August 17, 2006
Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional
The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution. Despite the fact the preamble lists defending the nation as an acceptable federal government function, the ACLU and US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said that the risk "innocent" communications could be intercepted far outweighed the risk of Al Qaeda attacking the United States. Despite programs such as ECHELON, CARNIVORE, and others that existed happily (albeit controversially) under the Clinton Administration, the possibility that George Bush might actually defend the country is a threat the Constitution cannot bear.
Despite the evidence, the media still calls the case a matter of "warrantless wiretapping" despite the fact that the clear intention is to monitor international calls. This ongoing deception is an attempt to create hysteria that the US is becoming a "police state" and that the treats are from Republicans, not terrorists. This is the same political quarter that brings you the idea (despite all evidence to the contrary) that George Bush and not Al Qaeda is behind 9/11.
The judge in this case, an appointee of Jimmy Carter, doesn't seem to understand the difference between overseas surveillance and domestic surveillance. Will the CIA start needing warrant the next time the spy on a terrorist overseas?
According to the ruling:
The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.
Let's skip past the FISA court idea, one that is still in dispute publicly and in the courts (other district courts either ruled for the government or declined to rule at all) and discuss the First Amendment issue. Debating what due process should exist for wiretapping is something that can and will take place, however, the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe. What other possible meaning is there to that phrase?
Many scoffed at the idea of framing resistance to the Patriot Act and the "warrantless wiretapping" programs as an attempt to establish an "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights", however, with Judge Taylor's ruling and the help of the ACLU, the shroud of the First Amendment has been extended to protect those who plot to kill Americans.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 3, 2006
Ending Corporate Welfare
The ACLU is indignant that there are members of Congress pushing to pass a law that would bar awards of attorney fees when groups sue to get religion out of the public square. These award of legal fees are very directly responsible to a vast increase in the body of law that has gone so far to protect against the appearances of government endorsement of religion, that even private individuals have been sanctioned for daring to utter the unutterable name of Jesus Christ in public.
It has been the ACLU's influence that not only is the government (rightly) prevented from taking sides on the matter of religion, but when private individuals happen to be speaking on government property, the First Amendment is brought to bear against them. It is unthinkable in the highest degree that the Founders or anything in the Constitution intended to restrict the free expression rights of citizens. The First Amendment was designed to create institutional separation between the agencies of government and the houses of religion, not to be a pre-regulated restriction on what private people can or cannot say.
The ACLU has used attorney fees to bully schools into submission in questionable cases or in matters where no settled law exists. School budgets are already tight (mostly because of bloated bureaucracy, but that's not the point). Many schools will capitulate to avoid having to fork out money to defend a winning case. As in most areas of law, he who has the most money wins. With the award of legal fees, it only encourages entrepreneurial lawyers to build cases where none may exist. It also prevents the ACLU from browbeating agencies into avoiding situations where those agencies may be right.
However, the money schools have is not their own. The money sitting in government accounts is not their own. They are merely stewards of assets they have been given to perform tasks they have been assigned. Their masters are the citizens who fund those organizations and who elect their leaders.
There is something profoundly wrong when, because of the actions of a politician, the entire society that funds that politician's organization is made to pay. There is much talk about making politicians and bureaucrats accountable, awarding legal fees for cases like this don't make the politicians accountable, it makes society accountable. It is irresponsible in the extreme to make other people pay for someone's "bad" actions. I'd prefer courts punish those people who are actually doing the deeds, not finding someone who has big enough pockets and make them pay, no matter how peripheral they may be. We'll throw them out of office the next election if the case warrants it.
Preventing the default award of legal fees makes good economic sense and it is good policy. The First Amendment is a simple area of constitutional law that does not, nor should not, take millions of dollars to litigate. It is about time this case of corporate welfare comes to an end.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 25, 2006
StoptheACLU Blogburst: War against a discredited story
Stop the ACLU has the latest on the NSA's litigation against phone companies and their state-by-state effort to hammer those phone companies (and thus drive up the price we pay for telephone service) based on the USA Today story detailing the NSA buying phone records from those companies. Problem is? There doesn't seem to be any evidence it happened, and evidence that it didn't. Read more at Stop the ACLU. Gazoo.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 30, 2006
Stop the ACLU - History of the ACLU Part 1
A History On The ACLU Part 1
I researched the Congressional Record dated Wednesday, September 20, 1961. Very important information relating to the ACLU and it's Communist/Socialist ambitions.
