31 August 2005

Please Support the Stop The ACLU Coalition

****Note: This is a static post until 1 September For today's posts, please scoll down. The Goal
August 20th, 2005 - Posted By Jay

Recently our parent site stoptheaclu.org was mentioned on World Net Daily. This lead to a solicitation from the Washington Times to buy an ad in their newspaper to the tune of around $2500.00 for one full page ad. That is a one time deal, it would be much more to run it on a regular basis. I rarely ask for money folks, but we want to take them up on the offer.

Please donate $5 or however much you can afford and help us reach the goal. I will bump this post to the top frequently, and keep you updated on the status. We also desperately need space in the Chicago area to get this operation fully rolling.

We need volunteers and eventually paid clerks to help kick the Stop the ACLU Coalition in high gear. We have no choice now. We must fully fund this operation if we are to have success in thwarting the ACLU. If you can help in any way or know someone who will, please let me know today. Thank you and God Bless America!

As of Monday, August 29th the tally is $850.00. Thanks to all who have donated. Only $1,650 to go for 1 full page ad.
This appeal does not in any way benefit Gribbit or any of his sites. This appeal is appearing here as support for the Stop The ACLU Coalition which this site is affiliated with in a non-compensated manner. All proceeds will be going for the purposes stated above.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

Instapundit and the ACLU

Cross Posted From Stop The ACLU But I refuse to include the banners for either Instapundit or the ACLU.

Why give them links?

Update: Glenn sends his readers here telling them we are delinking because he said that "demonizing the ACLU is silly." We don't think it is silly at all. And Glenn is entitled to his opinion. We just no longer wish to link to someone that supports an anti-American organization. Here are a few reasons why they should be demonized.

They work with CAIR, an organization with known terrorist ties.

They advocate the legalization of child porn distribution and possession.

Oppose Tax Exemptions For All Churches, But Fight For It For Witches.

They try to erase our Christian Heritage. Former ACLU Lawyer, Reese Lloyd says it well, "The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism."

Need more reasons? Take a look around the site.

Hat tip for info: Junkyard Blog

Several conservative blogs are calling for all right-oriented blogs to delink Instapundit, one of the most high-profile blogs on the internet, in light of this post. Owner Glenn Reynolds called outspoken disagreement and "demonization"of the ACLU "a bit silly". He goes on:

I do feel that they've become overly partisan in recent years, but they still do good work (I've worked with them in the past, on the New Orleans rave case for example, and will probably do so again.)

Euphoric Reality notes:

Is Glenn making nice-nice for the sake of popularity? I know he's got to be more intelligent than to actually think the ACLU is good for anything, or that their goals have anything to do with what conservatives believe in. How can any conservative worth his or her salt see the ACLU as anything besides what it is - a lions' den of leftist thought that makes it a point to attack anything good and true and right. They are anti-American, anti-truth, anti-good. They are, quite literally, an evil organization. They support child molesters, approve of the "homosexualization" of the United States, and fight for everything sane people with morals are against. They support CAIR, the American version of al Qaeda. (If that's not enough to tell you there's a problem here, then you need to read this blog more.) In almost any court case that makes conservatives want to bang their heads against a wall, chances are good that the ACLU was involved.

Perhaps even more disturbing is this post. A reader emailed Reynolds to say basically "You just lost another reader because of your remarks." Reynolds' reply?

That's okay - there are plenty of blogs out there, and this guy would clearly be happier somewhere else.

Yes, perhaps that reader would be happier here at my blog. I sorta found that statement by Glenn a little on the high and mighty side.

Cao's Blog notes:

That is just plain "politically correct". The only people Glenn is making points with on that one is lawyers and leftists. Glenn is ignoring the plethera of information out there which indicates that the ACLU's goals and achievements have been all about the destruction of American values, under the deceitful auspices of supporting the Constitution.

Basil's Blog is providing a way that you can reference these statements by Glenn without providing a link to him.

Of course I have to delink him. I'm anti-ACLU, and I must stand by principle.

If you agree, and delink Glenn let us know and we will add you to the list. If you have never linked to Glenn for whatever reason, we will add you to the list as well. If you have a post about this, send us a trackback and it will appear as a link below. If it gets big enough I'll start a blogroll.

So far:

The "I'm Not Linked To Glenn Reynolds List"

Stop The ACLU Euphoric Reality Social Sense Stacking Swivel Mad Tech Basil's Blog Cao's Blog Gina's Rantings Jo's Cafe NIF Freedom Of Jack Lewis.net GOP Insight American Dinosaur Kender's Musings Gribbit's Word Sondra K Blogicus Palmetto Pundit

Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

30 August 2005

Kerry's 180 on SF-180 BlogBurst 8/30/05

It was 211 days ago today that John F. Kerry (D - MA) promised on National TV that he would sign his SF-180 and release his military records to the public. JFK II allowed himself to be goaded into this promise by veteran news anchor Tim Russert. The date was January 30th. What happened since January 30, 2005? Iraq held its first free elections, installed the elected government, established the Constitutional Committee, and agreed upon the draft of the Constitution. We've had the most active hurricane season on history. With the 4th largest storm to hit the Atlantic Basin in recorded weather history. London was bombed by terrorists. The Space Shuttle Discovery returned Americans to space after a 2 year layoff due to the Columbia tragedy. NASA had Discovery make history by performing unprecedented maneuvers to inspect the orbiter's heat shield. Astronaut Steve Robinson performed a never tried before space walk to make what turned out to be a minor repair captured live on television. Terri Schiavo was put to death by her husband, his attorney, and Judge George Greer amidst national controversy. And several high profile kidnappings and murders of young children. But yet John Kerry continues to stone wall. He took from January 30th to June 21st to comply with his promise to sign the forms. But he did so knowing that he failed to sign part III of the form which would release his unedited version of his military records. After signing the forms, he sat on them for over a month. When the records were finally released, the information was the same as what his campaign released during the Presidential race. A watered down incomplete version which he only released to 3 newspapers. He didn't even have the courtesy to release them to Tim Russert. Here is what we suggest to Senator Kerry. If you plan on running for re-election, President, or Dog Catcher, release all of your records. Sign SF-180 including Part III and release your records. And not to 3 specially selected newspapers. How about releasing them to all the broadcast news services (cable and network) and the AP. This way all of the newspapers and broadcast news services can show what kind of a traitor you really are. Our other suggestion? Resign and leave. Perhaps France will have you. You and your pal Hanoi Jane have done enough damage to this beautiful and courageous nation. It's time to cut bait.
This has been a production of the Kerry 180 BlogBurst. Each Tuesday the BlogBurst points out the refusal of John Kerry to comply with a promise to the American people.
It is amazing that JFK II was able to take that many blue areas. In case you are wondering, this is a red/blue breakdown of the 2004 election by county. There is an awful lot of red on there.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

