16 October 2005

This is the end...

This is the end. Starting tomorrow, Gribbit's Word will no longer exist. Why? Costs. I cannot afford to maintain my hosting. I have never asked for money from anyone to help defray the costs involved in hosting my own site. Because of the low numbers of hits, the lack of participation in the blog portal, and combined with my limited personal resources, I'm allowing my hosting to expire. I will continue to contribute at Stop The ACLU, Conservative Angst, and Republican voices. But Gribbit Online will no longer exist. I do own the domain for 2 more years. But it will not be actively used. I hate to do this, but I guess that I must. If in the future, conditions change, I may revive Gribbit Online and Gribbit's Word. But for now, it is dead. Thank you for your support. Gribbit ****Update... I have chosen to switch Gribbit's Word back to blogger. If you have linked here via a blogroll, please take note of the updated url. 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.

Chris Wallace Speaks With Condi

Chris Wallace from Fox News Sunday spoke with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on issues of the Iraqi elections, the trial of Saddam Hussein, and Harriet Miers. But the most revealing questions came at the end of the interview and dealt with a movement that I am involved in. The effort to convince her to seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 2008.
WALLACE: Secretary, what do you think of this group, Americans for Rice, that is trying to launch a "Draft Condoleezza Rice" movement? RICE: Well, obviously, I'm flattered that somebody thinks of me in those terms. But, Chris, I haven't ever run for anything. I don't have any desire to run for anything. I didn't even run for high school president. And so I know my role, and I've got a lot of work to do as secretary of state. We've got a lot of issues, a lot of tough issues, but a lot of opportunities, too. And then I think unless I go to the NFL, I'm headed back to Stanford to teach. WALLACE: Are they wasting their money buying and putting up those ads? RICE: Chris, it's very -- obviously, it's flattering, and I appreciate people who think of me in those terms. But that's not what I'm going to do in life. WALLACE: Well, let me just press this one more time. Political strategist Dick Morris says that you are the only person in America who can stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president. Is that enough to get you to change your mind and run for president? RICE: Chris, I'm quite certain that there are going to be really fine candidates for president from our party, and I'm looking forward to seeing them and perhaps supporting them. But my job is to try to advance American foreign policy, to try to advance the president's agenda on democracy and human rights, to try to help resolve difficult issues like North Korea and to work with our friends and allies on wonderful days like today when we see the Iraqi people turn out in large numbers against all kinds of threats in an effort to finally get their democratic aspirations met.
I know that she has pretty much settled her mind that she does not want to be President. But, I can hope that she will see that her nation needs her. Without her, the people will rise up and elect a woman to become the first female President of the United States and it will be someone who will bring disgrace to the office. Again. We in the Blogs for Condi movement would like for Secretary Rice to re-consider her position. We would like for her to see that only she has the opportunity to keep the Clinton infestation out of the White House. This was plan all along. When Bubba's term was done, the Queen of his Double Wide was the only hope for them to continue their liberal agenda. Their marriage is one of Political Convenience not of love and respect. And to be honest, she is the brains of that pairing. Bubba's 8 years in office was a dark period in US history. He brought scandal and disgrace upon the Presidency and even went on national television and pointed his finger at the press pool insisting, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski." Personally I don't give a rat's ass whether he did or not. The problem that I have had with that four flusher is lying about it. If the American people cannot trust their leader, what foreign leader can? He was militarily impotent sending cruise missiles where he should have sent planes. And sent men to die in areas with no strategic, economic, or political interest. The country is ready for a woman leader. And it is my belief whether the woman is right for the job or not, if a woman runs against a more qualified man, the woman will win. Former Clinton political advisor Dick Morris has written a book where he claims the only person who can defeat Hillary Clinton is Condoleezza Rice. And I agree. Just think of it, Condi has the ability to lead. Condi has the intelligence to adjust to the changing world. And Condi would keep a level or respectability in the White House. And she also has the ability to become not just the first woman President, but the first African-American President. If shown that she really is the choice of the people, she will change her mind and run. So I remain optimistic. Linked at the Stop The ACLU open trackbacks 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.

15 October 2005

Elections - Today Is Constitution Day In Iraq

As I am writing this, it is 11:38 am in Iraq. Millions of Iraqis will be risking life and limb to cast their vote to accept or reject their form of national government. Let's face it campers, this document is what will define Iraq. Just as our Constitution is supposed to define the United States (when not prostituted by activist judges in the federal judiciary), the Iraqi Constitution will define them as a free people. On January 30th, when John Kerry was on television promising to release his military records, Iraq was voting. Voting in numbers which would shame American turnouts. Millions took a very real risk to their safety and lives to make their voice heard. And they did so with a small Sunni turnout. This time, Sunnis are going to be voting by all indication. And the pride of the Iraqis will be shown with purple fingers once again. They do so because for the first time in their lives they have the opportunity to participate in their government. A pride in the ability to do something that we as Americans have had since birth. A right that many of us ignore. A right which is truly more than a right, but a responsibility. We should all pay attention to the Iraqi people. And understand that they have a sense of responsibility. That they value this right which they have be denied for decades. We should be ashamed that it takes a nation of oppressed people to show us what a privilege it is to be able to be heard. And just to note, John Kerry still hasn't released his unedited military records. Iraq has since he made his promise, held a national election to establish a Constitutional Government and leadership, drafted a Constitution which is being voted on today, is making progress in rebuilding their infrastructure, and is on the path of true freedom. All while John Kerry's military records sit in a dusty warehouse. Come on Senator, you are the one who wants to be President. You are the one who is demanding disclosure from others while you hide your past. Free the records. Learn a lesson from the Iraqi people.
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.