Dr. Fredrick Schwartz, executive director of the International Christian Anticommunism Crusade, "Communist Legal Subversion," page 75, House Committee on Un-American Activities: "Any attempt to judge the influence of Communists by their numbers is like trying to determine the validity of the hull of a boat by relating the area of the holes to the area which is sound. One hole can sink a ship. Communism is the theory of the disciplined of few controlling and directing the rest. One person in a sensitive position can control and manipulate thousands of others."
FBI Director, J. Edger Hoover called Communists, "Masters of Deceit". He continues, "Fronts probably represent the party's (communist) most successful tactic in capturing non-Communist support. Like mass agitation and infiltration, fronts espouse the deceptive party line (hence the word "front"), while actually advancing the real party line. In this way the party is able to influence thousands of non-Communists, collecting large sums of money, and reach the minds, pens, and tongues of many high-ranking and distinguished individuals. Moreover, fronts are excellent fields for party recruitment." The FBI director, people!
And how does this tie into the ACLU? I'm getting to that. The two co-founders of the American Civil Liberties Union are Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastwood, both confessed socialists. Roger Baldwin was on the record of over 100 Communist front affiliations. In an article that he wrote for "Soviet Russia Today"(September 1934), "When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." He goes on to say, "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental." He also wrote in a book commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Harvard graduating class of 1905 (in 1935), "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth: Communism is the goal."
Dr. Harry Ward, the first chairman of the ACLU, was linked to over 200 front affiliations of the Communist Party. And was the chairman of one of the largest front organizations in this country, "The American League for Peace and Democracy." Which was placed on a list of subversive organizations by the Attorney General of The United States on June 1, 1948. Dr. Ward authored two pro-Soviet books, "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit", which garnered him an investigation by the California State Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities. The Committee stated on page 246 of their report, "The Communist affiliation of Dr. Harry F. Ward is indicative of the Communist sympathies of the members and sponsors of the 'Friends of the Soviet Union.'"
Since this history is far reaching, I will continue this subject in tomorrow's main posting. I don't wish to overwhelm my readers with too much information. But should you wish to read up on this subject further, you can read the entire Congressional Record for September 20, 1961, by clicking on the title of this post. It is rather eye opening.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 180 blogs already on-board
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 26, 2006
Judicial Legislation: The Destructive Power of Injunctions (Stop the ACLU post)
The judiciary has been characterized as what should be the weakest branch of government and for good cause. When a judge pronounces broad and sweeping judgments about what is or is not a "right" it bypasses democracy and establishes juristocracy. Such governments cannot be considered free.
An enormous amount of trust is placed in judges. This can be seen in the Alito confirmation that is feared to "tilt the country to the right". This language largely means that the Democrats are afraid that Alito is not going to vote the Democrat party line in court cases. But that's not the real issue. Why does a judge have the power to tilt the country to the right or the left? What happened to the legislature being able to write laws and courts applying them?
The problem with courts setting the laws largely revolves around how cases are decided. For each case there are two and generally only two sides. In cases involving civil rights and such you have the party who feels they have been harmed and you have the government. The judgment of the court based upon the statements of the single individual (or group) harmed and the statements of the judge can have an effect on the entirety of the population without any contribution or participation on their part. This is largely why the opinion that lawyers don't "write the law" is largely irresponsible as it tries to dissolve any argument that lawyers might have some moral responsibility.
Take Roe v Wade which had on one side Norma McCorvey and on the other side the state of Texas. The Supreme Court created abortion on demand as the law of the land based on the arguments of those parties. Amicus briefs are fine, but they don't rise to the same level as courtroom participation. Not only did no other interested parties get to participate, a national law was created without as much as a vote of the American people.
Lobbyists and special interests may be a dirty thing in the legislature, but at least for each issue there tends to be at least two groups that oppose each other vying for influence. In a courtroom, there is no one to speak for the desires of the varied opinions of the hundreds of millions of Americans who may be effected by a judicial injunction telling the government what laws they can pass, what laws they cannot pass, what they must set their tax rate at, what they must fund projects with, and a wide variety of issues that, until recently, were seen as part of the political process, not the judicial process.
