “emergency medical assistance, emergency care or legal assistance.” (CNSnews)

This makes sense doesn’t it? Due dilegence by businesses and landlords to ensure that they employ and rent to LEGAL residents. There is even an exclusion for emergency medical care AND legal assistance. Sounds good right?

Well the ACLU has filed a federal lawsuit stating this new ordinance is unconstitution and will discriminate against people who look or sound like ‘foreigners’.

“This case is not about illegal immigration, it is about upholding the Constitution,” said Vic Walczak, the ACLU’s lead attorney in the case and legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, as the trial started in the nearby city of Scranton.

“Immigration policy in this country is going to be a much bigger mess if small towns like Hazleton are allowed to set their own rules and standards about which immigrants can live and work there,” Walczak added.

Notice how he says which immigrants? There are only two kinds of immigrants that are addressed by this ordinance; LEGAL and ILLEGAL. In fact if this ordinance is allowed to be enforced it will begin to cleanup the mess with illegal immigration by actually enforcing some of our immigration laws contrary to implications of this ACLU attorney.

The town of Hazelton is getting some help from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) which weighs in on the lawsuit and ordinance;

The policies in the Illegal Immigration Relief Act “are no different than countless others that Hazleton and every other local jurisdiction institute and enforce to ensure that businesses operate in a manner consistent with the public interest,” said FAIR President Dan Stein.

“Hazleton is doing nothing more than setting rules for how employers and landlords in the city do business, which is precisely the function of local governments,” Stein continued. “The ordinance adopted enforces laws against businesses and landlords, not against illegal aliens, which is the federal government’s responsibility.” (CNSnews)

The town of Hazelton has a strong mayor that refuses to bend to the lawsuits and intimidation of the ACLU and plans to fight this lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. (more…)

by Kathy at misterpolitics.com

The ACLU strikes again against another ten commandments monument. This one is located in Cross City in Dixie County, Florida.

The county has four stoplights and, local ministers say, a Christian faith as sweeping as the Suwannee River. “I’m not saying every family member is there when the church door opens,” said Rev. Ed Ivey of the Cross City Church of God. “But, in general, there’s a very strong Christian fabric here.”

To acknowledge that, local business leaders last year approached county commissioners with a question: Would elected officials allow a Ten Commandments monument to be placed on the courthouse steps if private donations covered the cost? After the county attorney offered to defend any lawsuit for free, commissioners signed off on the plan. The monument, carved to resemble two stone tablets, was unveiled in November.

Almost immediately, groups outside Dixie County concerned about the mixing of religion and government said the display was unconstitutional. They let it be known they were willing to sue if they could find a Dixie resident willing to legally complain.

The ACLU says the display is unconstitutional because it violates a provision in the First Amendment prohibiting the government from establishing a preferred religion. The ACLU can not sue unless they find a local resident willing to be the plaintiff in the case. At first no one came forward; They now have one:

“Dixie County essentially thumbed its nose at the Constitution,” said Glenn Katon, regional director for the ACLU’s Central Florida office. “We were shaking the trees for a plaintiff.”

Eventually, the group found a plaintiff — someone not yet identified — and filed a federal lawsuit early this month. The suit argues Dixie County commissioners have endorsed a specific religion by permitting the huge stone wedge to be put on its courthouse steps. And that, Katon says, is unconstitutional.

The results in these cases in the past have been mixed:

Legally, two cases from 2005 will figure prominently in the skirmish. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas Capitol was permissible because it was one of many monuments recognizing significant historical documents or events.

But the court struck a state-sponsored Ten Commandments display in Kentucky because it stood alone and appeared to serve only a religious purpose.

In Dixie County, the monument stands by itself. A memorial to U.S. veterans is some distance away on the corner of the property. In this instance, “the law is as clear as the law can be,” Katon said.

This is a privately funded monument in a Christian county in Florida. The ACLU has no business interfering with the will of the people of Dixie county.

The ACLU in its bent to eradicate Christianity is denying it’s exceptional legal abilities on issues which could benefit from that expertise; such as, representing children and families harmed by NAMBLA?

Umm… I guess not…

by Kathy at misterpolitics.com

Christians under persecution again for being… well Christians… It is beyond me why people are afraid of the name Jesus or the Bible, they can choose to read it or not. The way the Gideons were treated; you would think they were out there trying to pass out cocaine.

Two men who are members of Gideons International, the Christian organization that is famous for, among other ministries, placing Bibles in motels and giving them to children, have been arrested after trying to hand out Bibles on a public sidewalk in Florida, according to a law firm.

Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund have confirmed they will be representing Anthony Mirto and Ernest Simpson, who were arrested, booked into jail and charged with trespassing.

Jeremy Tedesco, one of the ADF’s lawyers on the case, confirmed to WND that the organization’s clients were on a public sidewalk when they were handing out Bibles and school officials summoned police.

Yes, it reads public sidewalk and yes, it reads school officials. I hope you’ll also notice that it doesn’t say anything about sex offenders, child molesters or military funerals.

“The First Amendment protects the right to engage in religious speech on a public sidewalk,” ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman said. “Members of the Gideons have been highly respected for decades as peaceful providers of free Bibles to those who want them.”

The arrest happened Jan. 19, when Mirto and Simpson were on the sidewalk outside of Key Largo School in Key Largo, Fla., and were distributing copies of the Bible to those interested.

“Neither man entered school grounds,” the law firm said. “After the school’s principal called police, a Monroe County sheriff’s officer asked the men to leave immediately or face trespassing charges. As the men prepared to leave, the officer decided to arrest both individuals.”