14 October 2005

Hollywood Studios Don't Want To Be Seen Slumming

The major Hollywood studios are crying foul over the Children's Safety Act of 2005. Why? Because it will force them to submit filings to the government which at this time are only required of the Adult Film Industry. Boo-hoo! Here is what they object to. The provisions in the act require all films and television productions which contain a sex scene or a scene containing simulated sexual activity to submit a filing with the government which details the names and ages of the participants of the scene. And also requires a video label which would confirm that the film has complied with the law and lists the custodian of the records. The studios object to being lumped into the same class with adult film. I say that this should have been required all along.
By Brooks Boliek
WASHINGTON -- Tucked deep inside a massive bill designed to track sex offenders and prevent children from being victimized by sex crimes is language that could put many Hollywood movies in the same category as hard-core, X-rated films. The provision added to the Children's Safety Act of 2005 would require any film, TV show or digital image that contains a sex scene to come under the same government filing requirements that adult films must meet. Currently, any filmed sexual activity requires an affidavit that lists the names and ages of the actors who engage in the act. The film is required to have a video label that claims compliance with the law and lists where the custodian of the records can be found. The record-keeping requirement is known as Section 2257, for its citation in federal law. Violators could spend five years in jail. Under the provision inserted into the Children's Safety Act, the definition of sexual activity is expanded to include simulated sex acts like those that appear in many movies and TV shows. "It's a significant and unprecedented expansion of the scope of the law," one industry executive said. "I don't think the studios would like being grouped in with the hard-core porn industry." [emphasis added] The provision, written by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., could have ramifications beyond simply requiring someone to ensure that the names and ages of actors who partake in pretend lovemaking as compliance with Section 2257 in effect defines a movie or TV show as a pornographic work under federal law. Industry sources say the provision was included in the bill at the behest of the Justice Department. Calls to Pence's office and the Justice Department went unreturned Tuesday. On Pence's Web site, the congressman contends that the provision is meant to crack down on "so-called 'home pornographers' that use downloading on the Internet and digital and Polaroid photography to essentially create an at-home cottage industry for child pornography." Industry officials contend that the way the provision is written, a sex scene could trigger the provision even if the actors were clothed. While the language is designed to capture "lascivious exhibition of the genitals," other legal decisions have said that "lascivious exhibition" could occur when the genitals are covered. The bill, with the Section 2257 provision included, already has been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and is waiting consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Industry executives worry that the provision, which is retroactive to 1995, will have a chilling effect on filmmakers. Faced with the choice of filing a 2257 certificate or editing out a scene, a filmmaker might decide it's not worth getting entangled with the federal government and let the scene fall to the cutting-room floor, the executives said. "From the creative side of the street, there's concern that the government of federal law enforcement would get involved in what you were doing," one industry source said. "At some point, people would be faced with the decision: 'Do I include the scene and register a 2257 or leave it out?' " In 1988, a similar provision was ruled unconstitutional by the federal court here. Congress later rewrote it so that it included only actual sex acts, not the pretend acts in movies and TV shows. The 2257 provision also has ramifications beyond the artistic as a federal tax provision designed to stem runaway production is unavailable to anyone required to register a 2257. Many state incentives designed to entice filmmakers to shoot on location also contain similar language. Industry officials contend that the law is unnecessary. California laws and industry practices protecting children from harm are among the most stringent. "The California law goes from soup to nuts," one industry executive said. "There's not one shadow of any evidence that the movie industry doesn't protect children." While the provision is designed to ensure that children aren't abused, its critics say it will do little to stem child sex abuse. "Guys who are making this stuff don't care about reporting requirements," one source said. "When they're caught, they're looking at 30 years in prison. There's no indication they're going to fill out the paperwork."
So what is their true fear? Being lumped into association with adult film that's what. Now they have a choice, clean up their act, or be called what they are. Porn.
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.