Constitutional law has largely become a joke. It can no longer be considered that the practical exercise of constitutional law is based on the Constitution. When the Constitution was signed, representatives of the people were there representing their constituents. When a judge signs an injunction that significantly modifies or changes the agreement that was made, who does he represent? He wasn't voted into office by anyone. He doesn't represent anyone. He simply makes the laws, and the unbridled power allows for rampant misinterpretations of the law and constitution.
If the left is afraid of Alito as a Supreme Court justice it is because they have created a system that gives judges far too much power. If gay marriage should be law of the land, there is a process to do it. When people desired desegregation, they passed laws and constitutional amendments. Running into court to impose radically new social and legal norms is the refuge of those who wish to impose tyranny.
Lastly, some would argue there wouldn't be a Brown v Board of Education without an activist court. Activist courts may sometimes get things right and do what is best for society. But for every Brown v Board there is a Dred Scott. And when they get it wrong, you can't just vote the bums out.
See Stop the ACLU for the latest anti-ACLU efforts.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 12, 2006
Stop the ACLU: They're not against prayer, they're against Christianity
It is happening all across the nation. The ACLU sue city counsel after city counsel over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsel meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick. This was the case in Fredericksburg. But one man isn't taking things lying down.
Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner has filed suit against his fellow council members, saying the council's newly adopted prayer policy violates his constitutional rights.Turner is being represented by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates for free expression issues.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, asks the court to rule that the city's prayer policy is unconstitutional, and to order that Turner be allowed back into the council's prayer rotation.
The council voted 5-1 in November to adopt a policy of offering non-denominational prayers devoid of any Christian or other specific religious references.
Turner abstained from that vote, and Councilman Matt Kelly voted against the policy.
The vote came after Turner had been excluded from the council prayer rotation for more than a year. The council got a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in July 2004 saying that the civil liberties group would file suit if Turner continued to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his prayers.
Turner, who is pastor at First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, had always closed his prayers before council meetings by invoking the name of Jesus Christ before the ACLU complaint.
On the same night of the November vote for the nondenominational prayer policy, Turner asked to be put back into the prayer rotation, and to give the opening prayer before the Nov. 22 council meeting.
Mayor Tom Tomzak said today he asked Councilwoman Debby Girvan to give the prayer at that meeting instead of Turner, because, "I did not want to unleash a 1,000-pound gorilla-the ACLU-on the City Council."
However, Tomzak said he does believe Turner's rights are being violated, and the suit filed today is "a lawsuit that I probably agree with."
"He's a very passionate man, a man of faith and a man of principle, and he believes his rights have been violated," Tomzak said of Turner.
Neither City Council members nor City Attorney Kathleen Dooley had seen copies of the lawsuit earlier today.
The suit calls the new prayer policy "an unlawful attempt by the City Council to prescribe the content of prayers given at City Council meetings by Turner and other members of City Council."
John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said Turner approached his organization last fall, saying he believed his rights were being violated. "All he wants is to say Jesus Christ at the end of the prayer," Whitehead said. "He's not asking for any money. ... It's a very simple suit."
One would think that it would be simple, yet the ACLU don't seem to get that. Religious expression in America is under attack. It is a shame that an organization that claims to protect our rights are the number one censor of Christian religious expression. If they were trying to get rid of all prayer at counsel meetings, we would have a different argument, but they are targeting Christian prayers and individual expression. It is good to see this man is standing up for his rights. More people should do so.
Currently there is legislation, introduced by Representative Hostettler that could put a stop to these ridiculous lawsuits. Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.
SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 28, 2005
Why Does the ACLU Hate the Troops?
Many have heard the ongoing debate on military recruiters in schools and the counter-recruitment efforts of the Left. Some schools are going so far as to sue the federal government on the grounds that their free speech is adversely affected by being compelled to allow military recruiters on campus in exchange for federal money. Get that? Schools (government actors) say their free speech is prevented because of conditions in accepting federal money don’t allow them to deny free speech to military recruiters (government actors). War is peace and all that. You know the drill.
Enter the ACLU. An organization that is solely devoted to the protection of the bill of rights is in the role of advocating the removal of military recruiters from schools and campuses. Much like their war on abstinence education, this isn't an issue having to do with rights. You are free to listen to a recruiter, to ignore a recruiter, and to have protests about recruiters in schools. But the presence of a recruiter in no way, shape, or form impedes anyone's rights.
