The Six Commandments

During the month of May, 2012, US District Court Judge Michael Urbanski (Roanoke, Virginia) has been attempting to settle a lawsuit brought forth by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (and unspecified students) against the Giles County (Virginia) School District for "violating" the establishment clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution by displaying the Ten Commandments in Narrows High School.  A "compromise" has been proposed whereby the first four of the Ten Commandments are removed from the display.

First things first, the text of the First Amendment:

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.

Further commentary (from Wikipedia) on the Establishment Clause:

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.

Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

Thank you David Souter, et al, for leading the way in restricting the free expression of the religion upon which this nation was founded (Christianity).  As you recall, the Declaration of Independence, which is the philosophic basis for our constitutional form of government, states "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."  If the Christian God should be removed, the entire foundation of our nation falls apart and the Government must then fill in the gap that is left, giving them free rein to take away our God-given rights.

So if the school district should follow the judge's advice, let's take a look at what the modified Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:1-17 would be:

And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

1. You shall have no other gods before me. 
    
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
    
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
    
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
    
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
    
6. You shall not murder.
    
7. You shall not commit adultery.
    
8. You shall not steal.
    
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
    
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Since we are now left with six commandments and no God, then whose "commandments" are they?  By default, it would be the Government.  This implies that the Government has power over God, is smarter than God, and chooses which Commandments are best for us despite what God says.  This is completely antithetical to the formation of our nation.

Our Founding Fathers were Christians and based our form of government on the fact that God exists, and that we must also be protected from a Government that attempts to assume god-like powers as stated in the Declaration: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  Perhaps what we are witnessing is a increasingly carnal and pagan America that believes its Safety and Happiness no longer reside with God, but in a life running away from Him.  If this is true, then there is nothing short of a full-blown Christian Revival that can reverse the perverse road that the people of this nation are currently taking.

Should the school district accept the shaving of the Ten Commandments down to six, this would be just one of a thousand cuts that the pagans have been using to destroy God's influence in America. The primary tactic used by the pagans/progressives/communists/socialists is compromise--to force us to slowly compromise away our values, our heritage, our life, and our God until they cease to exist.  They are patient, make every cut they can get away with, and absolutely demonize those who refuse to compromise, with the thought that they will ultimately prevail.  

Our Founders acknowledged that our nation was in the world, but was to be set apart from the rest of it by our faith and form of government.  Today many of our leaders believe the exact opposite, that we should be representative of the world, combining and accommodating all worldly cultures within our borders.  This is a clear practice of syncretism, or "the combining of different (often contradictory) beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism may involve the merger and analogising of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths." (from Wikipedia) This will most certainly lead to our nation's destruction.

If we remove the Christian God from America as so many demand, they will not achieve their desire to be free from God.  On the contrary, they will quickly see that they have received a new god, the Government, and I can assure you that this new god will not be as Just as our Creator.

Reference articles from WSJ and TribLIVE.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Bible Out of Schools, Koran In

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

A detail of the "Old Testament" Gutenberg Bibles is photographed at the Morgan Library and Museum Monday, May 19, 2008 in New York. For the first time in more than a decade, the Morgan Library and Museum will exhibit all three of its Gutenberg Bibles, the largest number of copies in any single collection. the exhibit opens to the public May 20, 2008 and runs through Sept. 28, 2008. Photo credit: AP via Daylife

In Maryland: A Bible Club for children is prohibited from handing out meeting notices to students. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the prohibition a violation of free speech. Much like the Missouri case profiled below, according to school policy, the Bible Club need only request to distribute their materials. The school took the position that a "third party" needed to approve the request, like the PTA, any sports team...or any government agency. The Bible Club is allowed to meet after school on school property, but is not allowed to notify parents of meeting dates. Decision of the second appeal is pending.

In Los Angeles: A police sergeant was denied promotions (9 times the sergeant claims) and demoted because he quoted scripture on off-duty hours. His lawsuit alleges that this is common practice for the LAPD. The sergeant, when off-duty, is a senior pastor. At the request of an officer's family, he conducted funeral services for the officer, and he quoted Corinthians 6, which mentions the "unrighteous:" fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminates, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners. The officer was in civilian clothing, off-duty and "in a church outside the city."The objection of the LAPD seemed to be the reference to the "effeminates."

In Missouri: A judge ruled that Bibles cannot be handed out to students who want them, but the Koran can be. Here's the rest of the story:

The Gideons, the oldest Christian business and "professional mens association in the U.S. is prohibited from distributing free and unsolicited Bibles to students who want them in Missouri.

The South Iron School District's policy is that outside literature by "various groups under set rules, irrespective of whether the literature is secular or religious" is allowed, and this policy includes accepting materials from atheisits, communists, gay rights, etc.," if a group so requests.

According to WorldNetDaily:

Judge Catherine Perry [in a trial court ruling] issued an order specifically prohibiting distribution of the Bible, and the Bible alone, after calling it an "instrument of religion."

She said the district's neutral treatment of literature is unacceptable, because it actually would allow the distribution of the Bible.

Matthew Starver argued the case before the 8th circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, on behalf of the school district.

The veto power, the judge wrote, must be provided to veto religious, but not secular, literature.

According to Starver, Perry's ruling legislated that a "private third party (like the ACLU)" had the right to veto the distribution request of the private applicant (in this case, the Gideons).

Staver said the Constitution simply doesn't allow the Bible to be singled out, like contraband, for special penalties.

How ironic [Starver said] that in America, until recent times, the Bible formed the basis of education, and now its mere presence is radioactive in the opinion of some judges," he said. "The Founders never envisioned such open hostility toward the Christian religion as we see today in some venues. To single out the Bible alone for discriminatory treatment harkens back to the Dark Ages. America deserves better. Our Constitution should be respected, not disregarded.

The Quran is OK, and other kinds of religious texts; just not the Bible. The Bible alone is impermissible in the public school," he said.

The ACLU initiated the challenge in 2006. According to Starver, a decision is not expected for about two months.

ACLU Caught Discriminating Against the Black Culture?

