30 September 2005

ACLU Savors Latest Victory

Written For and Posted At Stop The ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union is licking their collective chops over the victory gifted to them by the very liberal Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, who has decided that the supposed "Public Right To Know" trumps the safety of US soldiers deployed in combat zones and Americans traveling abroad. He was confirmed by the United States Senate to serve the federal bench in one of the most liberal cities on the planet in 1998, New York. New York, the site of the 2001 World Trade Center collapse at the hands of Islamic terrorists. Who used 2 commercial airplanes as guided missiles killing nearly 3,000 innocent civilians. New York, the financial center of the American economy and the home to one of the most aggressive chapters of the ACLU. The NYCLU (the New York Chapter) has opposed random bag searches of subway passengers. Passengers who have been overwhelmingly cooperative and receptive to the practice. The NYCLU who is waging war against military recruiters offering a better way of life to the under privileged and appealing to the patriotic who may want their chance to serve and protect this nation against further attacks like the one which decimated New York in 2001. These people have an agenda. Their agenda is to implement an internal revolution through the use of a judicial coup d'etat. And their best weapon, activist judges such as Alvin K. Hellerstein. During the hearings held last week over the nomination and confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr, we heard from both sides of the aisle on the subject of activist judges. Republicans (actually Conservatives) see an activist judge as someone who uses his position on the bench to make rulings outside the mainstream. And in doing so, either creates new law, or modifies existing law through rulings which are contrary to the best interests of the nation. Democrats, see activist judges as those who would shut down their liberal interpretation of the Constitution. A judge which will see in passed legislation provisions which violate not the phantom "Spirit" of the Constitution, but the actual meaning of the founding document of this nation. In other words, Strict Constructionists who see the Constitution as a static document with expressed meanings instead of implied meanings. By definition, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein is an activist Judge. He has made a ruling which has put the national security of the United States and its citizens in danger. And by doing so, has violated his oath of office to "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic." The ACLU is an enemy of the Constitution of the United States and sadly, they are a domestic one. Their tactics of extortion and judicial terrorism is putting the American people in danger. And why are they doing this? To conform to the goals of one of their co-founders, Roger Nash Baldwin.
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Since the collapse of their beloved Soviet Union, the ACLU has stepped up their anti-American activities by supporting causes which cast the United States in bad light. By their defense of foreign terrorists being held in accordance of the rules of war. And by their need to release images of abuses committed by a few stupid individuals who chose to violate their own oaths. Those who committed these crimes against humanity did so without orders. They did so out of ignorance. They did so on their own. I do hold those who were in command responsible for the simple fact that they allowed a collapse of discipline to happen within their command. But to release additional photos to the world would only serve to further the cause of those who are waging the war of insurgency in Iraq. And strengthen the resolve of terrorists who wish to do our people and government harm.
Mark my words, if these images hit the public, the terrorist will be more resolute. Their recruiting will increase and the insurgency will last longer. More terrorist cells will open up and nobody will be safe. And this is all in an elaborate plan by the ACLU to re-institute their golden years. The years of the anti-war protests against the war in Vietnam. They have been on the down swing of things since the ending of that war. Since the cut-and-run. They won that battle. But now we have a chance to show them that we do not share their radical agenda. We do not want to live in the United Soviet States of Amerika. I am calling on everyone to write your Senators demanding the impeachment of Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. Oh yes, he can be impeached. The charge - violation of his oath of office. The specification - aiding an enemies of the Constitution of the United States, the ACLU and foreign terrorists who would gain by the release of these photos.
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 September 2005

Today Is The Day - A Floor Vote On Our Next Chief Justice

It is official, John G. Roberts has been Confirmed by the Senate to become our next Chief Justice of the United States by a vote of 78 - 22. Now all that needs to be done, is the swearing in of our next Chief Justice. Congratulations John G. Roberts, we all have high hopes for our future. 21 Senators Announced their intention to vote no ahead of time All Democrats:
Bayh Biden Boxer Cantwell Clinton Corzine Dayton Durbin Feinstein Harkin Inouye Kennedy Kerry Lautenberg Mikulski Obama Reed Reid Sarbanes Schumer Stabenow There were 2 who did not announce a head of time: Akaka (D-HI) Voted - No Rockefeller (D-WV) Voted - Yes
All other Senators voted yes to the nomination. All 55 Republicans and 23 Democrats. The swearing in ceremony is expected to be held around 3:00pm today at the White House.
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 September 2005

Stop The ACLU BlogBurst - September 29, 2005

Cross Posted from Stop The ACLU
The ACLU, who claim to be Americas guardian of liberty is ironically the most active religious censor in America. For nearly two generations it has relentlessly forced countless communities into submission when it comes to public expression of faith, particularly Christianity. California has been fighting to save their seal, its history and heritage from the clutches of the ACLU's secular cleansing with everything they've got. The people voted to keep the seal, but the ACLU is not interested in democracy. They believe they know what is best for society, and are willing to force it on people through their finely tuned skills of judicial activism. Now they are at it again- this time in the small village of Tijeras, New Mexico (population 474). Earlier this week, our friend The Mary Hunter at TMH's Bacon Bits told us the story, and asked, where is the ACLU?
Two residents of a New Mexico town are suing to remove three crosses from the official town seal. The suit says "the crosses serve no governmental purpose other than to disenfranchise and discredit non-Christian citizens" and accuses the city of violating the plaintiff's constitutional right to religious freedom, invading their privacy, and violating the civil rights act of 1964. The mayor says he plans to fight the lawsuit since, he says, the crosses have a historical reason for being in the logo. After all, the town in question is Las Cruces, which is Spanish for "The Crosses."
The Alliance Defense Fund will be stepping up to the plate once again to defend religious liberty.
TIJERAS, N.M. - The village council of Tijeras agreed Thursday to be represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund in their battle against a lawsuit threatened by the ACLU. The ACLU claims the village logo violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it depicts a small cross. "We have carefully reviewed the ACLU's allegations and believe the seal is entirely constitutional under the law," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "The main feature of the city seal is not the cross but the Zia, which is a Native American religious symbol. The symbols of the seal reflect the history and culture of this ancient village. Many of the same design elements, such as the Zia, are found in the state flag. Why isn't the ACLU suing against the state flag?" The seal, which depicts a conquistadores helmet and sword, the Native American Zia symbol, and a small rosary, was designed in 1973 to accurately reflect the village's history and not to further any religion. "The ACLU is once more specifically targeting a cross while it ignores Native American religious symbols. It reveals their desire to target all things Christian, regardless of the fact that the cross in the Tijeras seal is clearly an historic symbol and not an attempt to endorse any particular faith," McCaleb said.ADF
This small town is standing up to the ACLU, and that should be commended. With a population of 474 this is no small feat. Its these small communities the ACLU love to prey on. These kind of lawsuits are the ACLU's specialty, and its sad for an organization that claims it is protecting our civil liberties, to be one that practices daily at stripping them away. We applaud this small town for standing up for their liberty. Thank goodness we have the Alliance Defense Fund out there protecting religious liberty from the secular cleansing of the ACLU. Why the ACLU are allowed to continue their destruction of liberty is beyond me, but its high past time for people to do something about it! Join us in our fight against the ACLU and its secular cleansing of America. We are a grassroots organization trying to gather the troops to fight the ACLU, expose their agenda, awaken America, and save liberty from the clutches of the secular agenda. This was a production of Stop The ACLUblogburst. Over 100 blogs are already on board. If you want to join us, just register through our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info on how to get aboard and fight the ACLU. Boards 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.