The ACLU and others are not fighting military recruiting because it is a Bill of Rights issue. Nothing in the Bill of Rights implies that one has an absolute right to never be presented with ideas you disagree with, or, in this case, someone else being presented ideas you disagree with. They are fighting military recruiters because they insist only THEIR policies and ideas be presented. They fight Christmas because Christianity is unacceptable in the public sphere. They fight abstinence education because that ideas is unacceptable. Likewise they fight military recruiters because people signing up to serve is unacceptable. This is not the advocacy and welcoming of free speech, this is the enforcement through judicial fiat of social conformity.
You can't be all you can be if you're dead, reads one sign. This is the side that the ACLU is on, the side that is against the troops. The side that says America is not worth dying for. The side that says people are stupid to serve. The side that says an 18 year old is too young and ignorant to join the military but a 14 year old is old enough to make intelligent choices about getting an abortion. The side that is trying to disarm us in the hopes that our weakness there is strength. The side that insists on due process rights for unlawful combatants not entitled to them by law, but routinely undermines due process rights of soldiers awaiting trial for their abuse of prisoners.
Our pre-9/11 response was weakness. Did that help? Osama was quite clear and is quite clear; he thinks he can win because we are weak. Our Asia allies worry that we can't win a war against China. The ACLU is on the fronts making sure we can't.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:34 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 27, 2005
Stop The ACLU Blogburst
Here it is over at Stop The ACLU.
Unfortunately too busy for studying to have something of my own this week.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 29, 2005
Stop the ACLU: The War on Abstinence
The ACLU has delcared war on abstinence education. The "guardian of civil rights" has determined that such programs are dangerous according to the Waxman report that I debunked last year. That report did not say all abstinence education programs contained errors, and included programs as erroneous because of ludicrous things such as the word "snuggling" as suggesting religion. The ACLU has picked the parts of the report out that the liked and started to run with it.
Skipping past the labeling of policy decisions they don't agree with as "dangerous", exactly what in abstinence education violates anyone's civil liberties? Parents are perfectly free to get condoms for their kids, buy them porn, or show them how to use sex toys. Abstinence education does not impede anyone from doing anything; it is the suggestion that one ought not to do anything. Yet, the ACLU considers this issue a matter of reproductive freedom.
Simply put, this is not a legal fight to protect anyone's rights. This is a fight to advance a specific agenda that has nothing to do with rights. Teachers are not running around arresting children for having sex.
They suggest that abstinence education is dangerous because kids will do it anyway and won't have essential information to protect themselves. The story goes they must be informed on all the choices such as Plan B, and amusing ironic name considering that safe sex is supposed to be safe (and not require Plan B's). Kids simply won't listen when being told not to have sex.
However, the same people insist on DARE programs in schools which tell kids to stay off drugs. Do we get rid of these programs too? Should we take out DARE and instead introduce a program that shows kids how to do drugs properly to minimize the chance of contracting Hep C?
Critics have said that the ACLU is not interested in defending civil liberties as much as they are fighting for the advancement of a certain agenda. This latest war on abstinence is the best example of this in action. No rights are being violated but the ACLU is on the scene to prevent the dissemination of messages that they disagree with.
This was a production of Stop The ACLUblogburst. Over 100 blogs are already on board. If you want to join us, just register through our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info on how to get aboard and fight the ACLU.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 26, 2005
Is the ACLU Anti-Christian?
Many people view the ACLU as anti-Christian (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union, etc). With all the cases they take beating away any symbol of Jesus in the public square, it's hard to think they AREN'T anti-Christian. As the new symbol of Los Angeles shows, they don't seem to have a problem with other religions, just Christianity it appears. The question is, are they really anti-Christian?
The ACLU says they are the guardian of liberty who works to defend and preserve individual rights. However, they are less fighting for something than fighting against something. They fight against intelligent design and abstinence education not because they infringe on rights, but because they are part of an order they believe needs to be abolished.
Being anti-Christian implies that they intend to specifically attack Christianity as an end of itself. As Roger Baldwin (a co-founder of the ACLU) said of the goals of the ACLU:
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted, and I traveled the United Front road to get it.