Boxer shorts, thongs, sagging pants, no underwear and no panty lines . . .

Yesterday, Atlanta city councilman C.T. Martin, who happens to be black, proposed an amendment to Atlanta’s indecency laws that would ban baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs. C.T. Martin, stated that sagging pants are an "epidemic" that is becoming a "major concern" around the country.

The proposed ordinance states that "the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments" would be unlawful in a public place. It would go in the same portion of the city code that outlaws sex in public and the exposure or fondling of genitals.

Naturally, the always vigilant race baiting specialists, the ACLU, jumped in to the issue. Debbie Seagraves, the white executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, stated that the proposed ordinance would also bar women from showing the strap of a thong beneath their pants. They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap.

Seagraves also said that the law could not be enforced because such a law would very likely be applied in a racially discriminatory manner, and the implication is that it could not be applied without discrimination because it targets something that came out of the black youth culture.

Hmmmmm??? Do we have a Gotcha???

Using the ACLU’s logic we could also assume that noise ordinances could never be enforced when music gets too loud because much of American music: Gospel, jazz, Blues, rock, hip-hop, etc. “came out of the black youth culture.” The ACLU places no time-limits on when any fad was actually developed or if it is still a culturally-based fad.

We know that low-riding pants have crossed into the youth of all races. And so has our American music no matter where it originally came from. But it would appear that the ACLU really wants to keep the black culture separate from the larger America pop culture. Sounds like discrimination by the white controlled ACLU to me. But until this issue is resolved, music lovers of Atlanta, blast away!!!

Apparently I’m not the only one to make the music connection or to see that the ACLU is actively using racial profiling to achieve its ends:

Classic Values wrote:

. . .I've seen plenty of white men and women wearing these stupid clothes. What does it mean to say that something "came out of the black culture?" That's awfully broad, and I think a number of assumptions are involved. Rock and roll came out of the black culture, so did disco, so did hip-hop, and so did rap. If loud music were prohibited after certain hours, and it could be shown that most loud music was one of these forms, would that constitute discrimination against something that "came out of the black culture"? Is Seagraves arguing that black people invented baggy pants, boxer shorts or bras? Or merely that they decided to wear them in certain ways? I'm old enough to remember when miniskirts first horrified the nation, but would it in any way be relevant to claim that they came out of "white culture" because they first appeared in England? . . .

MORE: In a more recent post, Jeff Goldstein explains why a white leftist like Debbie Seagraves does in fact have the unique right to castigate blacks with whom she disagrees . . .

C.T. Martin has the best of intentions but he’s got it all wrong. It isn’t really just about indecency.

It’s about the public health!

Last year while having breakfast in a local IHOP, we couldn’t help but notice that the white bus-boy was wearing his pants down to his thighs. His boxers were completely exposed as he brushed up against the tables to “clean” them! I was about to go to the manager to complain, but as luck would have it, the boy never returned into the dining area. If I had complained, would that have been racist???

Wait, don’t be so quick to say “No”. Let’s use the ACLU’s twisted logic

How did I know that the boy was white? We can‘t just go by appearances. He could have been racially mixed. Not only that, but he was wearing his pants in a way that showed solidarity with the black youth culture. So If I had complained that complaint could be assumed to be racist.

Underwear is meant to be worn under outer clothing. It serves to protect the outer garment from the traces of bodily fluid and excrement that would-be Hollywood types like to spread around. Guys and Gals, think about that the next time you try on or borrow jeans. When underwear becomes outerwear it is not only visually offensive, it exposes you and me to possible diseases.

In Great Britain last year they ran these public service ads:

The campaign features teenagers wearing underwear with the slogans: "I've got gonorrhea" and "I'll give you one". The TV ad, which will appear from 20 November, shows couples with the name of an STI displayed on clothes or jewellery. It aims to show that in real life such infections are not so easy to spot.

Isn’t it high-time for a panty lines fad? Perhaps someone will start a Panty Lines blog or blogroll?

Best one-liner
Its-jim wrote:

"It may be the only fad ever to have started in nursing homes and spread to the Y Generation!"

Atlanta
ACLU
Black Culture
sagging pants
boxer shorts
thongs
underwear

Related tags: georgia, news, politics, democrat, liberal, 1st amendment music, culture, racism, london, booty, panties, thong, butt, breasts, string, lingerie, panties, fashion, bra, men's underwear, men,

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, http://morewhat.com/wordpress/?p=2265, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, CommonSenseAmerica, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

ACLU Sues Over "Terrorism Suspect" Transfers

H/T to blog @ MoreWhat.com

The WashingtonPost.com reports that a Boeing Company subsidiary has flown "terrorism suspects," accompanied by CIA agents, to "secret overseas locations."

The ACLU is suing a Boeing subsidiary on behalf of three "terrorism suspects," no lawsuit against Boeing or the U.S. government, and the subsidiary is unnamed.

From The WashingtonPost.com:

The cases involve the alleged mistreatment of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen, in July 2002 and January 2004; ElkassimBritel, an Italian citizen, in May 2002; and Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian citizen, in December 2001,...

The ACLU says the suspects were apprehended under the U.S. government's "extraordinary rendition program...."

There's plenty of information published about these three men. Sifting through it will likely not yield much, as it all depends on who you believe.

The ACLU has had at least one previous failure at attempting to successfully sue due to the Extraordinary Rendition Program - this on behalf of Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen born in Kuwait to Lebanese parents. El-Masri is reported to have relocated to Germany in 1985 and became a German citizen through marriage to a German woman, whom he divorced quickly and then married a Lebanese woman. If Wikipedia's reporting of the marriage and quick divorce, resulting in German citizenship, is correct, the ACLU ignored the first marriage, and reported only his marriage to a Lebanese woman - citizenship and two marriages within the period of one year. From the ACLU:

He became a German citizen in 1995, married in 1996 and has six young children.