13 October 2005

Stop The ACLU BlogBurst - October 13, 2005

By Jay777 of Stop The ACLU Cross-posted from Stop The ACLU
It happens somewhere in America almost everyday. Some small school, city counsel or County Courthouse gets sued. Perhaps your town has a historical monument to honor the dead from WWII that just so happens to be shaped like a cross. Or maybe your child's school will be having a winter break instead of Christmas this year. Whatever it is, don't fool yourself...it could happen to your town. And what will happen when it does? What will happen when the ACLU comes into your backyard? Will your town stand up for its religious liberties, or fold? The ACLU will go full force and has plenty of money to back it up. Does your town have the funds to defend itself? The ACLU has the backing of huge liberal groups, funded to the tee. How doe your town stack up? Don't think it couldn't happen to you. Right now, there are those out there watching it happen to them. What can you do? If the ACLU wins, guess who pays for it? That's right, you do. I found the following at ReclaimAmerica.Org U.S. Representative John Hostettler has introduced legislation which seeks to prevent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from collecting millions of dollars in court awards when they seek to remove symbols of the Christian faith from society. The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R . 2679) would prevent secular organizations from collecting attorney fees after suing communities to remove memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, or any other vestige of the Christian faith. The legislation reads, "The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief." I found this at ACLU Generates Revenue in Courtroom Campaign $156,960 Nebraska The ACLU was awarded $156,960 after a judge overturned an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The amendment was approved by 70 percent of Nebraska voters. $790,000 = San Diego The ACLU was given $790,000 after suing to nullify a lease between the city of San Diego and the Boy Scouts of America. A federal judge sided with the ACLU, ruling that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because they require kids to pledge an oath to God and promise to live a "morally straight" $150,000 = Barrow County (Ga.) The ACLU was awarded $150,000 after suing to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from the Barrow County Courthouse. $615,500 = Florida Supreme Court The Florida Supreme Court established the Florida Bar Foundation and then commissioned the foundation to provide $615,500 to the ACLU of Florida between the years of 1990 and 1997. $121,500 = Kentucky The ACLU was awarded $121,500 after suing to remove a monument outside of the Kentucky Capitol building. $277,000 = Kentucky The ACLU was awarded a whopping $277,000 after suing to overturn a state law against abortion in 1994. $299,500 = Kentucky In 2001, the ACLU was awarded more than $299,500 after suing to overturn abortion regulations in Kentucky. $50,000 = Tennessee A Tennessee County was forced to pay the ACLU $50,000 after losing a legal battle to preserve a display of the Ten Commandments. $37,037 = Loudoun County (Va.) The ACLU was awarded $37,037 after winning a lawsuit to prevent a Loudoun County (Va.) from installing pornography filters on public library computers. $175,000 = Alabama Following the lawsuit, involving former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, state taxpayers were forced to pay nearly $550,000 in attorney fees and court costs. Of that, $175,000 went to the ACLU. $63,000 = California Taxpayers were forced to give the ACLU a whopping $63,000 after their lawsuit to remove a World War One Memorial Cross from the Mojave National Preserve. $74,462 = Habersham County (Ga.) The ACLU received $74,462 from Georgia taxpayers after suing to remove a Ten Commandments display from the Habersham County (Ga.) Courthouse. $25,000 = Pulaski County (Ark.) The ACLU was awarded $25,000 after suing an Arkansas county for telling the child's parents that the 14-year-old boy was living an openly gay lifestyle in school. $135,000 = Cobb County (Ga.) The ACLU is scheduled to receive $135,000 from Cobb County taxpayers, after suing the county to remove warning stickers from the district biology books. The stickers simply read, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." $75,000 = Pasco (Wash.) The city of Pasco, Washington was forced to pay the ACLU $75,000 after they lost a lawsuit to remove the painting of a naked woman from the Pasco City Hall. $52,000 = Seattle (Wash.) Residents in Seattle, Washington, were ordered to pay $52,000 to the ACLU — for defending a student's "right" to mock the assistant principal in a sexual online parodies … sodomizing Homer Simpson and appearing in Viagra commercials. $6,000,000 = American taxpayers The ACLU, along with other pro-abortion organizations, have shared in court awards estimated to be worth roughly six million dollars following the Supreme Court's decision in which they declared the Nebraska partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional. Reportedly, these lawsuits affected thirty states. $18,000 = London (Ohio) After suing London, Ohio, for allowing their football coach to host a voluntary prayer for athletes, the ACLU was awarded $18,000 in attorney fees. $110,000 = Multnomah County (Oregon) Incredibly, Multnomah County taxpayers were asked to pay a whopping $110,000 after the ACLU sued them for allowing the Boy Scouts of America to recruit on public school campuses. $111,000 = Operation Rescue Operation Rescue was ordered to pay the ACLU $111,000 after losing a lawsuit in which the ACLU sought to prevent the organization from picketing near abortion clinics. $230,000">San Diego (California) San Diego residents were forced to pay $230,000 in legal costs in an effort to defend the Mount Soledad Cross (a memorial to the Korean War) from an ACLU lawsuit. The Korean War Memorial had been established in 1952. Don't let it happen to your town, or if it is going to happen...don't pay for it. Reclaiming America has put together a petition that already has over 100,000 signatures. We also have a petition asking for the same thing, to stop taxpayer funding of the ACLU in Establishment Clause cases. You can sign both petitions here. Help us curb the secularization of America. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.
***Gribbit's Note:
That is $9,565,959.00 just in case you were wondering. And that is just for these select cases. There are hundreds of more cases where the ACLU has been awarded additional fees which have not been stated here. Hundreds of cases and millions of dollars.
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.

12 October 2005

Commenters

Be advised, This is my forum, not yours. Be respectful, link to your own forum, and control your hate or you will be deleted and banned. I have had a rash of ignorance directed towards me as of late. And I have consistently applied my restrictions. Feel free to disagree, but anonymous comments will not be allowed to stay. Hate speech will not be tolerated. And personal attacks will be banned. Got a problem with that? Read the following from my footer:
It Is To Be Understood That The Views Expressed On This Site Are The Sole Opinions Of Andrew "Gribbit" Richardson And Should Be Considered As Such. It Is Also To Be Understood That the Views Expressed In The Comments Sections Of Posts As Well As The Tag Board Are The Sole Opinions Of The Commenter and The Site Owner Reserves The Right To Edit, Censor, Or Delete Any Comment Deemed To Be Offensive.
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.

Another Town Seal Under Attack

Here we go again to paraphrase my favorite President. The ACLU jackals have taken aim at a town with less than 500 residents. They have taken aim and are pursuing action against the small community of Tijeras, NM.
An op/ed from the Arizona Daily Wildcat...
By Silas Montgomery Arizona Daily Wildcat Wednesday, October 12, 2005

In the small village of Tijeras, N.M., an epic battle is brewing. That close-knit community of fewer than 500 people is being forced into a costly legal battle with the American Civil Liberties Union.

What have they done that warrants such fierce opposition from the "defenders" of American civil liberties? In 1973, the citizens of that town voted to redesign their village seal to reflect their cultural heritage, which meant a small cross in the seal.