Who Tells Who How To Vote?

I just read a headline in my Google Alerts, "NAACP opposes Roberts". Which prompted me to wonder, who tells who how to vote. Now it is obvious that the black community has been snowed into believing that the lefties of the Democratic Party have their interests in mind. When the fact of the matter is quite the opposite. The Republican Party was founded in the late 1850s and immediately took on issues such as polygamy and slavery. That's right, the Party which elected Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation is the same party that is opposed in every way by the leadership of the NAACP.
In every avenue of Civil Rights the Democratic Party has blocked the adoption of legislation and application of decisions by the Court. But yet, the NAACP has a love affair with the Democratic Party due to their class warfare stance. By promotion of the separation of classes and mis-information put forth by the Democratic Party leading those who are out of the political loop to believe that the Republican is only for the rich and the Democrats fight for the rights of the poor is nothing short of Bull S***. The powers that be in the days of the Jim Crow South were all Democrat. That's right, Democrat. Senator Robert Byrd, the 8 term Senior Senator of not only his home state of West Virginia, but the Entire Senate was an active member of the Ku Klux Klan. He even gave a 14 hour filibuster speech opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But yet the NAACP sides with his party. Post Brown v Board of Education it was a Democratic Governor in Arkansas that almost ripped this nation apart for the second time in 100 years when he deployed the Arkansas National Guard to prevent 9 black students from attending classes at the all white Central High School in Little Rock Arkansas in 1957. President Eisenhower had to send federal troops into Little Rock to escort the children to class. And why is this? Good question. Most would say that the majority of those in this nation living below the poverty level are black. But that too is an error. Of the total population, 75% of those living below the poverty level are white. Granted, as a percentage of racial groups individually, the black community has the highest percentage below the poverty level. But it remains that of the total population living below the poverty level 75% are white. So that can't be it. Or can it? Class warfare has been the calling card of the left since the beginning of this nation. The poor have always been with us. And we dealt with them in different ways since the founding of the United States. But the most inhumane way of dealing with the poor is to give them a handout. The left has been advocating supporting of the poor by handicapping the poor with a hand out. And penalizing them for trying to dig themselves out of the hole created by the so called welfare safety net. Class warfare and envy are the enemies of this nation. The "progressives" in this nation with their overwhelming guilt complexes have created a monster from which it is going to have to take some adult thinking to escape. But just as soon as anyone, especially a Republican, suggests reforming this leftover broken idea from the Great Society days, the looney left comes out in swarms to oppose that individual. So begins the Potomac Two Step. So the headline prompted me to ask, who is telling who how to vote? Organized labor, the NAACP, NOW, and every other liberal organization have their loyal groups who will do whatever their favorite project will say. And in the case of the NAACP, it is my opinion that they are leading the black community into the mouth of the lion. Based on the history of the Democratic Party, I am of the opinion that there isn't 1 trustworthy liberal in the lot. And make no mistake, I don't believe in moderate Democrats. Like the unicorn, they are a fantasy. They don't exist. There are however Conservatives who happen to belong to the wrong party. Of these the most notible is Zell Miller.
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.

27 September 2005

An Eye On The Vote

It is obvious to me that all those who vote in opposition to Judge John G. Roberts in his nomination to become the next Chief Justice of the United States are doing so for 2 reasons. Reason #1 is flaming liberalism. They can't win their agenda through the normal democratic means, so they prostitute the judicial system by taking advantage of liberally activist judges. Reason #2 is plain politics. They have a minority in the House. They have a minority in the Senate. And they have not been in the White House for the last 5 years and won't have it in the near future. Remember the last 2 term Republican President was followed by another Republican. The Democratic Party's failures have sparked their rhetoric to placing the blame for everything from the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby to the development of killer hurricanes on Karl Rove, President Bush, and the Republican Party. And it will be this non-sense rhetoric which will keep the Congress in Conservative hands as well as the White House. And they know it. The only place where they can stone wall is in the confirmation process of the federal judiciary. They have shown their hand by opposing all judges nominated by the President. Senators like Kennedy, Schumer, Turbin (errr I mean Durbin), Feinstein, Boxer, and Kerry are showing their red colored hearts with each opposition vote that they cast. Kerry, who still has aspirations of becoming President one day is the most hypocritical of all the Lefties on the hill. Appearing on the floor of the Senate to oppose the nomination of John Roberts citing the failure of the Administration to produce documents which are protected under privilege. But in contrast has opposed and stone walled the release of his own military records. The very records that he has publicly agreed to release. Records which only he has the authority to release. Documents that he has publicly stated that he would release. If Senator Kerry believes that his address will ever be 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue he needs a psychological evaluation. Because if ANY of us on the right have anything to do about it, he will not only NOT ever be elected President, he will not ever be re-elected to the Senate. Those who claim to be looking out for your Civil Rights are snowing you. They have no interest in you Civil Rights. They only have interest in the level of their power. The common theme in the Democratic questioning in the Judiciary Committee hearings was does John Roberts believe in preserving Congressional authority and limiting Presidential authority. Democrats, who believe that their best chance at gaining more control is in the 2006 midterm elections by gaining seats in both houses. Gaining a majority in the Senate and a tighter grip on the House. But they fail to realize that with every no vote in the Roberts Confirmation, they shoot themselves in the foot. The American public has become aware of the sins of liberal thought. The fee wheeling Baby Boomers are retiring. The sons and daughters of the Baby Boom are sobering up from their liberal indoctrination's intoxication. The 30 somethings and some very intelligent 20 somethings are seeing truth as the truth. No longer are the youth being hoodwinked by the entertainment industry. No longer is the indocrination practices of the liberal teaching establishment being ignored. No longer does organized labor have a hold on the political climate in this nation. The power base of the Democratic party has shifted to the looney left. It is groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization of Woman, and Planned Parenthood which the liberal Senators are voting for. They are pandering to their special interests. Keep in mind, Driver of the Century, Senator Edward "The Lush" Kennedy is up for re-election as part of Senate Class I next year. Subverting this re-election should be top priority. However, I doubt anyone will be running against him. Here is the bottom line, a vote against Roberts is a vote against America.
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 Debate On Roberts Continues