The ACLU's actions are a part of a political worldview they hold. It was founded by communists and though many members and lawyers would say they aren't communist today that foundation influences the way they look at things. They are militant privacy advocates and anti-government to the point of wanting to take away valid tools from law enforcement. This is why they helped Rush Limbaugh, not because they support his speech, but because their causes temporarily aligned when the Florida prosecutor's office seized his medical records unjustly. That is not to say that the government is lily white when it comes to privacy, but to say that monitoring phone calls of suspected terrorists leads to a police state is ludicrous and scare-mongering.
The ACLU attacks the traditional foundation of the family in society. This is why they fight against parental notification of abortions, school choice, and the parent's role in educating their children. In fact, they attack traditional forms of authority beyond that of the state. In communist nations, the state is the highest authority and all needs and actions must be made in connection with what is best for the state. That is why you can talk about purges and gulags and communists don't flinch. Communism requires them.
Their attacks on Christianity aren't designed to eradicate Christianity, per se. They are designed to establish a social order (or more appropriately destroy the existing order) and customs that advance their ideas and Christianity isn't a part of it. In short, they aren't anti-Christian in intent, they are anti-Christian in effect.
Thanks to OTB
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 22, 2005
Stop the ACLU: Stop the Pilfering of Tax Dollars
Many cases the ACLU takes are settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars before actually entering a court room. When an agency is sued by the ACLU, they are rightfully intimidated. The ACLU is a national organization with huge resources to call upon. Elementary schools, for instance, don't have teams of lawyers standing by. They don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for lawyers who will fight for the school. Instead, they roll-over and take the easy road, just give the ACLU what they want.
In some circles this would be called extortion. In law, it is apparently called civil rights justice.
I have yet to get a satisfactory answer as to why someone who sues a city government for the use of a religious symbol gets $1 and the ACLU gets over a million. Here's this week's blogburst.
=======
On 1, Oct. 19, 1976 Congress passed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which gave the Courts the power to award attorney's fees in civil rights cases to the prevailing party. 'The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976' was passed with high hopes, and the good intentions that it would help provide relief for individuals that might not otherwise be able to afford the expenses of defending their civil liberties if they were violated. The ACLU, and other judicial activitist have completely turned the intentions of this amendment on its head.
Whenever the ACLU fights voluntary prayer in school, a war memorial because it's in the shape of a cross, ten commandment displays, or keeping the boyscouts from military sponsorship, and they win, you pay for their attorney's fees.
What was intended to protect people from having their civil rights violated has been twisted by the ACLU to use as leverage when they threaten small schools and communities that can't afford to defend themselves from the well funded, and well staffed ACLU bully. Yes, legislation intended to protect civil liberties is often used to supress religious expression by the likes of the ACLU.
There is currently legislation in the House introduced by Representive Hostettler that hopes to remedy its abuse. It is an amendment that limits the attorney fees in Establishment Clause cases to injuctive relief only. In other words, if the ACLU wants to pick a fight over someone praying in public, or a ten commandments display that offends one sensitive athiest, they'll have to dig into their own deep pockets, and it will not come from yours.
We want your voice to be heard in D.C. supporting this legislation. It's really simple, all we need is your autograph.
SIGN THE PETITION TO GET THE ACLU OFF THE TAXPAYER'S DOLE
This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. If you would like to join our efforts to fight the ACLU, it's very simple. Just register at our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info you will need. Over 100 blogs already on board. Join us!
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:58 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 15, 2005
Stop the ACLU: The Source of Rights in the United States
Did you know that the Constitution makes an explicit reference to Jesus Christ as Lord?
From the Signature section:
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.
It's common knowledge that the "AD" dating system is a reference to the life of Christ, that's why some scholars are trying to change "AD" to "ACE" (after common era) to not offend Muslims and the like. More importantly, it is calling it the year of "our Lord", our being the collective pronoun which implies that it is the Lord for all the signers.
It is important to not be unwelcoming to those of other faiths or no faith, but that does not translate into the need to mute all Christian beliefs in the public square, or to require that all public officials be atheist. Our founding was ripe with religious references, and more important, the source of our rights which makes the US distinct is based on religion.