A hearing is scheduled March 5 in Monroe County Court in the cases, and ADF attorneys are preparing motions to dismiss the charges.

“Officials cannot use fear of arrest as a means of bullying law-abiding Christians into silence,” Cortman said. “These men broke no laws when they decided to communicate their message on a public sidewalk.”

Tedesco noted that sometimes school officials have a misconception about whether they can control activities on school grounds and adjacent public sidewalks. But the First Amendment does provide a protection for speech on those parcels of ground that are public, he said.

Lets see… public schools, public grounds, public sidewalks, public officials and public law enforcement.

“There’s no reason why they should be put in jail,” he said.

(more…)

by Kathy at misterpolitics.com

Today I turned on the television to Foxnews and caught an interview with Neil Cavuto and Kim Bobo of National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice. Ms Bobo states that her organization, made up of the entire religious community including Catholics, Muslims, etc. believe that illegal aliens deserve to be covered by the minimum wage act currently before Congress. She also believes that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 covers all workers including illegal aliens and therefore they are already covered by the current minimum wage laws. Neil Cavuto had to step in and explain that the Fair Labor Standards act only covers legal immigrants and American citizens, not illegals.

I did some quick fact checking and looked up what the Fair Labor Standards Act covers and whether there was any validity to her statements. This is what I found. It establishs minimum living standards for workers engaged directly or indirectly in interstate commerce, including those involved in production of goods bound for such commerce. It excluded agricultural and seasonal laborers, handlers of perishable foods, and workers in certain industries covered by collective bargaining. It has been amended several times to expand its coverage beyond those initial boundaries. It has not; however; in any of those revisions included illegal workers.

The National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice is not the only organization to believe illegals are already covered by the Fair Labor Standards act. The ACLU also believes undocumented (as they call them) workers are already eligible for minimum wage and even publish a pamphlet telling illegal workers that:

UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS: You have the same right to the minimum wage. If you decide to enforce your wage and hour rights, your immigration status should not be an issue.

I doubt anyone has taken them up on their offer to enforce their wage and hour rights. That would ensure they would no longer be employed.

Later in the interview; Ms Bobo also stated that the Congress needed to pass a “clean” minimum wage bill. What did she mean by clean? The house minimum wage bill was passed without those nasty immigration amendments that the Senate version has. The admendments were filed by Diane Feinstein twice; S237 and S340. This is the summary of those amendments:

S.237 -A bill to improve agricultural job opportunities, benefits, and security for aliens in the United States and for other purposes. (a) Requirement To Grant Blue Card Status- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall, pursuant to the requirements of this section, grant blue card status to an alien who qualifies under this section if the Secretary determines that the alien– [...] (2) applied for such status during the 18-month application period [...] (3) is otherwise admissible to the United States under section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act [...].

This amendment will allow coverage of aliens who followed the rules. They filed the proper paperwork to stay and work in the United States legally. The problem with this amendment from Ms Bobo’s organization perspective is it further defines the exact requirements for eligibility for coverage. This explicitly defines legal aliens as eligible workers in this country and all others are excluded. I stopped over to Ms Bobo’s website and found this:

No human being is illegal. If we can translate this idea into policy changes, we will not only improve workplace rights for millions of Americans, but we will also honor people as whole human beings, neighbors and fellow children of God. Children of God deserve a birthright that respects their humanity, appreciates their contributions and offers hope for their future. The world’s religions call us together to act for the sake of those who are most vulnerable.”

Nice sentiment; but if you want American laws to apply to you. You need to follow the laws and processes just like everyone else.

The impact could be greater then you think…..

By Robert Farrow

from Glib Fortuna at Stop the ACLU

We are very lucky to have the First Amendment. Without it, our chattering classes would be falling all over themselves to ban speech that offends sensitive groups, just as Canadian- and Euro-chatterers are doing now. We know this because our campus speech codes, the models for the disastrous hate-speech laws elsewhere, were the inventions of our own elites. Without a First Amendment, the distortions and suppressions of campus life would likely have gone national. Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, and many rap artists would be in jail, or at least facing charges.

The cause of free speech can no longer expect much help from the American Civil Liberties Union, more concerned today with civil rights and multicultural issues than with civil liberties and free speech. True, the ACLU still takes some censorship cases—it led the fight against the first wave of campus speech codes circa 1990, for instance. But the rise of the ACLU’s internal lobbies or “projects,” such as the Lesbian and Gay Project and the Immigrants’ Rights Project, has made the organization look more and more like a traditional left-wing pressure group, with little passion for the First Amendment. The ACLU is also following the money: funds flow in because the group responds to concerns of feminist, gays, and other identity groups, not because of its historical defense of free speech and civil liberties.

These days, the ACLU visibly stands aloof from obvious First Amendment cases—such as the college speech and harassment codes—and even comes down on the anti-free-speech side. Consider the group’s stance in Aguilar v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, a case involving ethnic epithets aimed by supervisors at Latino employees of Avis in San Francisco. A California court ruled that Avis had permitted a hostile environment. The California Supreme Court, abetted by both the northern Californian and the national ACLU, agreed, and upheld the lower court’s startling speech restriction: prior restraint on workers’ speech, forbidding a judge-made list of specific words. These words, not yet revealed or promulgated, will soon be taboo in every California workplace, even outside the earshot of Latino employees, and even if they are welcome. As civil libertarian Nat Hentoff wrote: “This may be the broadest and vaguest restriction of speech in American legal history.” (more…)