29 August 2005

Guard The Borders 8/29/05

Cross Posted From Euphoric Reality
Lou Dobbs had it right on the money when he said, "We are a nation of immigrants, and there is no more diverse and welcoming society than ours. But we are first a nation of laws, and upholding those laws and our national values makes this great country of ours possible." What happens if we do not uphold those laws? Dobbs goes on.
Failure to secure our borders means that we will continue to lose the war on drugs and lose a generation of Americans to those drugs. It also means the crushing burden of our failed immigration and homeland security policies will continue to fall exclusively on the shoulders of working men and women. Not only do illegal aliens and those who employ them cost the nation tens of billions of dollars in social services, principally in health care and education, they also depress wages for American citizensby an estimated $200 billion a year.
[Note: The following was written by Mustang, a retired Marine officer who blogs at Social Sense. This is reprinted in full with his gracious permission, and we'll be featuring more of his work next week.] The number of Americans who believe that our borders should be secure from illegal entry is overwhelming. Not everyone agrees, obviously, but those who argue for open borders mostly represent organizations that have a peculiar agenda. Of those who demand (although not too loudly) a secure border, there are essentially two camps: One group worries about our security in light of terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the other group voices concern over the economic implications of illegal immigration. I have had a number of conversations with close friends on the subject of immigration gener-ally, and on the issue of securing our nation from those who would do our people harm. Even those who support President Bush seem to disagree with his view that people coming here illegally, no matter the point of their origin, are simply looking for work. As evidenced by the amount of attention this issue is getting nationally, however, the problem is not restricted to border-states. People throughout the entire country seem genuinely angry that our government lacks the will, or the resources, to halt the influx of people who come here illegally. The issue of illegal immigration generates emotional rather than thoughtful debates among the so-called talking heads of our national media. Screeching at one another on national television does not bring to the table thoughtful discussion or reasonable solutions to the problem. In the first place, most people do not understand the implications of illegal immigration, including the politicians whose job it is to frame laws, and provide funding for the enforcement of those laws. The task of problem-resolution appears to fall into three stages: (1) Determine the true affect of illegal immigration, (2) Discover reasonable solutions, and (3) Implement programs that do not demean people of other ethnic groups or nationalities. In spite of the fact tht current statutes prohibit the employment of military forces in the pursuit of civil law enforcement duties, it may be time to reconsider such prohibitions. America's open border presents a real and present danger to the people of the United States in any number of ways, not the least of which might involve the illegal entry of Middle Eastern terrorists. In fact, at least one terrorist has been arrested, a female; it is not unreasonable to wonder how many others evaded arrest or detention. Discounting terrorists, however, Americans are harmed by "illegals" who perpetrate crimes against persons and property in the United States, and do so with some impunity. Criminal activity along the border, according to this article, is getting out of hand. The federal government's unwillingness to address this problem is causing harm to American citizens, and of course it is the local taxpayer who has to defray the costs of increased local policing. It is little wonder that citizens have formed local groups to augment police departments, but that may not be enough. Contrary to Mr. Bush's position, these people are not vigilantes, but they could be if something isn't done - and soon. There are also good arguments that illegal immigrants pose a significant economic danger to the United States. A source of information and discussion on this topic can be found at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Among a wide range of issues, FAIR provides specific economic information relative to illegal immigration, breaking those costs down state-by-state. One might conclude, based on the data provided by FAIR, that the costs of doing a poor job in protecting America's borders far outweigh the costs of hiring more law enforcement or border patrol officers. For more on this topic, check out Kleptocracy to the South - a good read. The bottom line, folks, is that until citizens are fully informed about the ramifications of doing nothing, Americans cannot approach the three-step mentioned above to resolve this problem. It's your country, dear reader, and the choice is yours - but Social Sense demands your involvement. ---------------------------- Welcome to the first issue of the Guard Our Borders Blogburst. We have started this blogburst in an effort to keep the border issues and illegal immigration at the forefront now and up through the next election. We will be featuring pieces every Monday from other bloggers, news articles, and things we've written ourselves as we blog about this each week. Members of the blogburst can either crosspost what we have, or write something of their own. If you'd like to join, please send an email to kit dot jarrell at gmail dot com and put "BlogBurst" in the subject line. The more, the merrier!
Blogs already on board: Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

Being Tagged

Apparently, I've been tagged to participate in a numbers game. Thanks Gina, to this point I've been spared this "honor". But I will endeavor to comply. Ten years ago, I was living in Erie, PA working for RadioShack. I was in RadioShack's management training program. Five years ago, I was living in Kingsville, OH and working as a "Professional Mixologist" aka: bartender. One year ago, I was living here in Ashtabula and recovering from an illness which I'm still on the long road of recovery from. (but it won't be much longer I hope) One day ago, I was blogging, commenting on blogs, and playing a video game (which I'm trying to beat). Five favorite snacks are, chocolate, apples, watermelon, yellow cake with chocolate frosting, and Rocky Road Ice cream (which I'm not supposed to eat). Music, I'm a classic rock and 80's hair band fan. And I tend to know the words to most of my favorites. To pick 5 would be too difficult. What would I do with 5 million dollars? Like everyone, pay off debts, invest in a comfortable home, purchase a few luxuries, and start a business. Five places I'd like to escape to? Ireland, Great Britain, the US Virgin Islands, Italy, and Japan. Five things that I wouldn't wear? Anything brown in color (I hate brown clothes), urban culture clothing, swim wear, anything that would bring undue attention to myself, or anything promoting a liberal cause, idea, or candidate. Five favorite TV programs? The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, The Fox Report, Fox And Friends, and Classic Movie Channels (all classic movies). Five Greatest Joys? Joy? There is Joy in the world? Being a Free Born American with all of the freedoms, Living in the Greatest Nation on the face of the planet, A good steak, My dog Razz, And blogging. Five Favorite Toys? My computer, xbox, television, that's pretty much it... I'm 2 short. I'd like to thank Gina from the bottom of my heart for inflicting this torture upon me. Look out everyone, someone is next and it could be any one of you.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