Other nations give rights to its citizens out of its largesse. It can give rights and take rights away at will because they are rights the state can bestow. Not so in the United States. God has granted man certain inalienable rights that the government has no business taking in the first place. The United States can't take away the free speech of a person because it has no legal or moral power to do so. It doesn't grant free speech, we already have it, it simply does not get in the way. The acceptance of a higher power than the state is the cornerstone of the entire doctrine of rights in the United States, take it away and there is nothing stopping the government from repealing or amending, say, the First Amendment. The United States can't give away a right to an education or a right to health care because rights aren't for the government to give.
Here's this week's Stop the ACLU Blogburst.
===========
Just yesterday a lefty judge ruled the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional. It's pretty simple, either we are a nation under God, or a nation without God. I'm not sure the far left know how dangerous it is that they are trying to take God out of our history, and how fragile our moral fabric has become. It wasn't that long ago the out of control judicial branch ruled in favor of the federal government to take away our private property. There is no doubt the judicial branch has too much power that goes unchecked. It's time Congress step up and put a stop to the judicial tyranny and legislation from the bench. Rehnquist said it should be an impeachable offense. I completely agree.
Part of the process of exposing the radical agenda of the ACLU is to expose some of the deceptive tactics that it uses. One of those methods is often referred to as "spinning". One example of this is to take a quote from someone, take it out of context, and claim that it means something completely different than it's original intent. That is the case in one lie that the ACLU uses in many cases....
Not that many people could quote you the first amendment, but many would tell you that it refers to separation of church and state. That is a common misconception, and is absolutely not true. The words "separation of Church and State" are not in the first amendment. What the first amendment does say is,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."This falsehood comes up almost every time religion and politics touch, and usually by the ACLU. Most recently it has come up with the issue of the ten commandments case.
So where did this myth come from?
It all started with a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Danburry Baptist Association in 1802. The focus is on a portion of the letter where Jefferson states, "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state..." Jefferson wrote this letter to the Danburry Baptist Association to assure them in their concerns that the government would not establish a national denomination.
One of the most significant in a series of cases heard by the Supreme Court on the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment was Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). It was in this case that the phrase "Wall of separation of Church and State" became the cry of the far-left, and anti-Christian movement.
Intent of The Founding Fathers
So, was the original intent of our founding fathers to keep religion completely out of the government? Well, I will let them speak for themselves.
If Jefferson believed that the government should keep its hands out of religion completely, then why, while President of the United States, and the first elected president of the Washington, D.C. public school board, did he place the Bible and the Isaac Watt's hymnal into the public school system as required reading?Source
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God."Quote(Gouverneur Morris, 1792, Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France.)
Founding father who physically wrote the Constitution, and most active member of Constitutional Convention, spoke 173 times on the floor.Source
"Why...should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed last long; and, probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes hold of the mind."Quote
(Fisher Ames, The Works of Fisher Ames, 1809.) Founding father who on September 20, 1789 helped provide the wording for the First Amendment. Source
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.... The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.... Let it simply be asked, 'Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?' ...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
(George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)Quote
These are just a few quotes showing how the founding fathers recognized religion's place in the founding of our government. The First Amendment was meant to ensure the churches protection from government interference. Not vice versa.
"There was a secular study done by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era, which was 1760-1805.
This study found that 94% of the documents that went into the founding era were based on the Bible, and of that 34% of the contents were direct quotations from the Bible.
88% of students nationwide are educated in the public school system.
The Bible was the foundation and blueprint for our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, educational system, and our entire history until the last 20 to 30 years".Source
As a matter of fact, Congress funded the printing of the first English language Bible printed in America. It came to be known as the "Bible of the American Revolution".
Who Has Endowed You With Your Rights?
It is a very important question, because whoever gives you the rights also has the power to take them away. Is it the state or God? Here is what the Declaration of Independence has to say about it:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Source
If you believe that your rights come from the state or society and not God, it brings up the question that George Washington asked...
"..Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?' ...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
(George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)
Or the one that Jefferson himself asked...""Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
(Thomas Jefferson,Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781.)