So far not 1 Republican Senator has expressed that he/she will oppose the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts for the appointment as Chief Justice of the United States. This being said, as of 3:30 pm on Tuesday, September 27, 2005;16 Democrats have expressed on the floor of the Senate that they are supporting the nominee. Senators Byrd, Leahy, Dodd, Pryor, Feingold, Lieberman, Kohl, Dorgan, Conrad, Johnson, Salazar, Nelson, Bingaman, Landrieu, and Baucus have openly expressed on the floor their intent to support. You will note that there are only 15 names there. CSPAN is claiming 16 Democratic supporters and only lists 15 of them. Conspiracy or oversight? CSPAN in my opinion leans a little left anyway. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island is a moron. A flaming ACLU supporting liberal. From his first words this afternoon, it was obvious that he believes that the Constitution is a living document. He immediately used the words "uphold the 'spirit' of the Constitution". How can a state be ignorant enough to elect an individual to the United States Senate who cannot even speak English. This guy adds "R's" to all words ending in vowels. Idea to him is idear. I hate that. But I digress. So in short, at the present time the nominee has 66 votes in the affirmative with the vote scheduled for 11:30 am on Thursday.
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.

Stop The ACLU's Carnival Of True Civil Liberties

Cross Posted From Stop The ACLU Written By Jay
So the idea has been shuffled around in our discussion forum, and chat room, and the consensus is in. We will start a carnival. What is a carnival? Take a look at a few examples. Carnival Of The Clueless Carnival of Liberty We've been doing the Stop The ACLU Blogburst for quite some time now where all of our supporters link to us, and that will continue, but this works the opposite way...one post that links to all of you. Here's the ground rules.
#1. Post must be original material, no crosspost copy and paste stuff. It must be anti-ACLU in nature, or having to do with our civil liberties that are being stripped away via judicial activism. #2. All posts must be submitted. You submit the URL of your post, the trackback URL, the name of your blog, and the title of your post. You can submit them by emailing them to carnival.submissions@stoptheaclu.com or using Conservative Cat's Submission Form. #3. All submissions will be due on Friday by 9 p.m. and the carnival will be hosted on Mondays each week. #4. The usual, no profanity or invocation of violence. All submissions will be subject to the discretion of the hosting blog. #5. It is highly encouraged for the blogs that participate to make a post pointing to the host of the carnival on the day of the carnival.
So, I'll get this thing rolling for the first few weeks. I'd like to find a few volunteers so a different blog can host it each week. It will be a lot of work, so don't devote unless you can be dependable. It will be hard to keep up with, so I'll keep it at 12 blogs for now. The first ones to contact me will be the hosts for now. I've already got a few volunteers willing to host. I'll set up a schedule as we get more. Volunteers to host so far: Cafe Oregano And Rightly So The Conservative UAW Guy Musing Minds Gribbit Gina's Rantings 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 September 2005

What M*A*S*H* Character Are YOU!

Click here to take the M*A*S*H quiz!
Hat Tip: Samantha Burns 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.

24 September 2005

No Surprises Here

You are a
Social Conservative (18% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative (71% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Strong Republican
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
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.

Let My People Go

The Editor at Republican Voices has had my submission since Wednesday, but still it isn't published. So, I've decided that the information was too important to stagnant in his email. Time to publish it myself.