It is believed that Khaled El-Masri's name may have been confused with Khalid al-Masri...or is it Khaled al-Masri? Indeed, international reporting on El-Masri's case seems to refer to El-Masri as al-Masri and then there's Khalid al-Masri referred to as Khaled Al-Masri. To further the conundrum, an online search for Khalid al-Masri links to GlobalSecurity.org profiling Khalid al-Masri as a recruiter for the al-Qaeda Hamburg cell based in Germany and led by Mohamed Atta - 9/11 hijacker of American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to crash into the World Trade Towers.

The question is, who isn't confused?

Some accounts of El-Masri's detention credit a German Intelligence Agent with secretly passing an El-Masri file to the U.S - however, these reports also seem to refer to the wrongly detained Khaled El-Masri as Khalid al-Masri. Then WorldPoliticsReview, in February 2007, reports Kahled Al-Masri Accused of Assault.... showing a photo of the person it seems is Khaled El-Masri, at least according to the ACLU. The article says:

...the headline had acquired a certain unintended irony as reports emerged that Masri himself had beaten up a social worker in his hometown of Neu-Ulm, leaving the man hospitalized for three days. The assault occurred on Monday, Jan. 29. According to a Feb. 2 report in the Südwest Presse newspaper, citing the local Neu-Ulm prosecutor's office: "Masri is supposed to have pulled the man by the hair and thrown him against a wall. Then he threw a table at him, punched him in the face and stomped on him."

This failed lawsuit... the ACLU's "landmark" lawsuit, was filed against George Tenet, former CIA Director, as well as the owners of a company providing private jet service to the CIA.

In May 2006 a U.S. Federal District Judge T. S. Ellis dismissed the ACLU lawsuit on El-Masri's behalf. The judge's decision was complicated by the fact that the U.S. seemingly acknowledged that El-Masri was mistakenly detained, but held that national security would be jeopardized by court proceedings.

In March 2007, The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the 2006 dismissal. The ACLU is reported to be considering an appeal.

Back to the current lawsuit against a Boeing subsidiary and the concept of the Extraordinary Rendition Program:

A Google search brings up two ACLU links referring to the Extraordinary Rendition Program. The second link includes this teaser:

...Learn More About CIA Kidnapping..."

These are dire times. To say that life isn't fair, is I know, inadequate. But, then...life isn't fair. Perhaps it's inadequate to suggest asking the families of terrorism victims about things fair and unfair. Freedom isn't as simple as an ACLU lawsuit.

Technorati Tags: ACLU, Stop the ACLU, Boeing Co., Boeing Subsidiary, Khaled El-Masri, Terrorism, War on Terror, Binyam Mohamed, Elkassim Britel, Ahmed Agiza, WashingtonPost.com

Absurd Glimpses of Memorial Day 2007

Originally posted at Maggie's Notebook

So why look at the "absurd" and "disrespectful" on this Day set aside to honor valor and sacrifice? We need to know what these people are up to.

Winston Churchill said "When the eagles are silent the parrots begin to jabber."

Churchill also said: "Danger - if you meet it promptly and without flinching - you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!"

The parrots are screeching. It's time to stop flinching - meet them head-on and let this jabbering minority know that it will not take away our beloved traditions in the name of civil liberty.

Here's the absurd. A few quotes have been snatched from each below, (in context) but a link is provided to the original.

Watchdog group protests military participation in Memorial Day activities from examiner.com:

Stone Mountain Park's Memorial Day weekend festivities are being criticized by a watchdog group for religious freedom that says the patriotic event also promotes Christianity.

...Americans United called for the military to make clear to the public that the weekend is not an official military event, to ensure that military events are not integrated into worship services or other religious activity, and to ensure that active-duty military personnel maintain compliance with constitutional requirements.

Memorial Day: Hijacked from WorldNetDaily by Robert Knight:

"...Sen. John Edwards, whose website supportthetroopsendthewar.com is urging people to crash Memorial Day ceremonies and parades with anti-war protests. He's even asking people to take pictures of it all and post them to his website. What nifty souvenirs!

We're still waiting for the media outrage over this hijacking of a sacred day to honor the war dead.

Can you imagine being a U.S. Marine and going out today on a mission in Fallujah, Iraq, searching for the killers in the latest civilian massacre,..."

Dishonoring the dead: No Memorial Day protests from UnionLeader.com:

Edwards urged Americans to use Memorial Day to protest the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, anti-war protesters across the country are planning to take Edwards' advice and turn out at Memorial Day parades tomorrow to protest the war, thus insulting the sacrifices of all who lost their lives and their innocence in the swirling desert sands of Iraq.

Edwards Calls for Protests on Memorial Day??!!?? from Wake up America:

While in the Senate, Edwards Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999), Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999), Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002) and Voted NO on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003).

ACLU condemned for 'attacking' veterans memorials during time of war from OneNewsNow:

"The American Legion has announced that it is teaming up with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and Liberty Legal Institute in a campaign to fight ACLU efforts to remove religious symbols from war memorials. The ACLU has already filed suit to remove crosses at veterans' memorials, like the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego and the Sunrise Rock cross in the Mojave Desert, which is now covered by a box.

"Let us see this claim for exactly what it is," Infranco continued. "These individuals assert that their being offended should override the public's desire to honor veterans as we have since the founding of our nation," he said.

Veterans go to battle for memorials from WorldNet Daily:

The American Legion and the Alliance Defense Fund will mark Memorial Day 2007 observances by launching a nationwide Defense of Veterans Memorials Project to fight secular attacks by the American Civil Liberties Union, atheists and others against veterans memorials – as exemplified by lawsuits against the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in San Diego and the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial.

The American Legion, the largest wartime veterans organization in the world with 2.7million members in 15,000 posts, and the Alliance Defense Fund, believed to be the largest public interest legal firm defending freedom of religion with some 1,000 pro bono attorneys, are to formally announce and detail the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project

ACLU Observers Will Monitor Miami Beach Police During Holiday from NBC6.net South Florida:

The president of the Greater Miami ACLU chapter said the organization was concerned about the number of arrests made on the beach last Memorial Day weekend.

The ACLU and NAACP have criticized Miami Beach police for "overzealous" DUI arrests.