The Grand Old Portal

Today is the launch of the Grand Old Portal. The Portal is a human edited search engine of Republican sites. Portal owner Nathan Fietzer has taken on a major effort to group blogs and websites who support Republican causes and candidates. This search engine is human edited so each submitted blog or site gets checked for Republican content before being included. Ask yourself how many times you've searched for a particular topic and gotten hits for unrelated items. The Grand Old Portal was designed so that if you want to search Republican sites, you only get Republican sites. Gribbit's Word wishes nothing but success for Nathan and the Grand Old Portal. And is proud to be included in the search engine. Thanks Nathan.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

28 August 2005

ACLU & CAIR Promoting Islam While Suppressing Christians & Jews

For months now, Stop The ACLU has been bringing information to you about the evil ways of the ACLU. We've been telling you about their war on religion, the Boy Scouts, Christmas, religious icons in public, the 10 Commandments, children, and the United States. But are you listening? Judging by the comments that we receive, I'd say the only people listening are our own members and those who are poised to argue the ACLU cause. But we must have some readers who are in shock or out-right disbelief that any organization called "American" Civil Liberties Union would be fighting for causes contrary to the best interests of this nation. But they are. Their latest alliance is with CAIR (Council on American - Islamic Relations). Op/Ed writer Sher Zieve had this to say in The American Daily.
ACLU Alliance with CAIR? By Sher Zieve (08/26/05)
For those who are still not familiar with the group CAIR - the Council on American - Islamic Relations - I'll provide some background information. Founded in 1994, CAIR is headquarted in Washington, DC and has thirty-one chapters and regional offices in the United States and Canada. Of note, CAIR was founded by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahwad, Rafiq Jaber and other former members of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). Jaber is also the current spokesman for the Bridgeview Mosque Foundation in Illinois; a mosque tied to the IAP and the Quranic Literacy Institute that were named in the 2004 drive-by murder of David Boim. The IAP and Quranic Literacy Institute were ordered by the court to pay Boim's family $156MM in restitution; money that had previously been raised in the US (as "charity" donations) by these Islamic organizations. *US donations used to finance terrorist activities and, subsequently, for the results of said terrorist activities - most interesting. Note: The IAP has often been referred to as the American wing of Hamas - a terrorist group that has vowed to destroy Israel. Of interest, Hamas senior leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said in a recent interview with Arab newspaper Asharq Al Awsat: "We do not and will not recognize a state called Israel. This land is the property of all Muslims in all parts of the world. Let Israel die!" Suffice it to say, this is not an organization that has any desire or any plans for peace. CAIR currently has enough political and "PC" (political-correctness) clout to cow the US political and business establishment. Even though three of its (now former) members were convicted of federal terrorism charges, CAIR has greatly increased its influence in the US. Of note are CAIR's intimidation of the publication National Review to stop [its] running advertisements for the books "The Life and Religion of Mohammed" and "The Sword of the Prophet" and the recent firing of talk-show host Michael Graham from ABC-Disney Radio for making anti-Islamo-fascist comments. Is a trend being established, here? Are all Radio talk-show hosts no longer going to be able to speak against Islamic terrorism? Watch out Rush, Praeger and Hannity! You may be next. Islamic education in the US (are these Wahabee schools?) also appears to be in the process of attempting to take over US private school organizations - at least in Texas. In 2004, the Islamic Education Institute of Texas sought inclusion into TAPPS (Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools). As reported by the Houston Chronicle, Edd Burleson (Director of TAPPS) had the 'extreme audacity' to ask questions of the Islamic educational organization. Quoting the Islamic Quran, which calls upon Muslims to be violent against Christians and Jews, Burleson asked in a letter containing ten questions to the group: "Why do you wish to join an organization whose membership is basically in total disagreement with your religious beliefs?" and "Why do you wish to join an organization whose membership is basically in total disagreement with your religious beliefs?" As if asking these questions weren't cheeky enough, Burleson went on to ask about the Islamic organization's position on "the spread of Islam in America" and the objectives of the school "in this regard." A week later, Burleson sent another letter that included the question "Do you teach your students to 'Make war on them (Christians and Jews) until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme' (Koran 8:37)?" These questions were enough to bring the ACLU flying to Islam's defense. The ACLU and CAIR demanded an apology from Burleson! It appears that questions directed to Islamic organizations are no longer to be allowed in the USA. However, as we already know, reverse situations are allowed. Christians may be asked any and all questions and are allowed to be brow-beaten unmercifully by both Islam and the ACLU. Christians are not liked nor accepted by Islam. And if we have learned anything at all from its myriad suits against the teaching or even displays of Christianity, neither does the ACLU. Remember the ACLU's threatened suit against the County of Los Angeles, for merely having a small cross on its County Seal? One has to wonder if the ACLU would have threatened the county if the Islamic crescent had been present. Doubtful. But then, the ACLU is increasingly joining with CAIR on a number of battlefronts and lawsuits. A few of these include the following:
  • The ACLU is working with CAIR and Amnesty International (a decidedly in-my-opinion Marxist group) to defend Ghassan Elashi and his brothers who were convicted of terrorism.
  • In 2001, the ACLU joined CAIR and other Islamic support groups to challenge the detention of potential terrorists.
  • In 2003, the ACLU joined CAIR and other Muslim advocacy groups to challenge portions of the Patriot Act.
  • Also, in 2003, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU awarded its yearly "Liberty Flame Award" to the Ohio chapter of CAIR "for contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties."
  • In 2004, the ACLU joined CAIR in demanding the FBI make its files public as to [its] surveillance of Chicago Muslim groups and 'expressed special concern today over the FBI's targeting of Muslims and Arabs in the Chicago community'. Note: Remember it was two Illinois groups (the IAP and Quranic Literacy Institute) that were convicted of terrorist murder.
  • In North Carolina 2005, the ACLU joined forces with CAIR toward including swearing on the Koran (as opposed to the Bible) for Muslims. Note: The push for Shari'a law in Canada has already become a strong force. Will the US be next?
The above cites are only a few examples of the ACLU's increasing alliance with CAIR; an association that does not appear to have any indications of disbanding. Yet, the ACLU's affinity towards Christian groups and Christianity as a whole is nonexistent. Although some may wonder at the ACLU's agenda, I don't. Its current and past actions speak louder than any possible words. Don't believe me? Check the Net, yourself, for ACLU-CAIR alliances. The alignments are there for anyone willing to take the time to do so. I, for one, find it exceedingly troubling. Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve's Op/Ed columns are widely carried by multiple Internet Journals and sites and she also writes hard news. Her columns have, also, appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in International news publications and on multiple University websites. Ms. Zieve has been a guest on several radio shows, including The Alan Colmes' Show, and is currently working on her first political book: "The Liberal's Guide To Conservatives" http://www.augustagency.com/authors.htm Zieve firmly believes that if Leftists ran the country (and left to their own inane devices), it would be the end of the United States as a sovereign nation. NOTE: In Accordance With Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, This Material Is Distributed Without Profit Or Payment To Those Who Have Expressed A Prior Interest In Receiving This Information For Non-Profit Research And Educational Purposes Only.
As large of a threat as radical Islam as practiced by al-Qaeda is to the security of the United States, the ACLU is a larger threat. Why do I say that? Because the ACLU is doing to America what the Soviet Union couldn't. They are making good on the promise that Kruschev made at the UN when he proclaimed that the Soviet Union would bury us. They have been doing it slowly and silently over an 85 year period. They do it by opposing everything that is America. In radical Islam and al Qaeda, the ACLU sees a method by which they can accomplish their goals more quickly. They see the measures being taken to secure the country as a way to further exploit the American public's fears of losing their freedoms. And this is a misconception that the ACLU is feeding. By creating a reason to fear the loss. The ACLU has been going around telling America that the Patriot Act is an infringement on the Constitutional right to privacy. No such right exists. The only people that should fear the provisions of the Patriot Act are those wishing to do harm to the nation either knowingly or unknowingly. If you are involved in a terrorist cell you should fear it. If you are involved in funneling money to a terrorist cell, you should be afraid. If you are involved in donating monies to organizations which funnel funds to terrorists and terrorist cells you should be worried. But if you are doing nothing to harm your country, the Patriot Act isn't something that you should fear. The ACLU is. The ACLU would have you believe that designating 2 minutes at the beginning of the school day for school children to pray, meditate, study, read, or sleep is state promotion of religion. But they think nothing of teaching classes on understanding Islam. The ACLU objects to the presence of the 10 Commandments on the walls of a court house. But yet they call for the Koran to be used in the court house for swearing in Muslim defendants and witnesses. The ACLU has a problem with displaying a nativity scene in the town square but they see nothing wrong with witches performing ceremonies there. The ACLU has launched an assault on religion in America. With just a few exceptions. Islam, Wicca, and the Church of Satan are all ok with the ACLU. But Christianity and Judaism are taboo.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