This heinous crime, committed more than 30 years ago, went unpunished until the righteous crusaders from the ACLU took note of it and decided that justice had to be served. Naturally, "justice" from the ACLU took the form of a threat: Change the seal or be sued into oblivion. The townspeople, unaware that they hated America because they had a religious symbol in their town seal, took a vote to determine their response. They voted to fight.

However, because Tijeras is such a small town, it did not have the resources to maintain a legal battle against the large and powerful ACLU. Fortunately for them, though, the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization that defends public displays of religion as constitutionally acceptable, came to their aid. Because of the ADF, Tijeras may be able to publicly acknowledge its cultural heritage.

Unfortunately, the fight playing out in Tijeras is not unusual in America today. All over this great land, religious liberties are under attack not only by the ACLU but also by atheist radicals like Michael Newdow. His legal quest to destroy the Pledge of Allegiance typifies the strategies militant atheists employ to undermine America's religious foundations and liberties. Their rallying cry for this attack on our civil liberties is the infamous "separation of church and state."

The phrase "separation of church and state" did not originate in the godless boardroom of the ACLU, nor in the pitiful minds of those like Newdow, but rather in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association written in 1802. In this letter, Jefferson used the phrase to reassure the God-fearing in Connecticut that a state religion would not be instituted, even though the nation's new president was of a different religious tradition than the Baptists.

It is a sad state of affairs when the reassurance and comfort that Jefferson offered his contemporaries cannot be extended to all Americans today; only the militant atheist who can take solace in his words now. Atheism is the official state religion of America, and it is a religion devoid of tolerance. It is this state-mandated and ACLU-endorsed religion that is used to persecute and oppress us, even our fellow citizens in Tijeras.

If we as American citizens allow this grave injustice against our humanity and perversion of our liberties to go unchecked, we are a people to be most pitied. Those who refuse to shape their fate but accept it from the hands of others are not worthy of such a great nation as America. If we are not willing to maintain constant vigil for the sake of our freedoms and the freedoms of our posterity, then we do not deserve them.

Fortunately, for us and for America, we can overthrow this state-sponsored religion. If we stand up and loudly proclaim our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion (not freedom from religion), our enemies - the enemies of religious freedom - will crumble. We must show them that we are not going to go quietly into the night.

These acts of religious determination against state atheism can take many forms. Muslims can hold their prayer services on public lands. Jews can insist on Kosher alternatives in public cafeterias. Mormons can insist on tax-free travel while on missions. And Christians such as myself can use newspapers, like the Arizona Daily Wildcat, to spread their message of Jesus' incredible love, even to the point of death, for all who would receive him.

It is only by defying the state-sanctioned religion of atheism that the American people can be free again. We must shake off the bonds of our oppressors from our own wrists and ankles, because it is only in doing so that we are able to preserve for ourselves, and for our posterity, the rights with which our creator has endowed us. Let the fight begin today.

Silas Montgomery is a Judaic studies senior. If you would like to be featured in "Writing in the margins," please contact us at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Off topic, the more college newspapers that I read, the more encouraged I am becoming at the youth of this nation. It seems that the Indoctrination Centers are becoming less effective in converting those who can already think for themselves. Back on topic, this case shows that the jackals are holding strictly to policy. Attack the weak. First you threaten costly legal action and if they don't capitulate, move on to court. This is a community of 500 residents. I'm sure that it wouldn't be too difficult to do a sampling of the community to see how many oppose the cross on their seal.
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.

11 October 2005

Guard Our Borders BlogBurst 10/10/05 - Late

Better late than never...
Reprinted from October 6th

Mr. Bush, put up this wall!

By Steve Sailer Cross Posted From V-DARE
We are constantly told that there is no feasible solution to the problem of illegal immigrants crossing America's largely wide-open 1,800-mile border with Mexico. But recent news from Israel suggests that the cost of building a high-tech security fence from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico would be a bargain.

The Israeli coalition government, observing how effective the eight-year-old security fence between Israel and the Gaza Strip has been at keeping out suicide bombers, has just started fencing off the West Bank as well.

This West Bank fence will "cost up to $2 million a mile," according to the Washington Post.

Let's do the math. Two million bucks for each of the 1,800 miles of the Mexican border comes out to a grand total of $3.6 billion. That's chickenfeed compared to the couple of trillion clams the federal government blows through each year - less than 0.2% of annual outlays. Even if all the payoffs to lawyers, environmental impact researchers, Indian chiefs and the like doubles the cost to $7.2 billion, so what? It's cheap at twice that price.

What about operating costs? Say that once the fence is up and running, we then spend $1,000,000 per mile per year on guards and maintenance. That's 0.1% of the Federal budget.

The INS's Operation Gatekeeper experiment at building a wall along the border just south of San Diego has been quite a success, as the New York Times admitted last year. Up to 2,000 lawbreakers per day had been pouring through the backyards and cul-de-sacs of Imperial Beach, Calif., turning what had been a pleasant seaside suburb into a scene from Mad Max. But the new fence has reduced the torrent to a trickle.

The problem with the fences that the INS put up in the late 1990s was that they didn't link up into a complete chain. Many would-be illegals decided to try their luck in an end-run through the barely-guarded desert. Hundreds died of exposure. But constructing an uninterrupted barrier would make the odds against getting across the border absolutely prohibitive.

No fence is perfect. And obviously, we'd still have guarded openings for transit, as we do now in San Diego. But the Israeli success at keeping out the Gaza Strip's would-be suicide bombers - who are, by definition, extremely motivated - suggests that not building a true border barricade is not just foolish, but cruel.

Steve Sailer is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute. His website www.iSteve.com features site-exclusive commentaries.