And in summary, I will ask the same question. If you completely remove God from having any role in our government, you have handed your rights over to the State. The founders unanimously agreed that our rights were endowed to us by a Creator. They all signed the famous declaration that stated so. So, their intent should be obvious. It will be a scary day for those in the majority who believe in a deity, if the State tries to assume that role. Especially when it comes to our civil rights. And the secular direction that America is being pushed in is leading us far away from the original intent of our founding fathers. When the Courts have assumed the role of stripping us of our first amendment rights to express religion, they are playing God! And the fact that this is already beginning to happen, is a legitimate thing for us to fear.
It's time we stand up and make our voices known.This was a production of stop the ACLU blogburst. Over 100 blogs already onboard. If you would like to join us please just go to our portal, and register. You will be added to our mailing list, and we will send you the information you will need.
For sites already on board, See Here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:20 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
August 31, 2005
Still Think the ACLU is All Goodness and Light, Glenn?
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
It's Time to Grow Up, Glenn
Link Looting? Don't you think that's in a little poor taste comparing someone having a, albeit heated, disagreement with you about the ACLU?
Sure, the ACLU does some good things, but they are a part of the larger encroachment of the federal government in general and the judiciary in specific, something as a lawyer you apparently see no problem with. Let's recap.
Any abortion regulation is now a federal question, even when we're dealing with . Whether or not states can protect their kids from pedophiles is now a federal question. Whether intelligent design or evolution or both is taught in the classroom is now a federal question. Whether local school boards can decide to teach students abstinence is now a federal question. The ACLU is at the forefront of federalizing every policy dispute and instead of people dealing with things democratically at the lowest level, we are left with a system where every policy decision must be approved by a judge. That is not democracy; that is juristocracy.
When you have ACLU leaders comparing religious people with terrorists and saying all prayer is immoral, is it any wonder why people of faith are suspicious? When the ACLU supports revoking the tax-exempt status of churches (despite the fact they aren't businesses and don't produce anything) is it a wonder why we question their values?
Is a mass-delinking appropriate here because of a disagreement, maybe not. But comparing people who dislink you because of your politics to the looters in New Orleans is beyond the pale. We realize as a professor you might not take criticism well, but do try to not make every disagreement a moral failing of your opponents.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 25, 2005
The ACLU Declares Jihad on Abstinence Education
In a direct attack against common sense, the ACLU has waged a relentless war against teaching kids the simple fact that if you don’t have sex, you don’t get pregnant or get STDs. The ACLU applauded a recent decision by the federal government to suspend funding to Silver Ring Thing because it was using the money to evangelize and convert people. While they are very correct that this was a misuse of funds, it is part of a larger campaign to kick abstinence education out of the schools as inherently religious. In fact, a recent study by Rep. Waxman (that has been debunked) cited religion as a primary concern about these programs. The ACLU agrees.
They cite evidence that abstinence education programs do not work. History disproves this as we haven’t had anything close to the rates of single mothers, teenage pregnancies, or STD infections before sex-ed was taught in schools. For centuries, if not millennia, telling people to reserve sex for marriage worked. If they want proof, look back 100 years. Abstinence works every time it’s tried.
The irony is that while suggesting there is proof that abstinence education does not work, Planned Parenthood (through their research arm) has inadvertently shown that sex-ed and easy access to birth control has not slowed unintended pregnancies, reduced abortion, or reduced STD infections. Their recent report says:
“54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.”
Easy access to contraception has INCREASED the rate of infections of AIDS in Africa. Condoms are unable to protect against the single biggest cause of cervical cancer, HPV. Sex-ed in schools is based around teaching children “Hey, its ok, go out, have fun, just use a condom and you’ll be ok.” There is no attempt to deal with the emotional maturity issues regarding sex which leaves children so unprepared that the rate of kids committing suicide increases with sexual activity. They talk about moral programming and how it is ineffective at teaching youth abstinence, but rely on moral programming to teach them to use condoms.
The facts are these: abstinence education works and throwing condoms at kids doesn’t. If you aren’t ready to be a daddy you might want to think about not having sex which is the only effective way to not become one.
Thanks to OTB, Stop The ACLU, Basil's Blog
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 18, 2005
La. ACLU Head Compares People Who Believe in Higher Power to Terrorists
On Monday, the school board of Tangipahoa Parish in Louisiana had their meeting and was asked by the ACLU to remind teachers not to allow prayer at school functions. In an astounding aside, the First Amendment has become a restriction on private individuals on where and when they can express their religion. The statement was not school sponsored prayer but prayer at all, including presumably spontaneous prayer by students. How the Louisiana ACLU can reconcile the position that no one be allowed to pray in school with their belief in the right of free expression and freedom of religion is left to the reader.