Tracked back by America! Immigration versus Assimilation from Stormwarning's Counterterrorism. Excerpt: America! The land of the free and the home of the brave. But, unless you're a Native American, none of us are from here! For generations, immigrants have come to these shores seeking liberty. Alas, today, that is no more


Technorati Tags: Memorial Day, John Edwards, ACLU, Memorial Day Protests, Winston Churchill, Miami, Florida, U.S. Military, U.S. Soldiers, War on Terror, Iraq, Veterans

ACLU President Retains Convicted Child Endangerment Aide

Where is the main stream press on this issue? Bill O'Reilly - we need your help!!
Originally posted at Maggie's Notebook

The 16-year President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Nadine Strossen, appears to continue to retain convicted felon Steven C. Cunningham as her Chief Aide.

Some background: Steven C. Cunningham was convicted of the murky charge of Child Endangerment in the State of New Jersey. What is child endangerment? Did he fail to buckle a child's seatbelt? Did he leave a small child at home, unattended? Did he go shopping with a child and let the child wander away? Did he allow a child to assault another child - endangering the assaulted? Did he let a child play with a medicine bottle?

No, that's not what he did. He had three online chats with a boy that he believed was 12 years old, but was actually a police officer. According to charges filed, the phone calls were lewdly graphic and he attempted to meet "the child" somewhere. Cunningham was permanently disbarred in the State of New Jersey, but it appears that he is still licensed to practice in the State of New York and continues in the position of Chief Aide to ACLU President Nadine Strossen.

Since Strossen's office will not confirm or deny Cunningham's important position as her Chief Aide, why do I think he is still, indeed, with the ACLU? Here's why: A search of New York State Unified Court System eCourts site confirms that Steven Christie Cunningham is licensed to practice in New York. Is Steven Christie Cunningham the same convicted Steven C. Cunningham? I think so. After this morning's "no comment" from Strossen's office, I called the phone number for Steven Christie Cunningham given on eCourts website. That call was answered by the New York Law School voicemail. When I selected Cunningham's name from the list offered, the call was answered by Nadine Strossen's office - the same young man who took my first call this a.m. and refused comment.

So much for the ACLU's interest in your civil liberties or mine...our right to know if a man convicted of child endangerment is an integral part of the ACLU daily operations.

As I said in a previous post:

Now, if the Chief Aide or Executive Assistant to the CEO of Wal-Mart was convicted of Cunningham's charges, we would know about it. Suppose a high-ranking assistant on Dr. Laura Schlessinger's staff was so convicted - we'd know about it. What if a person of influence within Dr. James Dobson's organization was convicted of child endangerment - we know we would know about it - not only from the MSM but Wal-Mart, Dr. Laura and Dr. Dobson would be called upon to explain how this abomination could possibly happen right under their noses. From the ACLU we hear nothing - at least that I can find.

As I have said in previous posts, Nadine Strossen did not commit a Child Endangerment crime. Nevertheless, the ACLU is becoming infamous for their defense of the right to access child pornography. Strossen is the author of Defending Pornography. Pornography doesn't necessarily mean "child" pornography but the ACLU's defense of The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) clearly cannot be explained away as a civil right. How do you defend the right of men to "talk" about and "write" about sexually preying on young boys, because they are only "talking" or only "writing" about it, when you fully know, but refuse to acknowledge, that children have been damaged by NAMBLA.

Read about Virginia ACLU Chapter President Charles-Rust Tierney and his charges on child pornography here and original background on Strossen and Cunningham here and here and watch this video with Strossen debating Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on morality.

O'Reilly, we need you and The Factor here!

Technorati Tags: ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU President Nadine Strossen, Chief Aide to ACLU President, Steven Christie Cunningham, Steven C. Cunningham, Child Endangerment, Child Porn, NAMBLA, North American Man-Boy Love Association, Pornography, O'Reilly, Bill O'Reilly, The Factor

Illegal Immigration March Slogan Revisions

All over the U.S illegal aliens (aka: immigrants) and their advocates are getting ready to take to the streets today and Tuesday in another series of May Day marches calling for immigration reform. You will note that various socialist labor movements world-wide have celebrations on May 1st , May Day.

Here’s one of their slogans: "Today we march, tomorrow we vote."

Here's the revised slogan:

“Today you all march, tomorrow you all leave!”

¡Usted todo marcha hoy, mañana usted que todo deja!

Here’s an alternate revised slogan:

Today you all march, tomorrow you all return to Mexico!

¡Usted todo marcha hoy, mañana usted toda la vuelta a México!

Here are some more of the May 1st march slogans. Have a little fun revising and sharing these slogans!

Si` se puede, - (Yes, it can be done), Justice for Children of Immigrants, and No Human Being is Illegal.

I could swear that some enterprising bloggers have already created bumper stickers and they are up for sale, but I can’t remember where I saw those blogs. One site had all kinds of innovative ways to use the stickers besides just putting them on the back of bumpers.

More details on the May Day Illegal Immigration March

Illegal immigrants are demanding citizenship, and an immediate end to: planned increases in citizenship fees, guest-worker proposals, arrests and deportations, and increased border policing.

Additionally organizers want an end to the war in Iraq and policies that they say punish the poor.

Some march organizers have told marchers to leave their Mexican flags at tome and to wave only U.S. flags. Additionally, they are not to call for boycotts. On the other hand, other’s have called for a boycott:

“Besides the marches, the national pro-immigrant organizations have called for a Second National Boycott on the first of May that consists of not working, not buying or selling anything, and not going to school. It demonstrates that we are a vital part of this nation's workforce and also displays our economic power.”

Some Hispanics think that last year’s marches didn’t do that much good and might have increased racism. You will note that the lefty MSM reporters usually make the word “racism” synonymous with The Minutemen!

“And the Yakima resident believes racism rippled through the community after groups demanding stricter immigration controls arose for the first time in the area -- organizations like the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.”

In Tucson a toothless warning to “stay in school” was issued by the superintendent of Public Instruction, so march organizers are telling parents to request excused absences.

Now this takes the cake!