Pimping the Constitution: An ACLU project to remove religion from American life. Or Let My People Go!
The ACLU's catch all in every argument is the 14th Amendment and the belief that section 1 of the Amendment applies the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the states; in particular the Establishment Clause. Personally I don't see anything in the language which makes that so.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14th Amendment Section 1 of the US Constitution
Now keep in mind the reason for the drafting and ratification of this Amendment. The 14th was one of the first "Civil Rights" Amendments passed in 1867 and ratified in 1868. Post Civil War Civil Rights legislation was meant to apply all the rights and privileges to all US citizens. At issue from my point of view is the 1st Amendment and the "Establishment Clause." The 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now, how can Congress's restriction on creating a law establishing a national religion be applied to the states? And even if it did, how does this apply to the use of public lands for a Christmas display? Did Congress make the decision for the use? Did the State Legislature? No, the town or city did. I'm not a big fan of implied references. Either the law says what it means and means what it says, or it says nothing at all. And the ACLU's prostitution of this Amendment for their warped agenda belittles the reasoning behind the adoption of the Amendment. With a broad interpretation of any two words in the English language, someone looking for a particular meaning will find it eventually. And the ACLU counts on this broad interpretation of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment in particular. The 14th has been used for everything from Roe v. Wade to a recent decision barring school children from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. It is the most over used and abused of all 27 Amendments to the Constitution. And the reason is the broad implications, to borrow the leftist terminology. The need for the Amendment was to establish that former slaves would be granted equal rights under the law of the land post Civil War. Not to bar the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance before classes begin for the day. There is an ancient cliche that states, "The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few, or the one." But try applying that to liberal thinkers. There may be 1 Atheist within 1,000 miles of a cross on public display. If this singular Atheist has to be exposed to this cross one time in his life, he has grounds under which to file a Civil Rights lawsuit claiming his offense. And down comes the cross. Think this is far fetched; take a look at the Mt. Soledad memorial fight going on in San Diego California. Another Atheist is offended by the inclusion of the words Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance and starts his campaign to personally remove it from being recited by school children. He files suit claiming that the offense of having his daughter exposed to this inhumanity so damages her and him that they require damages from the State of California for "forcing" her to recite it every morning. The federal judge discovers that the Atheist (who's an attorney by the way) didn't have custody of his child and dismisses the case. So the Atheist goes shopping for a client to proceed with and finds one. This time, the judge issues the state a cease and desist order to halt the practice citing that the state violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment as applied to the state in the implied applications outlined in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. (Is anyone saying BS by now? I am.) The ACLU's full court press against organized religions in this nation is leading a great movement on the right. Each week more and more individuals join my other major project citing the ACLU's war on Christianity. But to be fair, it's not just Christians that the ACLU have in their sights. Jews are also a major target for them. Interesting especially since the President of the national board of the American Civil Liberties Union is a Jew. My personal feelings on religion are such that I don't care if you worship or not. Or to whom you pray or not. My interest is in the application of laws to restrict the free exercise provisions of the 1st Amendment by the federal courts when their involvement is not warranted. As Moses said to Pharaoh, "Let my people go."
***On a side note: Today is Pimp Your Blog Day at Stop The ACLU. Join Jays Weekend Trackback Party. 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.

Greed and Corruption - A way of life in N.O.

Cross Posted From Birth of a Neo-Con
This just makes my heartache, the corruption, and the opportunists. I know, or at least I think I know, this is not the majority, but more and more all we are seeing on the news are the people who would take advantage of the situations that arise. People looting, Cops looting, Federal Monies missing, unaccounted for, not for survival, but out of greed.
GREED and CORRUPTION. I am sick of it.


During the past week I read story after story about how so many of New Orleans' middle and upper income residents were able to flee the city as Katrina approached, but the poor were left to fend for themselves. The difference here wasn't money. The difference here was attitude. It was the self-sufficient vs. the dependent. The evil rich and middle-income residents fled New Orleans because they are used to accepting the responsibility for their own welfare and safety. The poor stayed behind because they're mired in the sludge of generation after generation of dependency on government. The accomplished class knows that they bear the responsibility for meeting their own needs and providing for their safety. The poor by-and-large bear no such responsibility. To them, it's the government's job. Instead of taking responsibility for their own safety --- they just sat there, waiting for government to come and save them.


Now here's something you probably didn't know about Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina. At the very time Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans, there were several top-level officials in the very department of Louisiana government that prepares for emergencies such as Katrina sitting around and waiting for their trial. Trial, you say? Trial for what? Let's try corruption and throw in a bit of fraud. It seems that these Louisiana officials either misspent or misplaced or ... worse ... about 60 million federal taxpayer bucks. Here are some details ... In March of this year -- that's about five months before Katrina -- FEMA was asking for the return of $30.4 million that the federal government had sent to Louisiana for emergency planning and preparedness. Most of this money was sent to some state office called the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. Wait .. it gets worse. According to the Los Angeles Times, much of that money was sent to Louisiana under some federal program called the Click here: Hazard Mitigation Grant program. That is a program that is, in part, supposed to help states improve flood control facilities. Flood? Did someone say flood? Hazard mitigation would have been a great idea in New Orleans, don't you think? Especially that "improve flood control facilities" part, but nobody seems to know where the money went! OK ... let's follow the trail of $15.4 million dollars that was spent by the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. The $15.4 million was part of a $40.5 million grant of your money that was sent to Louisiana for the Hazard Mitigation Program. You know ... flood control and all that. Oops! Hold on a second here. My bad. It seems we can't follow that $15.4 million.. You see, the Louisiana officials say that they awarded that money to subcontractors for 19 major hazard mitigation programs, but they just can't seem to find any receipts to account of 97% of the funds. Ninety-seven percent of $15.4 million, my friends. No receipts. That's $14.94 million .. gone, and nobody can trace it. Do any of you think that something good might have been done with some of this money? Lives saved? Flooding prevented? If you're thinking that, remember ... we're talking Hurricane Katrina here, and we all know that every bad thing that happened in Hurricane Katrina was ---

All together now ---- Bush's Fault! - source

Corruption, being part of the atmosphere down there, paired with the Take Care of ME attitude,was and continues to be a recipe for disaster. A disaster that was preventable, and now we are all going to bear the cost as we rebuild New Orleans. Why? Because they never took care of themselves, nor ever took personal responsibility for what they did. The powerful got rich, the poor stayed poor, mostly by their own choice, and when disaster struck, gangs from outside the city took advantage and robbed jewelry stores, cause that made sense. Instead of pulling together and scraping your way out.


We should all Try being dependant on ourselves for once.

Cross Posted at Zaphriel's Blog

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 September 2005

Friday Night Chat Night

It is Friday again. Which means it's Stop The ACLU Chat Night. All are invited. BUT - keep in mind trolls and obstructionist will get the boot. Profanity and Liberal Stupidity... get's the boot. Chat link in my side bar. Begins at 8:00 pm Eastern until whenever it fizzles out. See you 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.

Like Jackals

Have you ever noticed, the ACLU is like a pack of Jackals. They find the most cash strapped little burg and they attack there. They will either gain capitulation or if it goes to court, they will establish precedent to use against the rest of the nation. Let's face it, a little town with a very tight budget, cannot afford to hire quality Constitutional Attorneys. They are often forced to use the town's Solicitor or Prosecutor to represent the town in federal court against Constitutional challenges raised by the ACLU. A Jackal feeds on the week and the dying. Bottom feeders of the food chain like Buzzards. And I lump the ACLU in the same quality of creature. They aren't human. They aren't sharks. They are bottom feeding Jackals. Speaking of sharks, the old comparison of Lawyers to sharks isn't exactly true. Sharks have higher standards. Thank You to Outside The Beltway
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.