I am in total favor of this. My reasons? Only well protected borders can keep those who wish to do our people harm out. Our taxpayers are over-burdened by those who cross illegally and take advantage of our public assistance programs.
Keep in mind, that no invading Army succeeded in penetrating the Great Wall of China. 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.

10 October 2005

Re-Hashing The Subway Controversy

In the wake of the July 7th London bombings, the NYPD started random searches of bags being carried onto the subway system. And the NYCLU filed suit. Now, on the heels of the stepped up police presence and re-institution of bag searches on New York's mass transit system, the NYCLU is again filing lawsuits.
NEW YORK, Oct. 10 /Christian Wire Service/ -- On August 3, 2005 the ACLU announced that they were suing the city of New York for violating the civil rights of subway riders by conducting random searches. This case has not yet been brought before the court, but just imagine what could have happened if the ACLU had won this lawsuit. The 19 terrorists American officials are searching for right now could already have been allowed to walk onto our New York City trains and detonate their bombs. The ACLU must not be allowed to win this lawsuit or to continue with their misguided thinking which leads to an agenda designed to protect criminals at the expense of law abiding citizens. "With the current, very real, terrorist threat to the New York Subway System, the truth could not be any more obvious. Terrorists and all others who do not respect the American way of life must be stopped in order to protect the life styles of law abiding American citizens," said Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America's Values. The ACLU is confused according to Swarthout. "Let's get it right, you are either for the criminals or you are for the law abiding citizens of America. Terrorists are criminals and so are Illegal Aliens for that matter. Apparently the ACLU is more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists and Illegal Aliens than they are in protecting the rights of law abiding citizens." In the case of the New York lawsuit, the ACLU's actions may be dangerous to the decent citizens of New York City. "Let's face it; if you are murdered by the terrorists, your civil rights have been taken away from you. Yet, the ACLU wants to protect the rights of the terrorists. Why doesn't the ACLU really want to protect the rights of decent law abiding citizens?" "With the knowledge we already have about terrorists living in America who want to destroy us and our government allowing millions of Illegal Aliens to run across our borders Americans must wake up. It is time to stop kidding each other and demand that our government pull out all the stops to protect America, our American way of life and law abiding citizens. We also believe that the ACLU's abuse of the legal system is criminal. For that reason Christians Reviving America's Values has already drafted a letter to Congress asking them to investigate the ACLU, their policies and their true intentions," Swarthout said. Contact: Don Swarthout, President, Christians Reviving America's Values
It is obvious, that the FBI thought the information leading to this past week's security increase was credible. Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly did exactly the correct thing. Instead of reacting to a terrorist bombing which would have killed countless American citizens, they were pro-active and in all probability foiled the act. There is an old saying, "And ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". The NYPD and the Mayor in my mind prevented the needless loss of life. The FBI, by informing the mayors of all major cities of this threat prevented loss of life. I for one would rather have our elected officials and law enforcement community preventing death than arresting people who have killed. People who in all likelihood would also be dead. This just points out the hypocrisy of the ACLU and their leftist handlers. In the days following September 11th, President Bush put the world on notice. You are either with us, or you are against us. That goes for those in this nation who are protecting those who would have us dead. This past weekend I watched a movie on television. The movie was released in 1998. The Siege dealt with Islamic terrorists operating within New York City. Bombing busses, a Broadway Theater, and a Federal Building. It dealt with the over-reaction of a military response. I found it odd that the movie dealt with issues that we are now dealing with 3 years before the WTC attacks. Does the ACLU want this nation to be forced into implementing a military response? Let another bomb go off in New York and the people will demand it. It is time that we allow the civilian authorities to do their job and protect the public.
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.

08 October 2005

A Federal Court Gets It Right

Kudos to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for their ruling this week in the ACLU v Salt Lake case. For those who may be unfamiliar with the case, a few years ago Salt Lake City sold a portion of "Main" Street to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints but maintained a public easement. The LDS Church turned the property that they acquired into what they call "Temple Square" and mandated no public protests within the Square. The easement granted the city in the property deal was for a public pedestrian traffic. The 10th Circuit had heard this case previously and suggested to the city to extinguish the public easement. Which they have. The ACLU never happy with the easy solution to anything, sued claiming the public's right to free speech. The 10th Circuit has rejected the ACLU's claim that the transfer of the property amounts to government recognition of the establishment of religion. If I understand American history correctly, wasn't Salt Lake City a settlement of Mormons to begin with? Wasn't Utah in general set up as a Mormon State? Or did I misread the whole Brigham Young thing. Now I stopped off in Salt Lake one time, and found it a very clean city. No litter in the streets or anything. If the city could make a little cash by transfering a section of public land to private care, then I say make the cash. The savings created for the city by not having to maintain that section of the city is worth it. The idea of the easement was so that the general public could pass though the square. But, I can see why the LDS Church wouldn't want public protests within their Square. It would be a distraction from the religious nature and tranquility of the area. Keep in mind that Mormons have been discriminated against ever since their migration west. And this community was set up in an area where nobody else wanted to settle. The Mormons found this land that nobody wanted and made their paradise there. I say GOD help them. And it is time, that those who don't understand and could never truly believe to leave those that do alone. So I say Kudos to the 10th Circuit.
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.