26 August 2005

Senator Robert Byrd and Gribbit Actually Agree!!!

Shocked? I am. The Senior Senator (in the entire Senate actually) from WV has a bill ready to go to the floor designating September 17 as National Constitution day. That day actually already exists. But under Senator Byrd's bill, it would "suggest" that teachers use the day to familiarize the children of this nation about the founding document of our republic. Personally, I'd like to see it be a week at minimum and it should be required. Why? If you don't know what your rights are, how can you be sure if anyone is violating them? We are living in an age where anyone will take anyone else to court over the slightest inconvenience. Civil rights cases are out of control led by the evil ACLU. If you aren't sure if you have had a violation of your civil guarantees, then how can you authorize an attorney to fight for you? How can you have someone representing you if you don't actually understand the position they are taking on your behalf? Perhaps you should be sure that the position your attorney is taking represents your actual belief. But you cannot do that if you are not familiar with those rights. The Constitution is the United States of America. The Constitution defines us as a nation. This document, aged from time and stained with the blood of our young men who have dedicated themselves to its defense, is the most emulated document in the world. The freedoms that it guarantees are the very freedoms people will risk life and limb crossing oceans and deserts to live under. The Constitution gives the branches of government their power and responsibilities. And empowers the people to be the guardians of our way of life. This nation is unique. For over 200 years we have been peacefully deciding our own leadership every 4 years. A non-violent process of civility and responsibility. And children should know this. They should understand this. And so should their parents. There are too many in this country that cannot even quote the preamble to the Constitution. And that is a sad state of being for our educational system.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

CPUSA - And Their Utopia

I'm going to paint 2 very different pictures today. And I want you to think to yourself which sounds like a better deal. But when you do, keep in mind the poem by Jack London "The Road Not Traveled". I came across this link courtesy of TruthSavvy, who left a comment on Stop The ACLU.

Socialism USA

Who We Are Author: First published 01/01/1996 00:00 by

We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.

We believe that socialism USA will be built according to the traditions, history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be different from any other socialist society in the world. It will be uniquely American.

What will be the goals of our socialist society?

  1. A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness.
  2. An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.
  3. Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent.

The advocates and ideologues of capitalism hold that such goals are utopian; that human beings are inherently selfish and evil. Others argue that these goals can be fully realized under capitalism.

We are confident, however, that such goals can be realized, but only through a socialist society.

Why Socialism?

Since its inception capitalism has been fatally flawed. Its inherent laws - to maximize profit on the backs of the working class - give rise to the class struggle.

History is a continuous story of people rising up against those who exploit and oppress them, to demand what's theirs. Our own country's historic beginning was revolutionary. The ideals of justice and equality have inspired peoples for centuries.

Up until the time of Karl Marx, those that advocated socialism were "utopians", that is, motivated by ideals only. It was Marx and his longtime friend and collaborator, Frederick Engels, who uncovered the inner laws of capitalism, where profit comes from and how societies develop. They transformed wishful thinking for socialism into socialism with a scientific, materialist basis.