22 September 2005

Intelligent Design Trial To Begin Monday

A bill to promote intelligent design was introduced to the Pennsylvania State House Representatives on March 16, 2005. The bill, HB 1007, would amend the State Public School Code of 1949 to include a section entitled "Teaching Theories on the Origin of Man and Earth," which would allow school boards to approve the teaching of intelligent design in lessons on evolution. "Upon approval of the board of directors, any teacher may use supporting evidence deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of intelligent design," the bill reads. The bill does not provide a definition of intelligent design, but says that teachers may not, when teaching the theory, "stress any denominational, sectarian, or religious belief." According to the National Center for Science Education, the bill has met criticism from Pennsylvania scientists and the director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who remarked, "while this bill seeks to advance an anti-science agenda, we should view the introduction of this legislation as a golden opportunity to remind our legislators why it is so important that all Pennsylvania's public school students learn good science." (4/7/05)

Members of the Biology Department at Shippensberg University in Pennsylvania sent a letter to the Dover Area School Board expressing opposition to a decision last October to include Intelligent Design in the biology curriculum. In the letter, the biology professors argued that Intelligent Design is a "philosophical argument" that evades the scientific method because it directly implies the existence of an un-knowable "Intelligent Designer." The letter was written by Assistant Professor Pablo Delis and signed by 15 other faculty members as an expression of solidarity with Dover High School biology teachers, who refused to enforce the curriculum change in January. Dr. Delis wrote, "administrators or teachers enacting this modification of the curriculum are presenting students with misinformation about the content and process of science." (2/10/05)

In a letter to the Dover Area School District superintendant Dr. Richard Nilsen on January 6th, all but one teacher in the Dover Senior High School science department stated their refusal to read the four-paragraph disclaimer about evolution in front of their classes, as mandated late last year by the School District. In December, the biology curriculum was updated to include a clause requiring teachers to make students "aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design." The disclaimer, to be read at the start of the evolution unit in biology classes, refers to evolution as "theory, not fact" and offers students a reference book on Intelligent Design, called Of Pandas and People. The teachers refused to read the disclaimer on the grounds that it violated their professional integrity as established by the Pennsylvania's Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators. The teachers wrote: "...students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, perhaps on par with the theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to Of Pandas and People as if it is a scientific resource breaches my ethical obligation to provide them with scientific knowledge that is supported by recognized scientific proof or theory." Due to a pending lawsuit over the science curriculum filed by Dover parents, the school board agreed to the teachers' request, and charged school administrators with the task of reading the disclaimers. (1/21/05)

On December 14, eleven parents from Dover, Pennsylvania -- represented by the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and attorneys from Pepper Hamilton LLP --filed suit in federal court to overturn the "intelligent design" policy of the Dover Area School Board. The plaintiffs in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District argue that teaching intelligent design -- which consists of discredited creationist criticisms of evolution, which are supposed to lead to the conclusion that supernatural intervention by an "intelligent designer" must have been responsible for the history of life -- is government establishment of religion when taught as science in a public school science class. Vic Walczak, attorney for the Pennsylvania chapter of the ACLU, said that "Teaching students about religion's role in world history and culture is proper, but disguising a particular religious belief as science is not," at the press conference announcing the suit. He added, "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes." Reaction to the complaint was swift. A trenchant editorial in the York Dispatch began by observing, "The intelligent design/creationist clique on the Dover Area School Board now have the national media attention they've been angling for -- and so much for their mandated responsibilities to the students and district residents," and went on pointedly to describe the procedure for running for school board. Angie Yingling, a member of the Dover Area School Board who initially voted for the policy but later reversed her position and threatened to resign over the policy, told the Associated Press, "Anyone with half a brain should have known we were going to be sued." The Discovery Institute issued a press release calling on the board to withdraw and rewrite its policy. But Richard Thompson, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center, which describes itself as a "not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life," indicated that his firm would represent the Dover Area School District to defend the "intelligent design" policy. Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, Thompson acknowledged that "religious implications" of "intelligent design," but expressed confidence in the prospects for a legal victory. NCSE's Nicholas Matzke took a different view, saying, "Evolution is great science and this intelligent design stuff is religiously motivated pseudo-science," adding, "it seems like a pretty clear-cut case to us." For the San Francisco Chronicle's story on Dover, visit: Here

In a surprise move, a Pennsylvania school board recently voted to include "intelligent design" in the district's science curriculum. At its meeting on October 18th, the Dover Area School Board revised the science curriculum to include the following: "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught." The district is now apparently the first school district in the country to require the teaching of "intelligent design" -- a move that prompted two school board members to resign and that is likely, locals fear, to result in a lawsuit. Casey Brown, a ten-year veteran of the school board who resigned over the vote, commented, "There seems to be a determination among some board members to have our district serve as an example; to flout the legal rulings of the Supreme Court, to flout the law of the land. They don't seem to care. I think they need to ask the taxpayers if they want to be guinea pigs," adding that the board has already spent almost one thousand dollars in legal expenses. The York Dispatch editorialized, "When it comes to including that mantra ["intelligent design"] as part of an official school curriculum it's a case of religious zeal playing with taxpayers money, and it's just plain wrong."

The National Center for Science Education's (NCSE) Executive Director Eugenie C. Scott told the York Daily Record, "Intelligent design is just a sham to get creationism into the curriculum," explaining that "even if [its advocates] haven't convinced the scientific community, they have been able to convince the politicians ... And that's too bad for the students in Dover." Concerned readers who are in, or who have family or friends in, the Dover, Pennsylvania, area are urged to get in touch with Nick Matzke (matzke@ncseweb.org) at NCSE. For a story on the vote in the York Daily Record, visit: Here. For further coverage on NCSE's web site, visit: Here (10/22/04)

Sources: American Insitute of Biological Sciences Public Policy Report, National Center for Science Education, National Science Teachers Association, and York Daily Record, Dover Area School District website.

Contributed by Emily Lehr Wallace, AGI Government Affairs Program and Katie Ackerly, AGI/AAPG 2005 Spring Intern.