07 October 2005

Liberal Judge Hands The ACLU Another Victory - For Now

A Superior Court Judge in Southern California has ruled that a referendum to transfer land containing the Mt Soledad Korean War Memorial to the federal government is UnConstitutional. How can a judge tell 70% of the electorate that they are wrong? For those who have been living under a political rock, Mt. Soledad is a war memorial outside of San Diego California. It was erected as a memorial to those who served during the Korean Conflict. It contains a very large white cross constructed of steel. A single atheist who had to drive past the memorial brought suit against the state with the aid of the ACLU in order to have it removed. They were successful in state courts. Now, a movement got a referendum passed by a 70% majority to transfer the memorial and land to federal control. And this judge, or as I refer to activist judges King by Committee, has told the people of Southern California that they have no power. That she as a Superior Court Judge has the power to trump their wishes. Undoubtedly, had John Kerry won election as President, he would have nominated this moronic b**** to become Chief Justice of the United States. That is pure speculation I know. But it would be consistant with the moronic way that he has run his life. Judicial activism is ruining our country. And the ACLU and their promotion of judicial activism and judge shopping perpetuates the practice. It is time for judicial restraint. It is time that the will of the people return to the mainstream. Why can we not get Congress to seize the Mt. Soledad property under Eminent Domain? If a town can seize a private citizen's property to build a shopping mall or a condo complex, why can't the federal government sieze public property in order to preserve it? It seems to me that they have in the past. Just think of all the wildlife preserves in this nation. This memorial deserves to be saved from one Atheist, one Communist Organization, and one Activist Judge. It is time that we bother our Congressmen/women and Senators to take control of this situation.
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.

06 October 2005

Mr. Bush, put up this wall!

By Steve Sailer Cross Posted From V-DARE
We are constantly told that there is no feasible solution to the problem of illegal immigrants crossing America's largely wide-open 1,800-mile border with Mexico. But recent news from Israel suggests that the cost of building a high-tech security fence from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico would be a bargain.

The Israeli coalition government, observing how effective the eight-year-old security fence between Israel and the Gaza Strip has been at keeping out suicide bombers, has just started fencing off the West Bank as well.

This West Bank fence will "cost up to $2 million a mile," according to the Washington Post.

Let's do the math. Two million bucks for each of the 1,800 miles of the Mexican border comes out to a grand total of $3.6 billion. That's chickenfeed compared to the couple of trillion clams the federal government blows through each year - less than 0.2% of annual outlays. Even if all the payoffs to lawyers, environmental impact researchers, Indian chiefs and the like doubles the cost to $7.2 billion, so what? It's cheap at twice that price.

What about operating costs? Say that once the fence is up and running, we then spend $1,000,000 per mile per year on guards and maintenance. That's 0.1% of the Federal budget.

The INS's Operation Gatekeeper experiment at building a wall along the border just south of San Diego has been quite a success, as the New York Times admitted last year. Up to 2,000 lawbreakers per day had been pouring through the backyards and cul-de-sacs of Imperial Beach, Calif., turning what had been a pleasant seaside suburb into a scene from Mad Max. But the new fence has reduced the torrent to a trickle.

The problem with the fences that the INS put up in the late 1990s was that they didn't link up into a complete chain. Many would-be illegals decided to try their luck in an end-run through the barely-guarded desert. Hundreds died of exposure. But constructing an uninterrupted barrier would make the odds against getting across the border absolutely prohibitive.

No fence is perfect. And obviously, we'd still have guarded openings for transit, as we do now in San Diego. But the Israeli success at keeping out the Gaza Strip's would-be suicide bombers - who are, by definition, extremely motivated - suggests that not building a true border barricade is not just foolish, but cruel.

Steve Sailer is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute. His website www.iSteve.com features site-exclusive commentaries.

I am in total favor of this. My reasons? Only well protected borders can keep those who wish to do our people harm out. Our taxpayers are over-burdened by those who cross illegally and take advantage of our public assistance programs.
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 BlogBurst October 6, 2005

Written By Jay Stop The ACLU
Yesterday, the new session of the Supreme Court opened with the controversial topic of assisted suicide. The legal debate is over States rights, but for America the real debate is a moral one. The "death with dignity" crowd plea that someone who is terminal and suffering should be allowed to die in a less painful way. There may be many of you that agree, but I think this opens the pandoras box. Once we hand over power to the medical community to determine who is fit to live, we open the door for some Dr. Death type zealot to step in. Many doctors feel if they were compelled by the State to comply with the wishes of a patient to help them die, it would be a violation of their Hippocratic oath. North American Patriot points out from an article in the Scientific American Of the 34 euthanasia cases, Ogden found that half were botched and ultimately resulted in increased suffering. This is where the moral line gets drawn. "The ACLU recognizes the right of a patient to euthanasia..."--ACLU Policy Guide of 1986. They have also went to the defense of many in assisted suicide cases, and other "right to die" cases See here. In 1988 the ACLU supported a proposal in Michigan that would allow a panel of physicians to determine whether a person is terminally ill and mentally competent to choose to have a physician-assisted death. These were all voluntary cases involving terminally ill people, so what is the problem? The problem is a moral one, and another case for the slippery slope argument. It is based on the intentions of our founders. The ACLU attempts to promote euthanasia and assisted suicide in the guise of "the right to privacy". Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not private acts. Instead, they involve one person participating directly in the death of another. This is a matter of public concern since it can lead to significant abuse, exploitation and degradation of care for some of the most vulnerable people among us. Oregon, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only places in the world where laws specifically allow euthanasia or assisted suicide. Oregon permits assisted suicide. The Netherlands and Belgium allow both euthanasia and assisted suicide. We can learn some important lessons of such concepts from history: "In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled. Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry. The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged "the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."Source Could this happen in America? I fear we have opened a door that could very well push us in that direction. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this law, many other states could follow suit. First its voluntary, then we get into the issue of guardianship, which can lead to sick babies, deformed babies, etc... Many of you will not like what I have got to say, but here it is...I'm gonna go evangelical on you; an individual has no right to take their own life. It is important to understand this. Allow me explain. The opening refrain of the Declaration of Independence provides the necessity of an absolute standard upon which the rule of law must be based: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;..." Declaration of Independence First of all, and most importantly, notice who the founders believed endowed us our rights. Then notice that while the right of life was granted, there is no right to choose your death. Thomas Jefferson said, "the chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that, and you have abandoned all." Abraham Lincoln was faced with the same issue when he questioned the institution of slavery. He said,"I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where it will stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?" The individual is granted the gift of life by God. Who has the right to take it away? A legal guardian? A Court? In my opinion, the only one who has the right to take away life is the Creator who granted it. If you put that right into the hands of the individual, a panel of doctors, a legal guardian, or the judicial system, you have given up that right. God grants our rights, not the State. If the State granted rights it could take them away, and that is where the danger lies. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, they are about changing public policy so that doctors or others can directly end or be involved in ending another person's life. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about the right to die. They are about the right to kill. Life is not the gift of the State. To give consent to the State to be involved in the taking of human life is to grant a right to the State that does not belong to it, a license to kill. It allows the State to exercise a "right" over something that was not the State's to give in the first place. For human life belongs to God's realm, not the government's. In order to protect any rights we must protect all rights, beginning with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our best hope for civil liberties protection is not the ACLU, but to return to the rule of law based on the inalienable right to life endowed to all men by their Creator. The rule of law intended by our founders. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal. You will be added to our maling list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.
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.

