September 17, 2009
Pledge of Confusion? Schools Wrestle With Flag Policy in Classroom
Pledge of Confusion? Schools Wrestle With Flag Policy in Classroom
It's a new school year, but an old fight is brewing in American classrooms. Teachers and administrators around the country are scratching their heads once again over the Pledge of Allegiance.
The courts have consistently ruled that students have the right not to recite the pledge in public schools. But now some First Amendment advocates are taking it one step further, arguing that the law compels educators to inform kids at the beginning of school that the decision is entirely up to them.
They're advocating a "Miranda warning" for the Pledge -- an administrative notice to students that they have the right to remain silent.
“The Pledge of Allegiance creates a constitutional problem. You have to tell students they can opt out,” the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told FOX News.
New Mexico dealt with this question last month when its education secretary upheld that students are permitted to opt out of the Pledge, but rejected an ACLU-backed amendment that would require schools to inform parents and students that they have the option.
In Florida, schools have tried to resolve uncertainty by announcing a new policy — students don't have to participate, as long as they have a letter from Mom and Dad.
These are just the latest in a litany of challenges to the Pledge and its place in the classroom.
Americans have recited the tribute to the stars and stripes since the oath was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, in 1892. But Bellamy's pledge did not include the words "under God," which were added by Congress in 1954 during the McCarthy era, when Cold War tensions with the Soviet Union — an atheist nation — were high in the United States.
Thirty-six states now have laws requiring that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited daily in public schools. But the oath as it's written does not sit well with some Americans.
“The Pledge doesn’t even state the truth. We are not one nation under God," Lynn said. "I don’t think we should lie to students, and there’s no way we can require them to say it.”
But supporters of the Pledge insist that the words are both constitutional and an important part of our national heritage.
“There has been a recurring effort by the ACLU and others to try to stop the Pledge of Allegiance from being said. The fact of the matter is that the American people like the Pledge of Allegiance, they like it the way it is,” Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, told FOXNews.com.
“The teachers are government employees, their paychecks are paid by the taxpayers, and the American people support the Pledge. I’m with the American people,” Schlafly said.
The majority of Americans do, in fact, overwhelmingly support the Pledge of Allegiance in its current form. A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll from November of 2005 showed that 90 percent of Americans approve of the oath. Only 7 percent of people polled said they would change the language of the Pledge, while three percent of Americans were undecided.
The Pledge's popularity aside, the Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that mandating a student to participate in the oath was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
Now the ACLU and other critics of the Pledge are taking the dispute a step further — arguing that students, whether they do or don't support the oath, should be told up front that they are not required to recite the words.
They lost the first round in New Mexico last month, when state Education Secretary Veronica Garcia ruled not to change state policy — which requires that the Pledge be recited daily — to inform students of their right to opt out.
"The department believes that the existing rule and practice in schools respects the rights of all students," Garcia said a statement. "Any issues related to rights of students will be handled at the local school district level," the statement read.
New Mexico ACLU Director Peter Simonson protested the ruling, telling the Associated Press, "I think it's a cop-out not to affirmatively state that students have a First Amendment right not to participate in the Pledge." Simonson declined to elaborate when contacted by FOXNews.com.
In Florida, ACLU attorney Randall Marshall successfully argued a case before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of high school student, Cameron Frazier, who abstained from reciting the Pledge because of “personal political beliefs” and, according to the lawsuit, was “singled out and humiliated” by his teacher.
“We made the case that students must be informed that they are not required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance,” Marshall told FOXNews.com.
"It’s not a challenge to the content of the Pledge. Only that students be informed that they are not required to recite it."
The following words were spoken by the late Red Skelton on his television program as he related the story of his teacher, Mr. Laswell, who felt his students had come to think of the Pledge of Allegiance as merely something to recite in class each day.
I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?"
I - - Me; an individual; a committee of one.
Pledge - - Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance - - My love and my devotion.
To the Flag - - Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.
United - - That means that we have all come together.
States - - Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.
And to the Republic - - Republic--a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands
One Nation - - One Nation--meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible - - Incapable of being divided.
With Liberty - - Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice - - The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.
For All - - For All--which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?
----Red Skelton
"Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave?
Sure I love my country with all her faults.
I'm not ashamed of that, never have been and never will be." --- John Wayne.
.
Wild Thing's comment........
I love it in school when we recited the Pledge, we stood by our desks and faced our Flag. All of us puttng our hand over our heart. I still love how it feels and always will.
....Thank you Richard for sending this to me.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:47 AM | Comments (6)
June 28, 2009
Veterans Fight to Keep 75-yr. old Mojave Desert Memorial Cross
In 1934, WWI Veterans erected a monument to honor their comrades who had died in battle. The ACLU now wants to tear it down, and all public memorials like it, because of its religious imagery.
After WWI many U.S. soldiers moved to the Californian desert to find physical and emotional healing. In 1934, they erected a memorial to honor their fallen comrades, a single white cross, - a symbol used around the world to memorialize those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
The site for the memorial was chosen because at a certain time of day, the sun casts a shadow on the rock which resembles a WWI doughboy. For more than 75 years, the memorial has stood as a reminder that there were those who fought and died for our freedoms. But sadly today, the ACLU and a federal judge in California, want to tear it down. In fact, the judge has ordered the memorial covered from view while the case is on appeal. Please join us in saying "donttearmedown." We think Americans should honor their war heroes and the freedoms they so valiantly protect; and we're taking our case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. Please join us in this battle, go to www.donttearmedown.com.
The Mojave Desert Memorial Cross has stood proudly for over 75 years, honoring our American war dead. Or it was until the ACLU stepped in and got a judge to rule the memorial to World War I veterans unconstitutional. They covered the cross with a bag, and when that didn't work, they boarded it up in a plywood box. Now, they're threatening to tear down this national monument because they don't believe America should have religious imagery anywhere on public property.
Wild Thing's comment........
The ACLU is so terrible, they stand along side the worst of America like Obama whom they backed. They all have a special place in hell.
God bless these American Heroes, I sure hope they can keep their Memorial.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:40 AM | Comments (10)
September 14, 2006
Stop The ACLU Blogburst
ACLU Claims Victory: Attorneys Not Required to Sign Terrorism Oaths
Crossposted from: Stop The ACLU
Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism. "We are pleased the court recognized that attorneys should not be forced to sign these ineffective and offensive pledges," said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link. "The Ohio Patriot Act is an assault on the fundamental liberties of all Ohioans. Hopefully, this decision is a stepping stone to reining in this overreaching and flawed law."
I have only one question here. Why does the ACLU of Ohio have a problem giving an oath that they are not terrorists and are not involved with terrorist groups? What the law is attempting to do is ensure people have not supported terrorist organizations.
The law requires applicants under final consideration for a government job, contract or license to complete and sign questionnaires to determine if they have supported organizations on a federal list of terrorists.
Actually this isn't suprising.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because they objected to promising that none of the funds would be used to engage in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state. They got the provision scrapped after a long and vigorous fight, then accepted the funds.
The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations today said they have successfully challenged Office of Personnel Management's Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) requirements that all participating charities check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for "terrorist activities" and that organizations certify that they do not contribute funds to organizations on those lists.
So what was it in this that the ACLU objected to? Here's what the CFC letter said.
"I certify that as of (date), the organization in this application does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on the following terrorist related lists promulgated by the U.S. Government, the United Nations, or the European Union. Presently these lists include the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Nationals List, the Department of Justice's Terrorist Exclusion List, and the list annexed to Executive Order 13224. Should any change of circumstances occur during the year OPM will be notified within 15 days of such change."
Obviously the ACLU had a problem ensuring the exlusion of terrorists from its funds and employment. What a shame.