In Los Angeles another toothless warning to stay in school came from State Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell. . .

“But Los Angeles school officials, apparently resigned to the fact that some students will ditch class anyway, plan to provide bus service for students hoping to return to class after attending the downtown rally.”

President Bush appealed to graduating college students Saturday for help in persuading Congress to produce an immigration bill, while hundreds of immigrants marched in Houston -- a prelude to nationwide marches and rallies planned for Tuesday.

I’d like to see what a President Fred Thompson would have to say!

Here’s an interesting article about the effect of last year’s marches and an immigration poll you can take today:

The poll results this A.M so far.

What should Congress do?

Pass a bill that beefs up enforcement, allows the estimated 12 million illegal residents to pay fines and earn their way to citizenship – 26%

Pass a bill that beefs up enforcement and deports illegal immigrants already here – 50%

Not pass any new legislation but require the Department of Homeland Security to enforce current immigration laws – 24%

Aside: Now we all know that Google is becoming more and more p.c. If you go to Google news and put in “illegal alien marches,” you won’t get much valid or current info. But if you put in the p.c. “immigration marches, ” – now that gets you to the info you need.

The Truth Smarts. This is from The American Daily on the Communist ACLU illegal immigration ties.

“ . . .Somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens, many of them dangerous criminals and others, members of known terror organizations, have broken into our not-so-sovereign or secure nation and set down roots illegally. But the ACLU is only concerned with the civil rights of these criminals as if they were legal citizens of the United States and any American not willing to offer full Constitutional benefits to these illegal invaders will be deemed “racists” or “bigots” by the ACLU and their friends in congress and the press.

One need not be a genius to properly interpret the clear intent of the ACLU, which today, remains entirely aligned with the stated goals of its founder Roger Baldwin, and fully engaged in the process (read as progress) of making those goals a reality, one law suit at a time.

For the terminally blind progressive, those goals bear repeating…“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.” (Founder and long term director of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin.)

The ACLU is the legal arm of the Democratic Socialist Movement running roughshod over America today and there is nothing pro-American about any of it. The ACLU is responsible for making those laws which elected leftists (Democrats) in congress do not yet have the seats to pass into law via the legitimate legislative branch.

“Communism is the goal” and they are well on their way to achieving that goal. If you happen to disagree with their agenda, they will quickly label you a “fascist”. . ."

Join the Stop the ACLU coalition

Others Blogging about the May Day Illegal Immigration March:

Illegal Aliens Must Go, Slapstic Politics, American Conservative Daily

This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal ImmigrationIf you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Permalink:
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/illegal-immigration-march-slogan.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/6165544148672902893

Technorati tags: politics, mexico, illegal immigration, border, news, bush, terrorism, immigrants, congress, border security, economy, immigration, law, jobs, education, workers, employment, immigrants, mexico, liberal, political, democrat, legal, crime, left wing,
ACLU

ACLU Monitoring School Handouts

Below Ms. Hassan's report are pertinent reminders of America's founding, of religion and liberty in a Republic, and instances of the ACLU's defense of, and protection of, Islam - while slashing away at Christianity.

by Susie Hassan
Monday, April 16, 2007

COLLIER COUNTY:

A Collier County man who hands out bibles to Collier County high school students is under fire by the American Civil Liberties Union. Officials with the ACLU spent Monday night talking to Collier County democrats about the issue.

People on one side of the argument say it's not a separation of church and state issue while the other side says it is in fact a perfect example and neither side is backing down.

The debate begins with bibles handed out by Jerry Rutherford to Collier County high school students. He says there's no harm in what he's doing.

"This is not a church and state issue. It's a free speech issue," said Rutherford.

But the ACLU says the separation of church and state is exactly the issue.

"There is a time to speak you religious beliefs and that is in your church. *But the public education is not the forum for bible distribution," said ACLU Attorney Yale Freeman.

Typical ACLU position in their ongoing attempt to remove Christianity from the public sphere, and contain it to a more localised, segregated place in society.

Yeah, I've heard all the left's defense of the ACLU, saying that the ACLU has defended Christians in the past. Small cases that didn't amount to much of anything other than PR and to give the appearance of equal treatment. If Labor Unions represented their members in the same manner, members and liberals would be going ballistic.

Thomas More Law Center To Argue For Reversal of Decision Permitting Public Schools to Teach Students to "Become Muslims"... where was the ACLU?

Public Minnesota College to Install Foot-Washing Basins for Muslim Students...where is the ACLU?

Seattle Airport Removes Christmas Trees Instead of Putting Up Menorah...ACLU?

Muslims Seek Prayer Room at Airport...ACLU?

Rumsfeld supports Scouts meeting on military bases... "The ACLU contends the government sponsorship violates religious freedoms since the Boy Scouts require members to pledge allegiance to God."

JONES INTRODUCES BILL TO PROTECT PRAYER IN
OUR MILITARY ACADEMIES... "In May 2001, the Virginia Chapter of the American Civil Liberty
Union sued the Virginia Military Institute on behalf of two former cadets who opposed the non-
denominational pre-supper prayer."

Taxpayers fund Islamic center... "An announcement that the U.S. Marine base at Quantico, Va., has refurbished a building to be used as a prayer room for Muslim soldiers and civilians on base is a "bad signal," one critic has concluded."... where is the ACLU?
_____________________________
*But the public education is not the forum for bible distribution," said ACLU Attorney Yale Freema

The Founders that gave us the First Amendment is also the same that sanctioned the "Aitken's Bible" and permitted its' printing under the authority of Congress.

Fisher Ames-Framer of the First Amendment

"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."

(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

James McHenry-Signer of the Constitution

"[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience."

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)

Benjamin Rush-Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

George Washington-Father of Our Country

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

In front of the Collier County democrats, Freeman said the county shouldn't overlook this incident.

"If we had one religion, one voice saying this is the religion we must practice, we would have a very different society today," said Freeman.

Freeman says handing out bibles is no different than colleges handing out literature and military branches handing out literature in high schools. He says that's all the same thing.