05 October 2005

Wore Out and Taking a Break

I have decided that due to the lack of sleep and my current stress level, I will be taking the rest of today off. I will send out the weekly email to members and cross post Jay's thread for tomorrow. But beyond that, I'm shutting my computer down until Friday. 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.

04 October 2005

Intelligent Design on Trial

I have remained pretty silent on the Intelligent Design trial in Dover, PA. But I just got done reading a very well written thread on The Reality Check. The post makes comparisons between the Scopes trial in 1925 to the Dover trial of today. The thread also makes a brief point of the fact that the guilty conviction of Scopes was overturned upon appeal on technicality grounds not on Constitutional ones. The ACLU and Evolutionist Science teachers are on the narrow view side this time. And those who believe that man could only have evolved under the direction of a higher intelligence are trying to get their day in the classroom. At issue is a 4 paragraph statement at the beginning of the Evolution Module in 9th grade Biology class. Evolutionists are so afraid that the theory that they have been presenting as Science Fact since Scopes is in danger of being exposed for what it is. An unproven theory. There are gaps in Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. Periods in time where no scientific evidence of any humanoid presence on Earth. Entire layers of soil which have been excavated for Scientific research into the origin of man which are void of any presence. True, bipedal beings have been proven to exist in generations which the Evolutionists claim are the forefathers of man. However, what they aren't telling you is that there comes a point in each so-called evolution where all traces of that species end with no replacement. A few generations later, a more advanced bipedal being appears. And the cycle starts all over again. Those of us who believe that life on Earth is no accident, understand that this could not be unless some higher intelligence directed the movements. How else can the herkey jerkey nature of anthropology finds be explained? They can't from the Evolution side. The 4 paragraph statement of alternatives to the theory of Natural Selection is read 1 time during the course. At the beginning of the Evolution module of the class. No specific "higher power" is mentioned. The statement is non-denominational. Does not promote Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Nor does it promote Wicca, Druidism, or Secular Humanism. So here is the real argument. What does the wacky left have to fear here? Pretty much the same exact argument that Clarence Darrow made on behalf of Scopes in the 1925 trial are the very arguments being made by those arguing that Intelligent Design is a plausible alternative to an unproven theory. A theory which contains unexplainable "holes" or "gaps". I thought the whole purpose of education was to teach children to think for themselves. Not to regurgitate leftist ideas. Our public education system has become the Secularists' prime recruiting program. The Indoctrination Centers of America to be more descriptive.
Scientific Arguments Against Evolution
Fact - there are large gaps in excavated strata where no bipedal life resembling that of man can be found. But yet the Darwin worshipping secular humanists stick to the weakest of evidence and present it as fact when in fact all that it is - is an unproven theory. Darwin first published his findings in a book called the Origin of the Species in 1859. Wouldn't you think that after 146 years of searching, they'd be a little closer to proving this theory if this so-called "missing link" exists?
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.

03 October 2005

Bush Picks Member Of Inner Circle To Replace O'Connor

By now this isn't news for you, but I have a few comments about the President's pick. First off I'd urge my Conservative colleagues to remain open minded for a few days. When the moonbats attack, urge open mindedness. Keep in mind, that she has no judicial background. Like Congress, isn't it important to pull new members out of the private sector? In this case, Harriet Miers hasn't been bitten by the activism bug yet. Sure, she is within the President's inner circle and that itself deserves a few questions. Like, what is her position on illegal immigration? We know that the President fails in Conservatives' minds when it comes to Border Security. Border Security is the next hotbed topic which will find its way to the Supreme Court. How will she vote? Will she vote to preserve the sovereignty of the United States? Will she vote to keep jobs at home should a challenge to these so-called "Free Trade Zones" are challenged? I guess that we can take some comfort in the fact that she attended Southern Methodist University and that Planned Parenthood has come out against her. This gives me cause to defend anyway. I predict a luke warm attempt to label her a Conservative Ideologue. Which, she hasn't shown thus far to be. Remember, she is an attorney. And her job is to represent her client. And at this time, her client is George W. Bush, President of the United States of America. I do not see any revealing items to come out of the confirmation hearings. The lefties are stuck on abortion mode. And the SCOTUS is scheduled to hear 2 cases which are abortion related on November 30th. Therefore, Ms. Miers will be prevented by judicial ethics from answering questions related to abortion and any other potential case that may come before the court. Like I said in my email to BlogBurst members today, the Democrats will attempt to blame everything from the Great San Francisco fire to the capsizing of the Ethan Allen yesterday on Ms. Miers.
Blogs For Bush says about her background:

Harriet Miers biography:

  • Harriet Miers was born in Dallas, Texas on August 10, 1945.
  • Ms. Miers received her bachelor's degree in Mathematics in 1967 and J.D. in 1970 from Southern Methodist University.
  • Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972.
  • In 1972, Ms. Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas’s Locke Purnell Rain Harrell.
  • In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She became the first female to lead a Texas firm of that size.
  • Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Ms. Miers became Co-Managing Partner and helped manage an over-400-lawyer firm.
  • Ms. Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.
  • Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.
    • In 1985, Ms. Miers was selected as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association.
    • In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas. Ms. Miers served as the President of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.
    • She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the Number 2 position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Ms. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA’s Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.
  • On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the Nation’s 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the Nation’s top 50 women lawyers.
  • Ms. Miers also has been involved in local and statewide politics in Texas.
    • In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.
    • Ms. Miers also served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.
    • From 1995 until 2000, Ms. Miers served as Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Ms. Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup.
  • Ms. Miers came to Washington D.C. in 2001 and began a period of distinguished and dedicated service that continues today.
    • She was appointed to be Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001.
    • In 2003, Ms. Miers was promoted to be Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff.
    • Ms. Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February, 2005.
  • She is single and very close to her family: two brothers and her mother live in Dallas and a third brother lives in Houston.
Thank you to Matt from Blogs For Bush for this information. 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 The Borders BlogBurst Oct. 3, 2005

John Longenecker wrote an article last June about the Texas Minutemen. He hits the nail on the head in so many areas - not just the fact that "illegal immigration is bad", but the reasons why liberals don't understand our need to protect the borders.
Where liberals fail is, in part, in their refusal to see the consequences of their own acts of interference, but will hold others accountable for something as small as announcing their resisting. The Liberal mind-set cannot allow them to see how they are the cause of the problem they complain about, and their immaturity won't permit them to see how righteous the resistance to their interference is.
He likens the liberals to children, and I agree.
The double standard of the liberals is that conservatives are held to answer because liberals think of non-liberals as adults, while liberals are not held to answer because they perceive themselves as kids. What they fail to comprehend in their teenager mentalities is that the response they object to (such as the Minutemen) is a perfectly healthy and normal adult answer to their unending intrusion, provocation and the injustice of their interference when people have had enough.
Exactly. Do a Google search for "texas minutemen", and the top response is this article by Reuters, entitled "Minutemen step up US border patrol; violence feared". Of course, the first paragraph immediately slams home their point and belief that having Americans defending the border is a potentially violent thing, even though the last Minutemen vigil in Arizona was notoriously non-violent. let's not even take into account that there is precious little media coverage of the Minutemen at all.
The California-based Brown Berets, a Mexican-American group that was allied with the revolutionary U.S. Black Panther Party in the 1960s, has vowed to confront the Minuteman volunteers during their October vigil. An Arizona rights group, the Border Action Network, distributed posters to stores in Naco, Douglas and Nogales on the Mexican border this week, declaring the communities "hate-free zones" and saying "racist vigilantes" are unwelcome. In Texas earlier this year, 11 state senators urged Gov. Rick Perry to oppose the Minuteman patrols, saying they could "negatively affect tourism and trade along the border" and make law enforcement "more dangerous and difficult."
There is not a mention of the number of illegals that the Minutemen stopped. There is not much of a mention of anything positive in the article, actually. But Longenecker addresses that too - it's the simple fact that liberals think they're the only ones who are allowed to resist or protest. They don't think their own Communist, idiotic mentality should be questioned, and they can't stand to stay out of affairs they're ill-equipped to run.
The Democrats bully and push to the point of resistance from the objects of their hatred (adults and adult values, such as being free from interference), and then characterize that resistance and objection as racism, incendiary and potentially violent.
So what should they do, now that the Minutemen are on the border?
Not only can you not win every fight, but you should not even fight every fight. Fighting everything is a dead giveaway that it’s not really about any given issue, but only about fighting. And I have my own theory on that. Liberals need to grow up and back down, and begin to live with the consequences of their own making or help fix them. Liberals need to back down. Not compromise, not cave in, but back down and cooperate, taking that chip off their collective shoulder, adjust their rotten attitude, and stop picking fights with everything they see. An adult would do that.
Then again, we are dealing with children. Spoiled, bratty, immature kids who should really get out of the way and let us get the job done. G-d knows they're not capable of doing anything besides whining and holding up signs. This has been part of the Guard the Borders blogburst. GTB hits Euphoric Reality every Monday, and seeks to promote awareness about the illegal immgration epidemic that our country is facing and the desperate need to curb the problem before it's too late. If you'd like to join the blogburst, send an email to kit.jarrell@gmail.com with your blog's name and URL.
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.

02 October 2005

On This Date In 1969...

To Me! OH GOD I'M OLD
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.

01 October 2005

Gribbit Online Update - Hopefully

I will be spending Saturday, October 1, 2005 updating the layout of Gribbit Online. I'm attempting to convert it over to just a blog with multiple pages. If it works out correctly, I should be back up tomorrow. This blog should remain online until I'm ready to change it over. But I may lose my archive. Let's cross our fingers. And in other news.... An announcement should be made here at 1:29 am. It only concerns me actually, but you may be interested. 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.