Communists say that capitalism won't be around forever. Just like previous societies weren't around forever either. Slavery gave rise to feudalism and feudalism to capitalism. So, too, capitalism gives rise to socialism.

The Foundations of Socialism

Political power would be in the hands of working people. Socialism starts with nationalization of the main means of production - the plants, factories, agri-business farms and everything necessary to produce what society needs. The large monopoly corporations and banks come under public ownership, that is, under the collective ownership of the entire working class and people, who have the leading role in building socialism.

Socialism also means public ownership of the energy industry and all the natural resources. It eliminates forever the power of the capitalist class to exploit and oppress the majority.

A socialist government draws up plans covering the entire economy. They are drawn up with maximum participation of the people, from the shop level on up. Such plans are achieved because they harmonize the interests of all, because there are no conflicts arising from exploitation of workers and no dog-eat-dog competition.

Production increases much faster than under capitalism, with a planned economy, advancement of science and technology, and the protection and preservation of our environment and natural resources.

A socialist government is based on all-around democracy, starting with economic democracy. The more people participate in running their own economy, the more firmly people's power is established, the more successful a socialist America will be.

Trade unions in a socialist USA will insure a fair balance between what workers produce and what they receive. They will have decisive power to enforce safety and health provisions, prevent speedup, and guarantee good transportation, working conditions and plant facilities.

Public services - schools, hospitals, utilities, transit, parks, roads - are crumbling under capitalism. And now corporations are "privatizing" government-run, publicly-owned institutions for private profit.

Under socialism public services and housing will be vastly improved and expanded. They will be broadened in their scope beyond anything dreamed of under capitalism.

The U.S. will become a vast construction site. Homes, schools, hospitals, places of recreation will be built to end shortages, replace substandard infrastructures and public facilities.

Jobs and Education for All

Full employment will be quickly achieved as production is expanded to satisfy the needs of people. Automation at the service of the working people will lead to both reduced hours of work and higher living standards, with no layoffs. There will be no danger of over-production since production will be planned and people's incomes will increase in line with the rising output of consumer goods and services.

Poverty will be ended quickly with the recovery of the vast resources now wasted in war production, corporate profits and the extravagant lifestyles of the filthy rich.

All education will be tuition-free. Every person will have access to unlimited medical and health care without charge. These rights will be realized as rapidly as facilities can be built and the personnel trained.

With capitalism gone, crime will also begin to disappear, for it is the vicious profit system that corrupts people and breeds crime.

To Each According to Their Work

Some ask whether guaranteeing basic necessities, free education, low-cost housing and health care will encourage people to avoid working, or doing their best. The principle of socialism is: From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her work.

Socialism provides incentives for working better, producing more and higher quality goods, acquiring advanced skills. It does NOT equalize wages. Wages vary according to occupation and efficiency, although everyone is guaranteed a livable wage.

Under capitalism, improvements in skill, organization and technology are rightly feared by the worker, since they threaten jobs. Under socialism, they offer the chance to make the job more interesting and rewarding, as well as to improve living standards.

Socialism provides moral incentives because the fruits of labor benefit all. No person robs others of the profits from their labor; when social goals are adopted by the majority, people will want to work for these goals. Work will seem less a burden, more and more a creative activity, where everyone is his/her neighbor's helper instead of rival.

It is true socialism will nationalize or socialize all large-scale production, property and real estate. But socialism does not abolish ALL privately-owned business. It does not require nationalization of those small businesses owned by people who work for themselves and do not hire others to make a profit. Personal property - private homes, automobiles, etc., - will remain just that, personal property.

In highly mechanized U.S. agriculture there will still be a place for the family farmer. But the farm family will be relieved of the pressure of agribusiness monopolies.

There will be rapid abolition of racism and national oppression. Socialism will bring complete equality for all racially and nationally oppressed. There will be no compromise with racism, for there will no longer exist a capitalist class which profits from it. Racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, sexism, anti-immigrant discrimination and all forms of prejudice and bigotry will be banned by law, with strict measures of enforcement. Affirmative action will be expanded immediately to undo and make up for hundreds of years of the ravages of racism. Full equality will be one of the main priorities of the new society.

War propaganda will be outlawed.

The only privileged sectors will be the children and seniors, who have earned the right to a healthy, happy, secure retirement.

The children will reap all the benefits of socialist child care, free nurseries and schools with the very best facilities and teachers. Children will have wonderful recreational and sports facilities. They will have the option to choose whatever career they wish, and the free education and training to achieve it.

Socialism provides the economic foundation for effective democracy for the masses of people. To carry through the socialist economic and social transformation requires political rule by the working class - a government of, by and for the working people.

Socialism USA

Socialism USA will benefit from the experiences, the mistakes and succesess of the countries who built and are building socialism. But mainly it will reflect the distinctive features of U.S. development and environment.

Unique historical advantages, like the unequalled natural resources, fertile soil and perfect weather, coupled with the contributions of generations of working people, enabled U.S. capitalism to achieve higher productive levels and living standards than capitalism in other countries. So, too, the development of socialism here will have some distinct advantages.

  1. We have a highly developed industrial society with a highly trained and educated work force.
  2. Free from foreign intervention, socialism will not have to divert human and economic resources to defend itself.
  3. Socialism USA will avoid the terrible problems of extreme poverty, illiteracy, civil wars, wars of intervention and world wars.
  4. Socialism USA will extend democracy to its fullest, taking as its starting point the democratic traditions and institutions of the American people.

Path to Socialism

We say that it may be possible in the U.S. to bring socialism through peaceful means. Perhaps through the ballot box. One thing is clear, there won't be socialism in the U.S. until the majority of the American people want it.

I like to say that when workers enter the corporate board rooms to take over and the ruling class says: O.K. you're right, we made a mess of things and now you should run it all. Well then there won't be any trouble. But if the ruling class says: Forget it! And call out the army and the police and the national guard, then that is how revolutions become violent. It starts with the ruling class. Workers and their allies have to defend themselves and to fight for what is rightfully theirs.