But for Roger Brown, President of the American Foundation for Separation of Church and State, that comparison is nowhere near the same.

"They're passing out non-religious material they not trying to recruit students to come to their church," said Brown.

Brown sited a court case that allows bibles to be handed out in schools as to why he should also be allowed. He added the students seemed to want the bibles.

"The reason is the students wanted them. Had they not wanted them, they wouldn't have picked them up and taken off with them," said Rutherford.

But in a letter written to Freeman by a school board attorney, the attorney states that Rutherford and his attorney have been advised that they are not permitted to continue handing out bibles. The letter also stated that district high school principals have been advised not to allow distribution at the building level.

But Rutherford isn't backing down until the court case is overturned.

"Until then, we will continue giving out bibles in schools," said Rutherford.

The ACLU isn't backing down either. They will continue to monitor the incident and push so that it does not happen again.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com . You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 240 blogs already on-board.

Stop the ACLU Permalink: http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/04/18/aclu-monitoring-school-bible-handouts/

Stop the ACLU Trackback URL:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/04/18/aclu-monitoring-school-bible-handouts/trackback/

Permalink for this entry:
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/aclu-monitoring-school-handouts.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/462945479594772300


Technorati Tags: ACLU Stop the ACLU Christianity Islam Founding Fathers George Washington Bibles Koran

Chief Aide to ACLU President Disbarred for Child Endangerment

Originally posted at Maggie's Notebook

Update: I telephoned President Nadine Strossen's office this morning, identifying myself as Maggie Thornton, a blogger from Maggie's Notebook, attempting to verify that Strossen's Chief Aide Steven Cunningham is one and the same as the convicted Steven C. Cunninham. Strossen's office, after putting me on hold for few seconds, replied:

"Unfortunately, I cannot confirm or deny that, at this time."

When I mentioned that I found this information on the New York Law School site, the woman again replied: "unfortunately, that's what we're hearing."

My guess is, if the convicted Cunningham is not Strossen's Chief Aide, the denials would be loud and strong.

End Update. Begin article.

Steven C. Cunningham, Chief Aide to ACLU President Nadine Strossen, has been permanently disbarred and convicted of "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child"...." Cunningham pled guilty to chatting online with a person he believed to be a 12-year-old boy, but was actually an undercover policeman.

As a result of the conviction, Cunningham has lost his license to practice law in New Jersey, but is still licensed to practice in the state of New York. According to authorities, the disbarment will not affect his New York status, however, authorities there are being notified. In addition to disbarment, Cunningham is reportedly sentenced to parole supervision for the rest of his life.

As of late evening April 17th, The New York ACLU website, here and here doesn't appear to be reporting the conviction. A Google search for "ACLU New York Steven Cunningham" produced a tag linking Steven Cunningham's name as Chief Aide to ACLU President Strossen. Following the link leads to The New York Law School page profiling Stossen with Cunningham's name prominently displayed. Note that the conviction and disbarment is of Steven C. Cunningham and the Chief Aide to Strossen is listed as Steven Cunningham. Perhaps it's possible that they are not one and the same. The New York office of the ACLU is not commenting and there's little main stream press on the story

The page shows it was last modified at 5:42 p.m., April 17, 2007
Copied directly from The New York Law School page:

Steven Cunningham
Chief Aide to President of the ACLU
T: 212.431.2395
E: scunningham@nyls.edu
Copyright 1997-2007 New York Law School · 57 Worth Street New York, NY 10013 · 212.431.2100 ·
Webmaster · Privacy · Terms
Last Modified 4/17/2007 5:42:00 PM

Read the full story and the actual charges against this man at Stop the ACLU.

For more on the ACLU, here's a recent report on a former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography

Permalink for this entry: http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/chief-aide-to-aclu-president-disbarred.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/6066730857793283175


Technorati Tags: Stop the ACLU ACLU Sexual Predators ACLU President Nadine Strossen Chief Aide to ACLU President

The ACLU and the Nazi Stance

Originally posted at Maggie's Notebook

Nazism, the restraining, abolishment or defending of it, is a very current issue. Below are two differing views of an ACLU stance in the works right now.

ACLU Defending Nazis Again

ACLU to Defend Nazis Again

1) ACLU defending Nazis again
by cao @ 3:28 am. Filed under ACLU
Shortly after I graduated High School in 1977, the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party here in Skokie when they wanted to march there. I felt that was an rude and audacious move, since so many holocaust survivors and their families live in Skokie; I've met some of them, and seen their tattoos from the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Bergen Belzen, and others.

The Captain has a post referring to that old debacle, plus a more recent one here:

The ACLU lost a number of members in 1977 when they defended the American Nazi Party when they wanted to stage a demonstration in the town of Skokie, Illinois — a city where a number of Holocaust victims and their families had settled. Over 30,000 ACLU members staged a demonstration of their own when they marched out of the organization, even after the ACLU won the case, and even though the Nazis never did march in Skokie.

It was disgusting! I was watching the news coverage over that then. The idea of these people marching through the streets of holocaust victims and their families was infuriating. The fact that the ACLU propped their right to do it, completely ignorant of the shattered lives and feelings of these people went beyond bad taste and crossed the line.

Thirty years later, the ACLU proves that they have not learned their lesson. The Ohio chapter has agreed to represent the American Nazi Party again in a conflict over a demonstration permit, this time in a predominantly black neighborhood in Cincinnati. Holly at The Moderate Voice shares the e-mail:

On April 20, 2007, the American National Socialist Workers Party of Roanoke, VA—a neo-Nazi group—plans to march through the predominantly African-American neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati. The city initially issued a permit to the group for its march, but the permit was soon revoked and prohibitions were added by city officials limiting the group's demonstration to a three-block area. Believing their constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly have been violated, the ACLU of Ohio will be defending the demonstrators.

This looks to me like a call to Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and seems timely because of the Don Imus firing over racism. In their world, you're a racist if you're white! To me, you're a racist if you're a leftist. If these people are allowed to do this, Don Imus should be reinstated.