It isn't difficult to understand why the ACLU would object to such terms, after all they have defended numerous terrorists, including an individual that participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. With the help of CAIR, they also defended an admitted agent of Al Qaeda that has confessed to attending jihad camps in Afghanistan, and is being charged with lying to the FBI about his terror ties and activities. Palestinian terrorists have also found a friend in the ACLU.
I don't see what the problem is. The State doesn't want its money going to individuals that might support terror. What problem does the ACLU have with not supporting terror? Why don't they just come out and say that they do support it? What is absurd is that no one is investigating the ACLU for terror ties. Start out with one or two of its employees, and go from there.
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 200 blogs already onboard.
Posted by Wild Thing at 12:52 AM | Comments (4)
September 07, 2006
ACLU All Touchie Feelie For Terrorists Rights
ACLU Accuses Bush Of Gutting Geneva Conventions Enforcement and Undermining Due Process For Terror Detainees
It isn't surprising that the ACLU were quick to react to Bush's jaw dropping speech admitting to secret CIA prisons and pushing Congress to pass legislation that would put captured terror suspects under the rule of a military tribunal.
Via ACLU:
America is a nation dedicated to upholding the rule of law. However, President Bush's draft proposal for military commissions fails to meet the standards recognized by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The court held the President's initial military commission scheme was illegal because it violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the most basic standards regarding treatment of detainees. The new proposal has nearly all of the same problems, and will eventually be found to be illegal. For example, it would allow a person to be convicted based on secret evidence and would allow the use of evidence obtained as the result of horrific abuse.
Of course the ACLU automatically accuse the U.S. of using horrific abuse to obtain our evidence without any evidence whatsoever to back that claim up. You can also bet that if one of their terrorist plaintiffs were to go before our court system they would make the claim that any evidence we have against them was obtained through such procedures and argue it was inadmissible. This is only one of hundreds of reasons that Congress needs to pass the legislation the President is requesting so these terrorist creeps, several of which are in the top Al Qaeda chain of command, need to go before a military tribunal. They are not American citizens and we can not afford the dangers involved in allowing them to be represented before the U.S. courts, in all probability represented by the ACLU.
"The president should have listened to the current Judge Advocates General for the four military services, all of whom have urged close adherence to the court-martial procedures, and all of whom oppose the use of secret evidence and coerced evidence. By contrast, Senators John Warner (R-VA), John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are reportedly following the advice of these top generals and admirals and supporting due process protections that are more in line with the time-tested courts-martial procedures.
"The president also proposes to gut enforceability of the Geneva Conventions by amending the War Crimes Act to completely immunize from prosecution civilians who subjected persons to horrific abuse that may have fallen short of the definition of 'torture.' As a result, government officials and civilian contractors who authorized or carried out water boarding, threats of death, and other abuse would get a 'get out of jail free' card under the president's bill. The nation's soldiers and sailors would remain liable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but civilians would be immune from prosecution under the only statute that applies to many of these acts. That is simply wrong.
No, what is "simply wrong" is that cowards committed to terrorism and jihad against America that do are not signatories of nor abide by the Geneva Conventions should be afforded the protections of it. The sickening fact that the ACLU would steep low enough to represent an enemy of our nation to sue a military member for doing their job in capturing and interrogating these killers. This is exactly what the President is asking Congress to keep from happening. The President is asking Congress to make it clear what our protectors can and can not do and to protect them from prosecution of being sued by the very scum buckets they protect us from.
"The new Army Field Manual avoids some of the worst problems with earlier drafts and clarifies that those held by the military or at military facilities must be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, it then creates loopholes for so-called 'unlawful combatants' by depriving them of the same protections--and specifically authorizes holding persons in isolation. And, the new manual does not apply to those held by the CIA. The Bush proposal is lip service unless the executive branch actually holds people accountable for violating it.
"So called" unlawful combatants? If you are not abiding by the rules of being a lawful combatant then you aren't one. It is that simple. The ACLU are the ones looking for loop holes in the system, and the very reason they are so up and arms on this is that it closes them up. What the President is asking is for Congress to make the definitions clear. In the Hamdan case, which the ACLU played a major part in, the door was left wide open for Congress to clarify and create legislation making military tribunals the main process for due process dealing with terrorists caught on the battle field. What does the ACLU have against bringing these murderers to justice?