We believe and advocate that a socialist society in our country will guarantee all the liberties defined in the Bill of Rights but never fully realized. These include the right of people to express themselves fully and freely through organizations of their choice and competing candidates who respect and are guided by the concept of building socialism.

Indeed, the freedoms in the Bill of Rights will take on far greater meaning for the great majority, who will now own the meeting halls, press, radio and TV, and will be able to exercise that freedom effectively.

That's why we call ours Bill of Rights Socialism, USA.

Socialism is our vision for America's future. It is a vision we are winning more and more people to because it is logical - really a great - replacement for capitalism. And because it is the next inevitable step up the ladder of human civilization. SOURCE

Or you can choose this:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Bill of Rights
Amendment I: Freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly. Amendment II: Right to bear arms and militia. Amendment III: Quartering of soldiers. Amendment IV: Warrants and searches. Amendment V: Individual debt and double jeopardy. Amendment VI: Speedy trial, witnesses and accusations. Amendment VII: Right for a jury trial. Amendment VIII: Bail and fines. Amendment IX: Existence of other rights for the people. Amendment X: Power reserved to the states and people. *** (Isn't it odd, that the ACLU ignores the Amendments listed in Red?)
Because if you choose option #1, option #2 goes into the crapper. All the Utopian ideas in the first option are a pipe dream. It has been tried many times and has failed each time its been tried. The first settlers in this nation were faced with a choice. They chose communal living. The people of Roanoke, Virginia just disappeared without a trace. The Pilgrims of Plymouth, Massachusetts nearly starved to death. A system where the people benefited from individual hard work won over and a nation was born. Russia, China, and N. Korea have all had devastating famine in the wake of the socialist experiment. China is moving more to a market economy, Russia is attempting to enter the capitalist society, and N. Korea is still starving. The dream in option #1 is the same dream offered to peasant farmers under the Czar in the early 1900's. It is the same bill of goods sold to the uneducated starving people of Russia that led to the most repressive regime in history. Orwell had it right in his novel "Animal Farm" when after the over throw of the farmer, the pigs moved into the farmers house and started to treat the rest of the animals as slaves. The same thing happened in Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cuba. The leadership assumes the same oppressive stance, if not more harsh, that the leadership that they replaced. The Soviet experience should have taught those in this country just how we don't want to live. But groups like the CPUSA and the ACLU are advancing these very socialist ideas. Ideas which lead to oppression. So ask yourself, are you going to believe the same bilge water that Lenin got Czarist Russians to swallow? Or do you want to live as free men & women?
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

25 August 2005

Trespassing Arrest Called A Free Speech Violation By ACLU

If you own or manage a retail property such as a strip mall, you have an obligation to protect the business interests, customer's safety, cleanliness of the common areas, and capital improvements to the facility. This is where a candidate for public office in the Commonwealth of Virginia and a Strip Plaza manager came into contact. Creating a situation for the ACLU to start to spout their free speech infringement bunk. Richard Collins is running for the State Delegate seat for the 57th district but didn't have the money to run a successful ad campaign. So what does he do on his shoe string budget? He prints up flyers and goes to the local shopping plaza and camps out in the parking lot in front of a grocery store. Grant it, this was an idea to encounter the masses of the community because everyone eats. But he didn't realize that the lot is the property manager's area of responsibility. And in order to protect the business interests of his tenets and the safety of their customers, the property manager cannot allow solicitation of the customers on the property. Let's face it, it is PRIVATE PROPERTY. The property owner pays property tax for the land and buildings on it. Therefore it is not public property. The government doesn't maintain it, a private business does. The customers of his tenets are guests on his property. If this joker was going door to door and he came to your house, and you didn't have the time or desire to listen to him, you would have the right to tell him to hit the bricks right? This is no different. But for some reason the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia is turning this into an infringement on the 1st Amendment. When Mr. Collins was asked to leave the strip mall by the property manager he refused. The police became involved and Collins was charged with trespassing. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia allows citizens to speak and hand out literature in a "Town Square Setting." The ACLU is arguing in modern day, shopping malls and strip plazas constitute modern day "Town Square Settings". This is a falsehood. A town square used to be the "Green" or the park in the center of most of small town America. In other words the "Commons". A piece of land owned and maintained by the town. A strip plaza or a mall are private properties not public lands. If Mr. Collins wanted to get his word out on the cheap, he could have done so by going door to door. But in doing so, he would be faced with those who would not want to hear his rhetoric. Would he refuse to leave farmer Bob's land if Bob said, "I'm not interested please leave?" If he didn't he'd be faced with a couple of conceivable situations. Either having a shotgun pointed to his nose or the local police being called to remove him. And that is the same thing that is happening here. The property owner said leave, he said no, and the law said you are trespassing. How is that restricting his "free speech?" This is nothing more than ACLU legalize to further a leftist agenda. Collins is running on the Democratic ticket for that seat. And as such, sympathetic to the causes championed by the American Civil Liberties Union. They don't see Mr. Collins speech being restricted, they see their own speech being restricted. Without having Collins in the State Legislature, they loose 1 voice there. So right or wrong, they are going to cry wolf where non exists just to try and get small town America to capitulate. Another case of the Strong Arm Tactics of the Most Dangerous Organization in America. Although there is another solution, if there is an empty store front in the plaza, why hasn't he inquired about renting that. He would therefore be entitled to stand with his toes on the "lease line" as it's called and shout his message at the top of his lungs because he is paying for the privilege in his rent. But I doubt that Mr. Collins wants to pay upwards of $4,000 per square foot per month to lease a store front to get elected to an office where if elected he would barely recover the amount paid in rent in the first year in the seat. Not without some graft payments to his favorite charity that is. His PAC maybe. The full AP story is available here. I would re-print it to save you time BUT an activist judge has granted the AP some special exemption to Title 17 section 107 of the U.S.C.
This has been a production of the Stop The ACLU BlogBurst. Every Thursday, members of the BlogBurst write about the stupidity and evil works of the Most Dangerous Organization in America. To join us, visit the Protest The ACLU weblog community and register. I will then email you requesting futher information. Upon receipt, I will add you to our mailing list and blogroll. I will then forward the javascript code for the blogroll and some additional invitations. At this time, there are 99 blogs listed on the Blogroll. We also have about 100 supporters who are members of the BlogBurst who do not blog, but do support our cause. The mailing list as of Wednesday night contained 233 email addresses. So, are you going to join us, visit Protest The ACLU today and I'll hook you up.
A special thanks to Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway for including my thread in their open posts. Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge
If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

The Living Document And The Unelected Legislature

Cross-posted from Stop The ACLU

written by Jay

The first amendment states: "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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The far-left have some other constitution they call a "living document." Its first amendment says, "There is an inseparable wall between Church and State. Religion shall be suppressed to only being expressed in private... filth shall be protected as speech, and our redress of grievances might not always be peaceably assembled." Or something like that.