The ACLU condemns violent action and supports its prevention. Yet we also believe that our government must allow citizens their unhindered right to free speech. The City of Cincinnati should stand behind this basic freedom while taking steps to ensure a peaceful demonstration.

As in previous cases where the ACLU has come to the defense of people or groups with whom we disagree, our position is rooted in certain fundamental principles. While we in no way endorse the views of the American National Socialist Workers Party, we believe that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom they apply.

I think the American National Socialist Workers Party is seeking our destruction, and I'm not sure that 'allowing their freedom of speech' is something anyone should sanction or approve.

I agree that the government should not be in the business of determining the acceptability of political speech. I would not want to have to get permission to hold a public assembly that hinges on the political content of the speech for myself, and I would want government have the same approach for others as well.

However, that isn't what has happened in Over-The-Rhine, at least judging by the ACLU's description. The city did revoke their permit, but then apparently issued another that gives them three blocks in which to demonstrate. That does not sound like an overwhelming burden for the Nazis to meet, and it does not keep them from conducting their protest. They're not being stopped from demonstrating; they want to complain because of the boundaries placed on their protest, even though such permits routinely impose boundaries on demonstrations.

That's interesting…during the DNC, there was a place for protesters to protest, but it was surrounded by a fence, outside of the view of media cameras. Although many people showed up to demonstrate, the media didn't cover it. It will be interesting to see how much coverage the Nazis get.

The ACLU will put themselves in the position of arguing that the city of Cincinnati has no authority to determine the geographical boundaries for a protest — on behalf of a group that would, if given the chance, strip everyone of the right to demonstrate in any form at all. They do so even though they have no requirement to represent Nazis; the Nazis could hire their own lawyers to handle this case, and unfortunately they can probably afford it, too. The ACLU has determined that they can get a lot of publicity for their flacking on behalf of Nazis, and have climbed into bed with racists as a result. They're doing nothing more than unnecessarily enabling the Nazis.

Indiana Jones once said, "I hate these guys." In this context, it would be difficult to determine which group he would have meant.

The ACLU's support of Islamic terrorists has become quite apparent over the past few years, why should this reminder come as a surprise to anyone? The ACLU is about destroying the spirit of the laws we have in place to convict and put away criminals to make America safe; and to prop the rights of NAMBLA, felons, drug dealers and murderers - not to mention the fascists that want to attack us of the Islamic variety.

2) ACLU To Defend Nazis Again

by JonJayRay @ 2:26 am. Filed under ACLU
We read:

"The ACLU lost a number of members in 1977 when they defended the American Nazi Party when they wanted to stage a demonstration in the town of Skokie, Illinois — a city where a number of Holocaust victims and their families had settled. Over 30,000 ACLU members staged a demonstration of their own when they marched out of the organization, even after the ACLU won the case, and even though the Nazis never did march in Skokie.

Thirty years later, the ACLU proves that they have not learned their lesson. The Ohio chapter has agreed to represent the American Nazi Party again in a conflict over a demonstration permit, this time in a predominantly black neighborhood in Cincinnati.

On April 20, 2007, the American National Socialist Workers Party of Roanoke, VA—a neo-Nazi group—plans to march through the predominantly African-American neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati. The city initially issued a permit to the group for its march, but the permit was soon revoked and prohibitions were added by city officials limiting the group's demonstration to a three-block area. Believing their constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly have been violated, the ACLU of Ohio will be defending the demonstrators.

No doubt many readers and bloggers will disagree with me about this but I think the ACLU have got this one right. Free speech is not free speech if you can pick and choose to whom it applies.

I imagine however that the ACLU are just doing it to show how "unbiased" they are. It's easy to defend groups that are no real threat to you.

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE , AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

In a comment left at the original post:
loboinok Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 2:53 am e
The only disagreement I would have is, that the city restricted their right to protest but didn't deny them their right. That restriction was apparently for the safety of the protesters as well as the citizens.

And secondly, the ACLU of Ohio, stated in an email;

Throughout the history of the ACLU, our firm dedication to civil liberties has directed us to defend the rights of all Americans—even, at times, those whose messages we abhor. For nearly a century, we have adhered to Voltaire's principle that "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[snip]

As in previous cases where the ACLU has come to the defense of people or groups with whom we disagree, our position is rooted in certain fundamental principles. While we in no way endorse the views of the American National Socialist Workers Party, we believe that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom they apply.

They defend the rights of ALL Americans, unless you are an anti-abortion protestor, protesting at an abortion mill or a student wearing a t-shirt opposing the "Day of silence".

To name two.
Permalink for this entry: http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/aclu-and-nazi-stance.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/7784958017033974499

Technorati Tags:ACLU Stop the ACLU American National Socialist Workers Party Skokie, Illinois Protest March Nazi Nazism Civil Liberties

School says: "Don't Tell Your Parents"

Originally posted by Maggie's Notebook

This important article by Bob Unruh and WorldNetDaily.com and brought to our attention by loboinok and StoptheAclu.com, must stay on the front burner.

My commentary:
Three parents took this case to court and lost. Their request to remove their child from this specific class was also denied.

While there are numerous issues involved here, two stand out as particularly egregious:

1) The effort to separate a child from their parents by pledging confidentiality. This is basically a pact with the school against the parents. There is no "issue" - religious, political, gay, straight - suitable to require students, verbally or written, to "secret" information from parents. To assume that school officials "know best" in every arena doesn't just diminish parental rights, it simply abolishes them. There is no apology from school officials that should stand. Appropriate action is due against all who sanctioned this secret promise. In my view, "appropriate" means dismissal. The very fact that a school official will consider a "secret promise" is clear evidence of no respect for parental authority. Such people should not be working with children.

2) A parent must always have the opportunity to "opt out" of a specific class that is not needed for graduation credits. The history of controversial teaching is "remove your child from the class if you do not like it." This view is no longer considered "reasonable." The judge declared that opting-out is "not a reasonable expectation." Will the next move be to make these classes essential to graduation?

What we see here is the judge forcing his own expectations (his agenda), based on what he says is historical discrimination. The issue is not discrimination against the issue, it is discrimination against parental rights - all "minor child" issues should begin with the parents.