The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980's. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it's most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.
"The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that "promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state."
The Rockefeller Foundation's provisions state that recipients of its funds may not "directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity."
They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, to stop what they call profiling (we will never see a Protestant white middle-aged woman as a terrorist working with an extremist Islamic organization) by race, sex and religion, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations.
They tried to kill the Patriot Act because they see the rights of an individual who may or may not be an American citizen as more important than the safety of the nation at large. They want the borders open because they see that as an infringement of the rights of non-Americans to become Americans however they can manage it. They want to have military and intelligence sources, activities, and planning revealed to the public so they can "watch dog" and ensure freedoms of individuals and/or groups are not being compromised, but in doing so will enable those very individuals and/or groups under surveillance the ability to avoid surveillance and possible capture before they do something destructive to American citizens.
When it comes to America's enemies you can count on the ACLU to be there to defend them.
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 200 Blogs already onboard.
Posted by Wild Thing at 12:55 AM | Comments (4)
August 31, 2006
Stop The ACLU Blogburst
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
The ACLU thinks that parents have no right to know if their pregnant underage daughter is seeking an abortion.
vs. America
80% of Americans think that parents have the right to know if their minor daughters are seeking an abortion. (CBS News Poll July 13-14, 2005)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU believes anyone, for any reason at any time should be allowed to abort a child.
vs. America
75% of Americans believe that there should at least be some restrictions on abortion. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll June 24-26, 2005)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU opposes abstinence education.
vs. America
96% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that abstinence is the best approach to sex.
93% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that having sex leads to disease and pregnancy.
85 % of American parents with children under 17 want abstinence to be taught with at least equal emphasis as contraception receives.
79% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that teen sex leads to harmful psychological and physical effects. (http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1722.cfm )
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU has fought to have constitutionally-sound displays that include the Ten Commandments removed from public property.
vs. America
75% of Americans believe that the Ten Commandments should be displayed on public property. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll June 24-26, 2005)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU is on record as supporting polygamy.
vs. America
92% of Americans think polygamy is morally repugnant. (The Gallup Poll May 5-7, 2003)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU has filed cases across the nation to redefine marriage against the repeatedly expressed will of the people and, now the overwhelming affirmation by even Left-leaning courts that the state is justified in retaining the definition of marriage. (Note: the ACLU got smoked in an attempt to prevent Tennesseans from even having the opportunity to express their will at the polls this year.)
vs. America
21 states have recently voted to protect marriage by an average of 70%: Alaska 68%, Hawaii 69%, Nebraska 70%, California 61%, Nevada 67%, Arkansas 75%, Georgia 76%, Kentucky 75%, Louisiana 78%, Michigan 59%, Mississippi 86%, Missouri 71%, Montana 67%, North Dakota 73%, Ohio 62%, Oklahoma 76%, Oregon 57%, Utah 66%, Kansas 70%; Alabama 81%; Texas 76%
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU believes that children should be trapped in failed public schools, even inner-city children whose parents desperately want to escape the captivity of government education.
vs. America
69% of Americans believe that parents should be able to choose their child's public school rather than being assigned based solely on residence location. (http://www.edreform.com/_upload/2005ncsw-poll.pdf).
63% of Americans believe that parents should be able to choose the best school for their child, whether public or private. (Zogby International Polling July 2002)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU opposes personally-initiated prayer in school and moments of silence as well as individual acknowledgement of religious beliefs at public events.
vs. America
83% of Americans think prayer should be permitted during school activities including graduation ceremonies. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll June 25-27, 1999)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU has filed lawsuits and threatened cities and schools all across the country to prevent Christmas from being openly celebrated in public fora.
vs. America
96% of Americans celebrate Christmas
87% of Americans believe Christmas displays should be allowed on public property.
(FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll December 3-4, 2003)
________________________________________________________________
The ACLU has attacked Mt. Soledad memorial in San Diego since the the very beginning of Bush the Elder's Administration because it includes a cross. This is just one of countless examples of the ACLU's seek and destroy mission to eliminate all religious symbols from public grounds.
vs. America
76% of San Diegans voted to save the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial from the ACLU's attack on behalf of a single atheist. That atheist, Jim McElroy was quoted as saying following the vote: "It still doesn't mean a damn thing," he said, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Voters should have never voted on it. It's a waste of taxpayers' money."
_______________________________________________________________
The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: "What is right and Constitutional is not always popular." Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU's pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So...the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right...does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can't we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself.
This has been 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 200 blogs already on-board.
Posted by Wild Thing at 12:47 AM | Comments (6)
August 30, 2006
ACLU In Love With Terrorists
ACLU Wants Suspected Terrorists Allowed Back Into U.S.
U.S. Blocks Men’s Return to California From Pakistan
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 28 — Federal authorities have prevented two relatives of a father and son convicted recently in a terrorism-related case from returning home to California from Pakistan unless they agree to be interviewed by the F.B.I.The United States attorney, McGregor W. Scott, reiterated a comment he had made to The San Francisco Chronicle, which reported Saturday about the Ismails’ troubles.
“They’ve been given the opportunity to meet with the F.B.I. over there and answer a few questions, and they’ve declined to do that,” Mr. Scott said through a spokeswoman, Mary Wenger.
The Ismails live in Lodi, Calif., a small farming town south of Sacramento, where their relatives Umer Hayat and his son, Hamid, were arrested last summer as part of what federal prosecutors said was an investigation into terrorist links.
The Ismails discovered they were on the federal government’s no-fly list of people not allowed to enter the United States after they were refused permission to board a connecting flight in Hong Kong on April 21; they had been trying to return to California after several years in Pakistan, said Julia Harumi Mass of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, who is representing them.
Now lets get one thing straight… this is not a case of profiling. The FBI received information that Jaber had attending a Pakistani Terrorist Training camp. Now here comes this young man trying to return to the United States after being in Pakistan for 4 years doing “religious study”. I applaud the FBI and Department of Homeland Security for denying him access to this country until he submits to a polygraph test to determine if he has indeed attending a terrorist training camp.The ACLU on the other hand believes “They want to come home and have an absolute right to come home,” according to Julia Harumi Mass a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. An absolute right?? The term absolute right reflects rights that cannot be taken away, such as Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion. Suspected terrorists DO NOT have an absolute right to enter this country, even if they are US citizens!
Wild Thing's comment.....
I would like to know who the hell died and made the ACLU the boss, the leader of this country. Who the heck put them in charge of Homeland Security!!!
Posted by Wild Thing at 01:55 AM | Comments (10)
August 24, 2006
Do You Remember?
Please pause a moment, reflect; and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened!
Do you remember?
1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Lenno
c. Harry Potter
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
1. In 1972 at theMunich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. During the 1980s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American
passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver
trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988,Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as
missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one
crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the
passengers.Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremist s mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Wild Thing's comment......
This list is not complete of course it ends in 2002 but we all know what the answers would be if it had continued on up to this very day. Not any different at all.
CAIR and the ACLU do not like to have Muslims profiled. Something about we are picking on them. Boo Hoo, which is more important, to make sure a flight is safe or take our chances as it being the last flight of ones life.
The ACLU is completely anti-American and CAIR protects their Muslims and that is never going to change. But what CAN change is how tuff our leadership takes a stand on protecting this country and its citizens.
Posted by Wild Thing at 12:47 AM | Comments (6)
July 25, 2006
ACLU Sides With Troops Haters and America Haters
ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality.
The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps say God is allowing troops, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gay men and lesbians.