Through constant judicial activism, the ACLU has been one of the primary founders of this "living document", as well as many activist judges who have written it from the bench.

For example, the ACLU has constantly tried to redefine the First Amendment's protections of press and speech to include all kinds of filth and perverse things including child porn.

The Establishment Clause is one of the most abused sections in the Constitution, completely twisted out of context from its original meaning. For example the ACLU's claim that a voluntary prayer made by a high school valedictorian, selected on completely neutral grounds, or the posting of Ten Commandments by organizations with private funds on a public Courthouse lawn, somehow violates the Establishment Clause. Neither of these acts are done by Congress, nor are they "laws" that establish religion.

Many local governments across Georgia and other states begin their meetings with a prayer and reference the Christian deity during the invocation. However, the ACLU says doing so is unconstitutional, and last year federal courts in South Carolina agreed with them.

"The courts have said that if they are going to have these prayers, they have to be inclusive," said Maggie Garrett, a staff attorney for ACLU of Georgia who filed earlier this month against the Cobb County government for the practice.Source

What the majority thinks doesn't matter anymore. Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser made that clear when he said in an ACLU press release after Alaska voted for a constitutional amendment to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, "Today's results prove that certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority vote."

See, the ACLU believes they know what is best for America, not the people. And this type of elitism defines them. Sometimes it is very obvious such as comparing religion to terrorism. And this guy was serious.

I'm gonna go ahead and start promoting a book that will be coming out very soon, which I highly suggest you all go out and buy when it does. I was sent an advance copy, and to illustrate my poin... I'm gonna quote from The ACLU Vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten.

"Dennis Prager, a well known columnist and radio host, perhaps best expressed the ACLU's worldview (and that of its allies) and its antagonism toward American values, when he wrote the following:"

To understand the worldwide ideological battle - especially the one between America itself - one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightest worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.

One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship law. They put their faith in law-both national and international. For most of the Left, "Is it legal?" is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong... .

To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to moralit... .

And why is the Left so enamored by law?

First, the Left, which is largely secular, regards morality no as absolute, but as relative. This inevitability leads to moral confusion, and no one likes to be morally confused. So instead of moral absolutes, the left holds legal absolutes. "Legal" for the Left is what "moral" is for the Right. The religious have a belief in a God-based moral law, and the Left believes in man-made law as the moral law.

Second, whereas they cannot change God's laws, those on the Left can and do make many of society's laws. In fact the Left is intoxicated with law-making. It gives them the power to mold society just as Judeo-Christian values did in the past. Unless one understands that the leftist ideals function as a religion, one cannot understand the Left.

Laws are the Left's vehicles to earthly salvation. Virtually all human problems have a legal solution. Some men harass women? Pass laws banning virtually every flirtatious action a man might engage in vis-a-vis a woman. Flood legislatures with laws preventing the creation of a "hostile work environment." Whereas the religious world has always worked to teach men how to act toward women, the secular world, lacking these religious values, passes laws to control men.

In fact, since it lacks the self-control apparatus that is a major part of religion, the Left passes more and more laws to control people. That is why there is a direct link between the decline in Judeo-Christian religion and the increase in governmental laws controlling human behavior.

Of course, the more laws that are passed, the less liberty society enjoys. But to the Left, which elevates any number of values above liberty - e.g. compassion, equality, fairness - this presents little problem.

All this helps to explain the Left's preoccupation with controlling courts; passing laws; producing, enriching and empowering lawyers; filing lawsuits; and naming judges. Laws and the makers of laws will produce heaven on earth. And that is why the Left hates the America... . (That) says morality is higher than man-made law.

A very well written piece there that very accurately describes the situation. It isn't just the ACLU's fault that America is losing its moral values, a big part is also played by the judges who rule in their favor. Relative moralism, and Political Correctness are eating America alive.

This type of thinking leads to totalitarian societies that the ACLU and its leftist allies say they oppose but Roger Baldwin admired during their "struggle in a transition period to Socialism." When society exalts individual rights over collective responsibility, then speech or actions seen as interfering with the right of the individual must be silenced. When law, instead of God, is seen as the salvation of mankind, more and more restrictive laws are passed to ultimately limit freedom rather than expand it. ACLU Vs. America

That is exactly what is happening. The ACLU is shaping America in its ugly socialist image. It is restricting liberty rather than protecting it. They censor speech rather than protect it. Public school teachers are scared to say "Merry Christmas", and County Commissions are afraid to pray in the name of Jesus.

If they continue their agenda unchallenged, they will create an America far from what our founding fathers fled in order to find freedom, and instead, we will become more like the countries the fled from.

But hope is not lost. ADF and other grassroots groups like Stop The ACLU, and other legal groups are here to fight. We can't do it without you. We want to expand our reach by getting an ad in the Washington Post. Go Here to see how you can help.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. Almost 100 blogs already on board. If you want to join us go to our portal and register. Its very simple. We will add you to the mailing list and send you the rest of the info at that point.

Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

23 August 2005

Kerry's 180 on SF-180 BlogBurst

John Kerry Form 180 And Demands of Roberts
The absentee Senator John F. Kerry (M - MA that's M for Moron) and former Presidential candidate, told Tim Russert on January 30th that he would sign SF-180 and release his military records to the public. It took him from January 30th until June 21st to sign the form. He then sat on the signed forms for over a month before mailing them. I have a theory about the time problems that the "Senator" had. It wasn't that he couldn't find a pen. It wasn't that he had amnesia and couldn't remember the vital statistics about himself to fill out the form. It was an out-right stall tactic. And he stalled long enough to figure out how to not release the information that the American people have demanded. And in a further act of defiance, he sat on the forms without mailing them. Could he not find the $.38 in the cushions of his sofa to mail them in? Nope, more stalling. When the information was released, it was the same bull that his campaign released. The watered down and edited version. Why, because he didn't sign Part III of the form. And then he only released them to 3 newspapers. Now this is the same individual who is on the full disclosure bandwagon for the President's Supreme Court Nominee Judge John Roberts. Isn't that a laugh? Mr. Evasiveness demanding full disclosure of someone who has nothing to hide. Demanding privileged communications, internal memos, and litigation strategy which would violate the Attorney/Client privilege. Some say that Roberts isn't entitled to privilege because his client wasn't the President, but rather the American people. That being the case, wouldn't he need a signed waver from his client? Wouldn't he need to have a signed waver from all his clients? That is roughly 285,000,000 American citizens. And if one refuses, no information can be released. Well, I refuse to sign a waver. So Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, and all the other flaming lefties on Capital hill can all now go and pound salt. But the Senator on the other hand. That is another question. He told the American people that he would release his military records by signing SF-180 and he didn't fully comply with that promise. It is time Senator. It has been 205 days since you told Mr. Russert that fabrication. Make good. Or your next election may be a problem for you. Just think of the irony. Since January 30th, the day of Iraq's 1st national elections, Iraq has installed a legislature, a government, and drafted a Constitution. What has John Kerry done? Singed papers for incomplete paperwork to be released to selected members of the press. Mr. Kerry, unless you want this to be your last term, you may want to consider signing those forms again. All of them. And release them to all the broadcast news organizations and the AP. This way, the work of fiction that you pass off as your life will be well known.
Your other option? Resign from the Senate and move to France. Perhaps Johnny Depp will have you as a house guest. But I wouldn't lie to him, you may lose your room.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

Profiling And The False Fear Of Racism

A guy walks into a bank and holds it up. He's gone in 90 seconds, too quickly for the police to catch him exiting the bank. Several witnesses describe in consistent detail the appearance, manner, and quality of speech of the perpetrator. They ALL describe him as being 6'2", 200 lbs., brown hair & eyes, Caucasian, medium complexion, speaking with a clear Midwestern accent. Now, should the police be stopping Sunh Chunh Park, a naturalized American born in the Republic of Korea for questioning in this crime? No that would be ignorant. Should they stop Hans Gruber, a 6' 4" blond haired, blue eyed, tourist from Germany? Again that would be a waste of police resources. The same for Ahkeem al- Middle Eastern with a heavy Arabic accent, or Paddy O'Donnell the red headed immigrant from Dublin. But if I'm walking down the street, all 6' 1" 230 lbs of me with my brown hair & blue eyes, medium build but slightly fair complexion, and natural born resident of the state of Ohio since birth, I would expect to be questioned even though I was no where near the bank, slightly heavier than the perp, and have the wrong color eyes. Because witnesses in times of stress have been known to be slightly off in their detailed description. That being said, the perpetrators who have the destruction of America on their minds all have the same physical characteristics. Middle eastern or converted Muslims, act in a specific manner, very controlled, detailed, and focused. They tend to appear to be under stress. They tend to sweat in situations where others may be cold. They tend to wear seasonally inappropriate clothing for warmer months, carry baggage with them or oversized clothing. So why shouldn't we be looking for these people? We can't because that is considered racial profiling. To that idea I say phooie. Security of the people of this nation is the top priority. If a few innocents get their tail feathers ruffled, so be it. Now I'm not saying to rough up everyone of middle eastern decent, or who wears a turban. If they are wearing seasonably appropriate clothing, appear relaxed, tend to interact with others in their presence, there is no need to bother them. The following thread was linked in my Google alerts today and comes to us from the good folks at the south Florida news giant the Sun-Sentinel.
ACLU must wake up on profiling
Jim Black Fort Lauderdale Posted August 21 2005
It's time for the American Civil Liberties Union to get real. They oppose singling out young to middle-aged Muslims for random bomb searches because that would be "racial profiling." Who do they suggest should be searched? If cancer invades the body, you don't look for a flu virus. If the majority of terrorists are young Muslims, then it is only reasonable that they bear the brunt of searches. If that is offensive to peace-loving Muslims, they must understand that it is for their benefit, too. But anyone should be fair game for inspection if they carry equipment that is capable of concealing bombs or explosives. This is no time for personal rights and prideful resentment to be elevated above personal responsibility and public welfare. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. If I had a backpack and was asked to be searched, I would welcome it. And I would thank the one who searched me for helping to make my country safer. It may take another radical Islamic terrorist's bomb at the U.N., Rockefeller Center, or Grand Central Station to wake up the ACLU. I hope not.
Subscribe today to the Sun-Sentinel and find out how to get one week extra! Click here or call 1-877-READ-SUN. NOTE: In Accordance With Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, This Material Is Distributed Without Profit Or Payment To Those Who Have Expressed A Prior Interest In Receiving This Information For Non-Profit Research And Educational Purposes Only.
This guy nailed it on the head. The ACLU opposes random searches, they oppose targeted searches. What they want U.S. law enforcement to do is to react instead of prevent. Which is wrong. In my town, we don't have a Duncan Donuts, but we do have several mega gas stations with the 24/7 full service convenience stores in them. Submarine sandwiches made to order, coffee fresh and piping hot, fresh baked goods, fountain soft drinks, smokes, candy, you get the picture. Our cops hang out there in the wee hours of the am when no one is stirring. You know, kind of like they do at Duncan Donuts and Krispy Kreme in larger cities. These convenience stores are the most secure locations in my town. You'd have to be really stupid to try and rob one of these places. An ounce of prevention, they say, is worth a pound of cure. Which is more beneficial, the Convenience store catering to the police officers who stop in for a quick cup of Joe or having 50 respond to a robbery because they never stop by? If it were my store, the cops would all qualify for a law enforcement discount just to have them around. Profiling is the same thing. You prevent attacks by making it more difficult. You create a situation where the possibilities of the bombers being discovered before they carry out their deadly assignment. But in my book, that is just common sense. Something which nobody has ever accused the ACLU of being guilty.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.