Please send any comments or requests for information to AGI Government Affairs Program.

Last updated on March 7, 2005

For the record, I am of the opinion that life on Earth is no accident as the Atheistic Evolutionists contend. There are sizable gaps in the theory of Evolution. That's right Evolution is a THEORY. So why are people who are opposed to all religion so opposed to it? Why are they offended at the symbol of a cross when it has no significance to them? Why do they oppose the 10 Commandments if they do not believe in the existance of the source of the words? And why do they care if a THEORY is presented as a THEORY and alternatives are discussed? Because when they remove religion from life, then their power grows. Keep in mind that in Nazi Germany (a socialist society) religion was opposed. In the Soviet Union, all religion was banned. In China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cambodia religion is suppressed. Why? Because GOD is a jealous GOD. And these Communist societies worship the State. And so do the Evolutionist Atheists in the USA. And unfortunately since the Scopes trial, they have taken hold. And with every court case where an Atheist wins removal of religion from public life, the Communist agenda in the USA is gaining ground.
Pay attention people. This case is going on under the radar. 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.

My Favorite College Writer Hits The Nail On The Head - Again

Reprinted From The Sophian Liberal Oppostition to Roberts Nomination Shows Desire to Polarize Written by: Kirsten Steinke of Smith College
If any one thing can be said about the John Roberts confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, it is that they were markedly boring. Roberts remained calm and collected, completely unfettered. Without any real reason to oppose Roberts, Democrats half-heartedly (as if aware of the futility of it all) asked irrelevant questions to which they knew he would not respond. With a firm platform of judicial integrity above personal political affiliation, Roberts was essentially inscrutable. After all the buildup by liberal opposition organizations, the public may have expected a little bit more. Perhaps the most ridiculous effort by these opposition groups was the ad run by NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League), which attempted to paint Roberts as a violent misogynist. In 1989, Roberts was involved with a lawsuit in which abortion clinics sought federal intervention in the event that protestors trespassed on their property. While Roberts agreed that trespassing was directly contrary to state law, he questioned whether it was directly prohibited by federal law, thus justifying federal intervention. Therefore, according to NARAL's ad, Roberts supports abortion clinic bombings. Though NARAL has since pulled the ad, they continue to urge supporters to oppose his confirmation, stating on their website, "If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will vote to dismantle Roe v. Wade." Despite all evidence to the contrary and Roberts' repeated statements that he will uphold past precedent, NARAL continues to politicize Roberts' nomination. And while NARAL represents the most extreme example of this opposition, it is not alone. Other groups, such as MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, The Feminist Majority Foundation, and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, to name a few, have all jumped on the polarizing bandwagon. During the election, one of the main points made by Democrats was that the country was divided as it had never been before, and that this division was the fault of Bush's presidency. Why, then, is it that the majority of polarization comes from the left? Certainly, some of this division can be attributed to the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson crowd, but the fact remains that these extreme right wingers rarely represent the general sentiments of mainstream conservatives. It is all well and good for liberals to contend that they are opposed to the political rift in America today, but their actions invariably speak louder than their words. Despite liberal groups' depictions of Roberts as a threatening, right-wing candidate for nomination, his uneventful confirmation hearings proved that he will be a reliable judge to uphold the law as it stands. If the liberal groups which represent mainstream democratic views truly wish to erase the political divide in the country, then they will take the events of the confirmation hearings as evidence of the futility of their polemic tirades. Until this happens, the divide will remain.
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.

Hitting The ACLU Where It Hurts The Most, Their Pocketbook

Written By Jay and Cross Posted from Stop The ACLU
On 1, Oct. 19, 1976 Congress passed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which gave the Courts the power to award attorney's fees in civil rights cases to the prevailing party. 'The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976' was passed with high hopes, and the good intentions that it would help provide relief for individuals that might not otherwise be able to afford the expenses of defending their civil liberties if they were violated. The ACLU, and other judicial activitist have completely turned the intentions of this amendment on its head. Whenever the ACLU fights voluntary prayer in school, a war memorial because it's in the shape of a cross, ten commandment displays, or keeping the boyscouts from military sponsorship, and they win, you pay for their attorney's fees. What was intended to protect people from having their civil rights violated has been twisted by the ACLU to use as leverage when they threaten small schools and communities that can't afford to defend themselves from the well funded, and well staffed ACLU bully. Yes, legislation intended to protect civil liberties is often used to supress religious expression by the likes of the ACLU. There is currently legislation in the House introduced by Representive Hostettler that hopes to remedy its abuse. It is an amendment that limits the attorney fees in Establishment Clause cases to injuctive relief only. In other words, if the ACLU wants to pick a fight over someone praying in public, or a ten commandments display that offends one sensitive athiest, they'll have to dig into their own deep pockets, and it will not come from yours. We want your voice to be heard in D.C. supporting this legislation. It's really simple, all we need is your autograph. SIGN THE PETITION TO GET THE ACLU OFF THE TAXPAYER'S DOLE This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. If you would like to join our efforts to fight the ACLU, it's very simple. Just register at our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info you will need. Over 100 blogs already on board. Join us!
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.

21 September 2005

Why Are The Holding Out?

An 8 year old girl selected a song to sing in her school's talent show. The restrictions on the acts in the talent show were that all the music and other content must be G-rated. Olivia Turton selected, Awesome God, a very popular modern Christian song to sing for her act. She was permitted to practice her song only to find out on the night of the talent show that she would not be permitted to sing it.
c-n.com reports:

On the day of the talent show, a federal judge declined an emergency request to compel the school to let Olivia sing "Awesome God." After hearing arguments in Trenton, U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler said he refused to decide "a complex constitutional issue at the 11th hour," said attorney Demetrios K. Stratis, who is representing the child.