Missouri lawmakers were spurred to action after members of the church protested in St. Joseph, Mo., last August at the funeral of Army Spec. Edward L. Myers.
The law bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. Offenders can face fines and jail time.
A number of other state laws and a federal law, signed in May by President Bush, bar such protests within a certain distance of a cemetery or funeral.
In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message. It is asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and to issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced, which would allow the group to resume picketing.
"I told the nation, as each state went after these laws, that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps's daughter Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the church in Topeka, Kan. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."
Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said, "We're not going to acquiesce to anything that they're asking for in this lawsuit."
The suit names Nixon, Gov. Matt Blunt (R) and others as defendants.
Posted by Wild Thing at 12:47 AM | Comments (10)
July 20, 2006
Stop The ACLU Blogburst
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
ACLU Website:
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND -- A United Nations human rights body expressed grave concerns today about the record of human rights in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union with a delegation of 10 and working with a broad coalition of other groups is in Geneva to monitor the examination of the United States the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC).
In a two-day session that concluded today, the committee members pressured the United States for answers on the following issues:
The sentencing of children to life without parole and the disproportionate incarceration of minorities;
The militarization of the border;
The failure to prevent human rights violations and respond in a non discriminatory manner to Hurricane Katrina;
The failure to end racial profiling practices, specifically the profiling of South Asian convenience store employees in Georgia;
Warrantless spying on ordinary Americans;
The abuse of women in prison; and
The indefinite detention, rendition and torture of non-citizens."The U.S. should be ashamed of itself," said Ann Beeson, Director of the ACLU's Human Rights Program. "The review by the Human Rights Committee was a stark and all too accurate condemnation of the state of rights in America."
No, the ACLU should be ashamed of itself. The review by the Human Rights Committee which includes member states Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China ,and ensures that violaters are included, is a joke and nowhere near accurate.
Jim Hoft has covered this well.
Religious persecutors, Womens Rights violators, Communist Regimes, and illegal organ harvesters will make up the new UN Human Rights Council.
And this is the organization that the ACLU want to hold the U.S. accountable to? The ACLU, and the U.N. are the two most dangerous organizations in the world. They are both seeking to destroy America's credibility and soverignty. The U.N. are a corrupt joke when it comes to human rights, and they have absolutely zero credibility to make any judgement on America in that area.
The ACLU, who provided the list called "Dimming the Beacon of Freedom", to this corrupt organization that can't even clean up its own human rights violations are an embarrassement to this great nation. It is shameful that their list included our efforts to spy on the enemy, protect our borders, and several other accusations without evidence. I also wonder if their accusation to "abuse" of women in prison would be not providing them with abortions at the expense of taxpayers.
Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation's sovereignty and national security.
For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, "With today's action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations." Source
Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.
All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn't directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU's embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.
In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add "sexual orientation" to the UNHRC's discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a "showdown with religion," clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source
The ACLU's actions are a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, religious exercise, security, and soverignity. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.
If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs...why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America's freedoms, and our very soverignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU's vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churchs and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them. To many Americans, these sound more like human rights violations than anything on the ACLU's list.
On October 27, 1787, Alexander Hamilton predicted that a "dangerous ambition" would one day tyrannize the gangling young American Republic, all the while lurking "behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people." It could almost be said that Hamilton had a prophecy of the ACLU.
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 200 blogs already on-board.
Posted by Wild Thing at 12:27 AM | Comments (2)
July 13, 2006
Stop The ACLU Blogburst
One of the purposes of the Constitution is to ensure domestic tranquility. Due process, the Fifth Amendment right, is a procedural right, one that defines the methods that can properly be used to ensure domestic tranquility. Without both, there can be no liberty. Domestic tranquility can easily be achieved without respect for due process, as dictatorships throughout history have shown. It is also quite possible to have a society where due process is respected-even considered sacrosanct-and still lack for domestic tranquility. The latter predicament more closely resembles the situation in the United States today.Source
The ACLU's skewed views toward crime can also be seen in its approach toward crime victims. The ACLU has shown very little interest in the rights of crime victims. When it comes down to it, the rights of criminals seem to always override the rights of the victims. For example, the ACLU opposes the use of a crime victim impact statement in capital sentencing because it "unconstitutionally requires consideration of factors which have no bearing on the defendant's responsibility or guilt." Of course the courts have ruled otherwise.