On this occasion the head of the Louisiana ACLU, Joe Cook, had this to say about people who believe in religion (HT: Lone Star Times:
”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.”
No amount of parsing can take the meaning of this quote away. The head of the ACLU in Louisiana believes that if you believe in God you will eventually be led to fly planes into buildings, become a suicide bomber, or decapitate people on TV. You may believe that religion should be stricken in the public square even when the expresser is a private individual but the statement that people who believe in a higher power are on the road to terrorism should be offensive.
This was spoken by the head of the ACLU in Louisiana and therefore can be taken as an official position by that unit, if not the entire ACLU as a whole. If you are outraged by this, contact the Louisiana ACLU and the National ACLU to get them to repudiate such hateful and bigoted remarks.
ACLU of Louisiana
PO Box 56157
New Orleans, LA 70156-6157
(866) 522-0617
National ACLU Feedback Form here
Others talking about this: Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, StoptheACLU
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:37 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
August 15, 2005
Big News over at StopTheACLU
StopTheAclu has big news. First, it is gaining greater visibility as the public reacts more and more to the ACLU jurisprudence that is being imposed on us against our will.
Second, WND has an article on it as well, and a new campaign with the Alliance Defense Fund to get the word out to Churches on the negative impact the ACLU is having on religious freedom.
Canada is a good example of what to come. If you are Catholic and speak the Church's teaching on the matter of gay marriage you can be sued. Here, in Illinois the law does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, even when those behaviors directly contradict the teaching of the Church. There is no religious exemption and the Legislature was quite clear that there wasn't going to be one. These are nothing but naked attempts to allow freedom of religion ONLY when it is compatible with a certain agenda, and if it is not the religion needs to change.
Get involved today.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:13 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 11, 2005
The ACLU and the Overturning of the Constitution
An appeals court has ruled that Arizona citizens can in fact vote on binding propositions. Recently, Proposition 200 was voted on in Arizona which required proof of citizenship to receive government benefits which illegal immigrants are not entitled to under law. The ACLU and the Mexican government argued on behalf of those trying to throw out the proposition. They lost on the appellate level however the promise to appeal "to the Supreme Court and even the UN."
Skipping past the issue of illegal immigration for a moment, at what point was the Declaration of Dependence signed? When did the constitutionality of Arizona voter propositions become a matter of international "law"? When Americans travel to Europe, they have to pay for health care, why is it all the sudden different when people illegally cross a US boarder that they become de facto citizens entitled to all the benefits including voting? At what point did all local laws and propositions of the United States require approval from the UN General Assembly? The ACLU is trying to overturn a democratically initiated policy by subjecting all US policy decisions to UN deliberation.
Let's be honest, if you grant welfare and free health care to illegal immigrants you are only encouraging people to come over here and do nothing. It's one thing to cross the border to work; it's another to cross the border for free government money. One could see Mexico's position; they want that money flowing back across the border (as it does) to the family members back home.
The ACLU here is actually arguing that it is illegal to deny government benefits to those who come here illegally. The irony is that in so doing they are only ultimately going to bankrupt that very system by imposing large numbers of people on it and creating a huge incentive for people to cross the border every time they have a cold. If the ACLU doesn't like the immigration law they should change it and we can have an intelligent discussion on that issue. What is unacceptable is arguing that US sovereignty has been abolished by the World Court.
International "Law" was never meant to impose domestic policy on sovereign nations, but the ACLU is looking to impose these very standards on the US because they can't win at the polls. The voters have spoken and the ACLU is attacking democracy in response out of an apparent contempt for the people who want their laws enforced.
In effect, they are trying to rewrite the Preamble of the Constitution as follows:
We the Elite of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Bureaucracy, establish Secular Humanism, insure global Tranquility by silencing hate speech, provide for the common defense if that's of with France, demote the Welfare of those we consider privileged while securing our own wealth, and secure the Benefits of Socialism for ourselves because there will be no posterity, do impose and establish this Living Constitution for the United States of America, so help us Kofi Annan.
See other posts on the ACLU at StoptheACLU
Also see the latest at OTB
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:08 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