But guess what happens next? You'll never believe what happens. I'll let c-n.com tell you the good news.
The New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday that it has asked to participate in the case of a second-grader prevented from singing a religious song at a public school talent show. The organization filed a motion Monday, backing the views of 8-year-old Olivia Turton, who was prevented by school administrators from singing "Awesome God" at a voluntary, after-school talent show. Jennifer Klear, the organization's cooperating attorney with the New York-based law firm Drinker, Biddle & Reath, said in a prepared statement, "There is a distinction between speech by a school and speech by individual students. The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including the right to express herself religiously." Russel Weiss Jr., the school board's attorney, said Tuesday that he was unaware of the organization's motion and plans to release a statement later this week. "The school's position is that it did not violate the student's First Amendment rights, and the school acted properly in rejecting the use of the song ... because of it's overtly religious nature." The lawsuit, also brought with the support of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., has argued that the constitutional separation of church and state does not restrict an individual's religious speech. Joyce Brennan, the school's superintendent, did not return a phone call for comment.
So this raises a question. Why is the school board holding out? For the love of Pete, they have the ADF AND the ACLU on them over this. It is not that often that these two organizations are in agreement over a question of public expression of religious beliefs. And much more rare that Stop The ACLU and the ACLU are on the same page on a subject. But still the school board is holding out. They must be fools.
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.

20 September 2005

The ACLU - The Spoiled Children That They Are

This past weekend, we who watch news relentlessly were treated to the knowledge that the man who tried to extort money from Cameron Diaz over some topless photos that he had acquired of her was found guilty of forgery and extortion. This made national news while the MSM leaves out the daily attempts and more than often successes of the ACLU to do the same to local governments, school boards, state governments, and the federal government.
Case in point.
We have received word the ACLU is threatening more lawsuits against Seneca, Anderson and Oconee counties if they do no cease to mention a specific deity in their opening prayers.

The Honorable Henry McMaster P.O. Box 11549 Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mr. McMaster,
Last July, the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina asked for your help in ensuring that that municipalities throughout South Carolina comply with the recent United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling in Darla Kaye Wynne vs. Great Falls, cert denied US Supreme Court.
We suggested guidelines issued by your office for the municipalities to follow. Unfortunately, you declined to do so.
We have now discovered that municipalities in Seneca, Anderson, and Oconee are not currently following the law in their invocations.
Attached are letters that we sent to these respective localities about their invocations.
We, once again, respectfully ask that your office help municipalities understand the recent court ruling so that there is no confusion about the law concerning invocations given at local council meetings.
Obviously, there is a problem that needs to be dealt with by your office. Please let us know your plans.
Mike Cubelo
Piedmont Chapter of ACLU-SC
The ACLU reminds me of the child who doesn't get what he wishes out of an older brother and screams, "I'm going to tell mom!" And that is exactly what they are. A bunch of immature children who never wish to grow up. When they don't have things the way that they want them, they run to the federal court system crying foul. But prior to doing this, they send nasty letters implying that they will cause their targets expensive legal proceedings. Proceedings that often lead to rulings in their favor. Why? Because they shop for their court of choice. They find the Court of Appeals with greater track records for ruling in favor of liberal causes. Here's the point, there is an effort in Congress as we speak, that will eliminate some of the ability of judges to award attorny's fees reimbursements for prevailing parties in 1st Amendment Establishment Clause cases. By eliminating the awarding of attorney's fees in what otherwise would be a pro bono (for the common good) cases, you eliminate the incentive for abuses in the system. The ACLU and other liberal groups use the law as a stepping stone to additional funding. In the case of the ACLU, often times the threat of being faced with paying them these attorney's fees is enough to get the defending party to submit to the will of the ACLU. So many lawsuits never even get filed. That is what the ACLU-SC is attempting. First off, the rulings that they are warning against have no basis in law. The 1st Amendment says nothing about local and state governments exercising their rights to Establish a religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution
This doesn't say, South Carolina shall make no law. Nor does it say Ohio, California, Texas or any other state or the states as a whole. It specifically mentions Congress. This being a fact the 10th Amendment further expands upon the issue.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution
Now, no where in the 7 Articles or in the other 26 Amendments (counting the repealed 18th) does it specifically mention religion being prohibited to the states to establish their own form. No where. It is to the states and their Constitutions to decide this matter. If the City of Cleveland wants to open every City Counsel meeting, every Safety Department meeting, and every news conference with a prayer, that is Cleveland's choice. Unless prohibited by the Ohio Constitution or the City Charter. The Supreme Court of the United States has no authority to intervene in a state matter. And there in is the problem. As a nation we have become so used to the courts deciding our lives for us, that we just assume that it is within the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States to make decisions such as these for us. Well our founding fathers thought differently.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the US Constitution
No where does it mention an North Carolina Atheist (a citizen) and the state of North Carolina. That is an internal state matter. And it is time for the federal court system to leave the states alone. Stop expanding your reach.
End of Rant 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.