The ACLU's approach to crime, its prevention, and punishment clearly are not in the mainstream opinion of most Americans. The organization has consistently been an adversary of law enforcement. The Union's perspective is almost entirely focused on the criminal which makes many people conclude that rather being a defender of civil liberties, the ACLU is actually the champion of criminal liberties.
The ACLU's pandering to criminals, lack of interest in true victims, and opposition to law enforcement are not solutions to society's burden with crime. I advise everyone to use common sense, and not to follow the extreme positions of the ACLU when it comes to preventing and punishing crime.
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 200 blogs already on-board.
I encouorage you to go to Stop the ACLU for the complete article for todays blogburst. Thank you.
Posted by Wild Thing at 12:44 AM | Comments (3)
June 29, 2006
Stop The ACLU Blogburst
If it is a tool we use in the fight against terror one can bet that the ACLU will be against it. When the NY Times revealed classified information that we are trying to track international phone calls of suspected terrorists, the ACLU took that ball and are still running with it. When the NY Times leaked classified information that we are trying to track international bank transactions in order to catch terrorists the ACLU jumped on board with that too. If the NY Times doesn't leak it to everyone, the ACLU will do its best by filing freedom of Information Act requests.
In the face of suspicions that the government is using cutting-edge brain-scanning technologies on suspected terrorists being held overseas or at home, the American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with all the primary American security agencies. "There are certain things that have such powerful implications for our society -- and for humanity at large -- that we have a right to know how they are being used so that we can grapple with them as a democratic society," said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project. "These brain-scanning technologies are far from ready for forensic uses and if deployed will inevitably be misused and misunderstood."
I know that the ACLU claim to be the experts on rights, but I'm not sure where they found this "right to know" every secret government program used in a time of war. This must be one of those rights the ACLU made up out of thin air. Furthermore the ACLU's leap that it would be inevitable that the program would be misused and misunderstood is pure biased opinion on their part.
I'd just like to know how the ACLU would have us handle the war on terror. It seems they want us to fight the killers with kid gloves. If someone can name me one anti-terrorist program our government has implemented that the ACLU has approved of we might have a debate. I can't think of one. If we are to fight the war on terror the way the ACLU wants we might as well just go ahead and surrender.
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 200 blogs already on-board.
Posted by Wild Thing at 12:07 AM
June 22, 2006
STOP the ACLU Blogburst
ACLU Accuses U.S. Of Human Rights Violations
ACLU released a report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee condemning the U.S. government for failing to comply with its treaty obligations to protect and preserve a range of human rights protections at home and abroad.
The report, Dimming the Beacon of Freedom: U.S. Violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, documents the U.S. record on human rights in five areas: national security, women’s rights, racial justice, immigrants rights and religious freedom.The Human Rights Committee is the U.N. body of experts charged with monitoring countries compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the primary human rights treaty. The United States ratified the treaty in 1992. The committee will review the official submission of the U.S. government on July 17 and 18 in Geneva. The ACLU will send a delegation to present the report and monitor the proceedings.
Dimming the Beacon of Freedom provides a detailed description of human rights violations in the United States. In addition to the impact of these rights violations on other vulnerable groups in the U.S., the report highlights how in the wake on September 11, 2001, Arabs, Muslims and South Asians, and to some extent all immigrants, were victims of discriminatory targeting by the government. It draws attention to the erosion of the right to privacy, discussing expanded surveillance and the government’s growing use of the states secret privilege to avoid accountability for abuses.
The ACLU goes on to list their recommendations to the UN to urge the United States on. The list includes trials or “judicial remedies” for all persons detained in the war on terror.