19 September 2005

Not All College Students Are Liberal Morons

I received a link to an online newspaper for Smith College that played right into our wheelhouse. Kirsten Steinke has written a piece that exposes the idiocy of the ACLU and the media concerning their advocacy of the release of additional photos from the Abu Ghraib torture embarrassment. My use of the word embarrassment is not to make light of the situation. However, the actions of a few (and I'm reluctant to use this term) soldiers cannot condemn the entire military or the United States government. And that is what the ACLU and the MSM, who have backed the effort to release additional photos from the incident are trying to accomplish. Reprinted from the Smith College newspaper - The Sophian
So a new year begins, and with it, a new campaign by a liberal group to defame and endanger our troops. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched a campaign to release additional photos of the abuses at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. There are approximately 74 photographs and three videos which have not been released, and which depict "more of the same" according to General Richard B. Myers. Although those responsible for the torture have been removed from their positions, and there have been no recurrences of abuse, the ACLU contends that the pictures are necessary to ascertain whether the abuses are part of systemic torture tactics or the acts of individuals. Not surprisingly, the major media networks have all agreed with the ACLU and have collectively issued a "friend of the court" brief, in which they defend the public's "right to know." When the Abu Ghraib photos were released to the public in Spring of 2004, the shock was palpable throughout the United States. Looking at the pictures of smiling abusers giving a thumbs up, and the expressions of pain on the prisoner's faces is enough to turn anyone's stomach. Many Americans were torn regarding their support for the troops stationed in Iraq, and the disturbing portrait of abusive, sadistic behaviors of those in uniform. Throughout much of the world, anger towards the actions of these few was misdirected towards Americans and particularly American troops, resulting in violence throughout Arab Street and protests against the war in Iraq. Why, then, would the ACLU want to release these additional photographs? Why would they seek to reawaken this anger against America and American troops? The truth is that Abu Ghraib was one of the most successful moments for the anti-war effort, as they finally had evidence of behavior so terrible and so well documented that they were able to convert many Americans in their support. Though they may not admit it, many anti-war activists would love to have this kind of even recur simply because it validates their blind hatred of the Bush administration and any action taken in its name. The allegations that the abuse is systemic rather than the actions of a perverse few are an attempt to justify the ACLU's defamation of our troops and the effort in Iraq. The evidence supporting their conspiracy theory is flimsy at best and amounts to a few memos which vaguely hint that, under the guidelines outlined by the administration, the possibility of torture is not expressly prohibited. The ACLU has also pointed to testimony of the perpetrators who have accused their higher-ups in an attempt to skirt the blame. Perhaps even less transparent than the agenda of the ACLU is the agenda of the liberal news organizations. They care nothing about the "public's right to know," but instead salivate over the ratings which would inevitably be drawn by the release of more photos of abuse. The release of these photos cannot be rationalized and moralized under the veil of "the public's right to know" when agendas such as anti-war activism and ratings are the clear driving forces. As the Iraqis draft a Constitution, and we come closer to the possibility of self-governance, the last thing we need is a renewed and strengthened hatred for the troops in Iraq. Perhaps the ACLU should stick with what it does best, and defend the rights of Ku Klux Klan members and child pornographers.
We on the right so often lump all college students into the same liberal mold forgetting that not all young people are susceptible to the indoctrination practices at these so-called "institutions of higher learning". Some are actually Conservative through right minded upbringing which actually teaches children to understand the issues that they are being confronted with. The common misconception that the left would like those who they are trying to indoctrinate to believe is that we on the right march in lock step. That we are the ones who are incapable of free thought. When the reality is quite the opposite. Take a look at leftist dogma and compare it to the issues being taken by either camp. And you will see that those who have the capabilities of free thought and understanding are those on the right side of the political spectrum. Those on the left commonly use the same talking points and rhetoric like a bunch of robots. Case in point, Hollywood. If you are an actor and back a Conservative way of life and publicly say so, your chances of finding work disappear. Most Conservative actors hide their political affiliations in fear of not being permitted to practice their trade. That sounds like censorship to me. Something that we get accused of. If you want to make a statement in life, don't repeat - Think. Thank you to Outside the Beltway and Mudville Gazette
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.

Guard Our Borders BlogBurst 9/19/05

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, illegal immigration has come to the forefront yet again as Americans watch hundreds of jobs that could (and should) go to displaced workers being taken instead by illegal immigrants. Here's the problem: You've got millions of illegal immigrants from south of the border working in jobs that "most Americans won't do." Meanwhile, you've got thousands of people with no jobs and no homes, many of whom have what I call the sponge mentality. This way of thinking can be summed up in one word: Gimme. You know what I'm talking about, right? Gimme welfare. Gimme food stamps. Now that cleanup is in full swing, hundreds of illegals have jumped on the opportunity to get across the border and get their foot in the door. And sure enough, the next logical step in this process has happened. They think they deserve visas.
"If we are working and helping to raise this city, at least they should give us a work visa," said Manuel Armenta, a 44-year-old Mexican who came to Biloxi five months ago to do cleaning work at a hotel.
Read that again and see if you notice anything. He came here five months ago. That means, he was already here illegally when Hurricane Katrina hit. He's not some philanthropic benefactor, he's an opportunist. He sneaks across the border months ago, and now that the hotel he worked at is gone, he's jumped on the wagon of "helping with the cleanup", and then has the gall to say he deserves permission to be here.
Many migrants living here illegally constantly worry about being detained and expelled. A visa "would help us to not have fear," said Hugo Martinez, 37, who has been working alongside Armenta.
Doesn't this story just pull at your heartstrings? These poor people, right? Hardly. These illegals are taking jobs that could help people who deserve them. People who lived in New Orleans legally and want to come home and start over, for example.
Both Armenta and Martinez said the main thing is to earn a living, regardless of their immigration status. "But being legal, one could be here without distrust," Martinez said. Jose Martinez, a 40-year-old Guatemalan, said the U.S. government should somehow recognize the contribution that undocumented workers are making to rebuild hurricane damaged areas. "Even if it was just a temporary permit, at least we could get insurance," said the former hotel worker, now laboring to remove debris at a shrimp plant.
See this? They not only want visas, they want insurance. They say "even if it was just a temporary permit", but come on. Does anyone with a brain really think these illegals will leave once their permit is over if they get insurance? Be realistic for crying out loud. They say they worry about being detained or expelled? Then why do they feel so comfortable giving their full names, ages, and what they're doing for work to the media? Doesn't sound like hiding and worrying to me. And let's not even take into account the tone of the article. Written by E. Eduardo Castillo, it's a veritable ode to the merits of amnesty for illegals. But almost as important as the whining requests demands of the illegals who are so unafraid of getting attention drawn to themselves is the attitude of so many of the New Orleans residents. Let's boil this down.
You have people who are used to laying back and taking what the government gives them instead of getting off their butts to work for it themselves, and then you have illegal immigrants who are aggressive. Think about that. It's no wonder that there's an influx of illegals into New Orleans right now - and it's no wonder that the powers that be are willing to let them stay for a bit to help with the cleanup. G-d forbid that New Orleans residents do it. They're too busy spending their free cash at the strip bar. Illegals should not be allowed into this country, at any time, for any reason. Residents of New Orleans should be given those jobs. One of the reasons our country is so great is because of the "can-do" attitude of our citizens in the past. There was a time when a whole town would gather to help one person rebuild a burned down barn. We have become what we are in part because of an attitude that said, "If it needs to be done, we'll do it until it's done." Let Americans from New Orleans rebuild their city - if you can get them out of the titty bars and Louis Vuitton shops, that is.
More at the Immigration Blog -------------------
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to kit.jarrell at gmail dot com.

Ogre's Politics and Views In The Bullpen Ravings of a Mad Tech America Is Not A Pinata! NIF

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.