Well, the treaty’s provisions call for protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Al Qaeda targets civilians for mass murder and intentionally destroys civilian infrastructure.The provisions call for membership in a regular military force which carries its arms openly. Al Qaeda’s idea of a weapon in open view is a hijacked jumbo jet in the seconds before it crashes into a building. Otherwise, it favors roadside bombs or high explosives concealed in vans burrowed in underground garages beneath bustling civilian skyscrapers.
The provisions call for wearing uniforms in order to distinguish members as authentic soldiers. Al Qaeda’s jihadists dress and conduct themselves ostensibly as civilians — the better to hide from real armies and lull actual civilians to their deaths.
The provisions call for treating captured enemy soldiers with the dignity and respect accorded to honorable prisoners of war: accounting for them, keeping them safe, allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross access to ensure their proper treatment.
Al Qaeda tortures and slaughters them.
When it comes to the prisoners they capture, al Qaeda doesn’t much care about the Geneva Conventions, the approbation of the ICRC, or Kofi Annan’s latest grandiloquence on the post-sovereign alchemy of international law.
All it cares about is “the verdict of the Islamic court.” It was that verdict, and no other, that the Mujahedeen Shura Council — Iraq’s thugs-in-chief — announced had been “carried out” against our fallen heroes by their new Zarqawi, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer. Needless to say, the deed was done “with God Almighty’s blessing.”
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 200 blogs already on-board.
Posted by Wild Thing at 12:04 AM | Comments (2)
June 01, 2006
Stop the ACLU Blogburst
The above banner and slogan is quite deceptive and an utter joke to those that are truly aware to the ACLU's workings. Just in the past week the ACLU has launched a massive campaign against the NSA's efforts to trace terrorist phone calls into the U.S. This campaign with full page ads has even been denounced by media that usually defend the ACLU as completely lacking in context. In just the last few days the ACLU has pounced at the chance to bash America, applauding the decision of an EU Court that struck down an anti-terrorism agreement that allows the European Union and the U.S. to share information on airline passengers. And in the same day the ACLU of Florida came out against a new law that restricts colleges and universities from using state funds for travel to countries classified as terrorist states by the U.S. government.
The ACLU consistently allign themselves with groups like CAIR, and other organizations that have known terrorist ties. They have turned down donations from some of their most generous donors because of anti-terrorism stipulations. They can always be seen defending our enemies. It is no wonder that they fight to exempt lawyers from anti-terror supporting oaths.
A while back, my friend Kathy wrote about how deceptive this banner is, and it still applies today.
So now the ACLU is promoting itself as a champion of both safety for our citizens and of freedom. What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety, in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil.
They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, to stop what they call profiling (we will never see a Protestant white middle-aged woman as a terrorist working with an extremist Islamic organization) by race, sex and religion, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations.
They want to kill the Patriot Act because they see the rights of an individual who may or may not be an American citizen as more important than the safety of the nation at large. They want the borders open because they see that as an infringement of the rights of non-Americans to become Americans however they can manage it. They want to have military and intelligence sources, activities, and planning revealed to the public so they can "watch dog" and ensure freedoms of individuals and/or groups are not being compromised, but in doing so will enable those very individuals and/or groups under surveillance the ability to avoid surveillance and possible capture before they do something destructive to American citizens.
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 200 blogs already on-board
Posted by Wild Thing at 12:05 AM | Comments (2)
October 16, 2005
Sunday Funnies at Stop the ACLU
God Bless America Signs Offend The Ever So Sensitive Atheists
An atheist group is complaining about two signs posted outside a city hall in New York state that declare “God Bless America.”But the signs hung by a Long Island official outside the town hall of Babylon, N.Y., are perfectly legal, according to a group specializing in constitutional law that has volunteered to defend them.
“The phrase ‘God bless America’ does not violate the Constitution,” said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.
Article at World Net Daily
Other articles can also be found at Stop the ACLU
Posted by Wild Thing at 11:16 AM