I have spent some time thinking about why only two sets of parents were involved in the law suit: Did all the other parents agree with the school? Could other parents not afford to pay for a lawsuit? Were other parents not aware of this "indoctrination" class? Probably, it was a matter of money and a lack of information.

We need good and responsible attorneys, throughout the U.S., to fight these battles for the parents and the children, pro bono. This is a battle for all children, gay or straight, and including those children who haven't given their sexuality a second thought. We do not endorse classes telling gay children, or children of gays, that their lifestyle is wrong. We should also not be telling them it is right. The parents should do the talking, not the teacheers. Teachers should accept each child without judgement of their sexual orientation or the child's opinion of sexual orientation. Save the judgement for core-class performance.

Here we go...it won't stop unless and until we make it stop.

(Disclaimer: all comments above are solely mine. I am not speaking for Mr. Unruh, WorldNetDaily, Loboinok or stoptheaclu.)

Posted: March 13, 2007

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination
'Confidentiality' promise requires students 'not to tell their parents'

Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

"This is unbelievable," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. "It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it."

It should be pointed out that minors can't enter into a binding contract. Therefore, "confidentiality agreements" are illegal, worthless and total BS.

It also shows that the school knew what it was doing was wrong, just by the fact that they wanted to keep it from the parents.

In what CWA called a "shocking and brazen act of government abuse of parental rights," the school's officials required the 14-year-olds to attend a "Gay Straight Alliance Network" panel discussion led by "gay" and "lesbian" upperclassmen during a "freshman advisory" class which "secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors."

"This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda," Barber said. "The professional propagandists in the 'gay-rights' lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated."

He said not only is forcing students to be exposed to the pro-homosexual propaganda bad enough, but then school officials further required that students sign the "confidentiality agreement" through which they promised not to tell anyone – including their own parents – about the seminar.

Barber said that also aligns with the goals of the disinformation campaign being run by those in the pro-homosexual camp. "That's what homosexual activists from GSA are attempting to do, and that's what DHS is clearly up to as well."

The situation, according to district Supt. George Fornero, was partly "a mistake."

He told CWA, the nation's largest public policy women's organization, that requiring children to sign the confidentiality agreement wasn't right and the district would be honest with parents in the future about such seminars. But CWA noted that even after the district was caught, parents still were being told they were not welcome to be at the "freshman advisory" and they were not allowed to have access to materials used in compiling the activist curriculum.

Barber noted the damage being done is significant.

"Until DHS and other government schools across the country are made to stop promoting the homosexual agenda, kids will continue to be exposed to – and encouraged to participate in – a lifestyle that places them at high risk for life-threatening disease, depression and spiritual despair," he said.

It's not the first situation where WND has reported on schools teaching homosexuality to children.

In Massachusetts after a school repeatedly advocated for the homosexual lifestyle to students in elementary grades, several parents sued, only to have the federal judge order the "gay" agenda taught to the Christians.

The conclusion from U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf found that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children would undermine teaching and learning"

David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.

"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.

An appeal of that decision is pending.

The judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where their religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.

"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.

"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."

And, he said, since history "includes instances of official discrimination against gays and lesbians it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students different sexual orientations."

If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school [or] may also educate their children at home," the judge said.

Parents fume over salacious sex lesson

'State interest' argued in teaching homosexuality

To the above, I can only add; Impeachment of Federal Judges

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Permalink for this entry: http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/03/school-says-dont-tell-your-parents_16.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/7015239303796014520

Technorati Tags: ACLU Children Christianity Parental Rights

"Confidentiality Promise": Don't Tell Your Parents

District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination

'Confidentiality' promise requires students 'not to tell their parents'

Posted: March 13, 2007

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

"This is unbelievable," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. "It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it."

It should be pointed out that minors can't enter into a binding contract. Therefore, "confidentiality agreements" are illegal, worthless and total BS.

It also shows that the school knew what it was doing was wrong, just by the fact that they wanted to keep it from the parents.

In what CWA called a "shocking and brazen act of government abuse of parental rights," the school's officials required the 14-year-olds to attend a "Gay Straight Alliance Network" panel discussion led by "gay" and "lesbian" upperclassmen during a "freshman advisory" class which "secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors."

"This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda," Barber said. "The professional propagandists in the 'gay-rights' lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated."

He said not only is forcing students to be exposed to the pro-homosexual propaganda bad enough, but then school officials further required that students sign the "confidentiality agreement" through which they promised not to tell anyone – including their own parents – about the seminar.

Barber said that also aligns with the goals of the disinformation campaign being run by those in the pro-homosexual camp. "That's what homosexual activists from GSA are attempting to do, and that's what DHS is clearly up to as well."

The situation, according to district Supt. George Fornero, was partly "a mistake."

He told CWA, the nation's largest public policy women's organization, that requiring children to sign the confidentiality agreement wasn't right and the district would be honest with parents in the future about such seminars. But CWA noted that even after the district was caught, parents still were being told they were not welcome to be at the "freshman advisory" and they were not allowed to have access to materials used in compiling the activist curriculum.

Barber noted the damage being done is significant.

"Until DHS and other government schools across the country are made to stop promoting the homosexual agenda, kids will continue to be exposed to – and encouraged to participate in – a lifestyle that places them at high risk for life-threatening disease, depression and spiritual despair," he said.

It's not the first situation where WND has reported on schools teaching homosexuality to children.

In Massachusetts after a school repeatedly advocated for the homosexual lifestyle to students in elementary grades, several parents sued, only to have the federal judge order the "gay" agenda taught to the Christians.

The conclusion from U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf found that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children would undermine teaching and learning"

David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.

"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.

An appeal of that decision is pending.

The judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where their religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.

"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.

"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."

And, he said, since history "includes instances of official discrimination against gays and lesbians it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students different sexual orientations."

If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school [or] may also educate their children at home," the judge said.

Parents fume over salacious sex lesson

'State interest' argued in teaching homosexuality

To the above, I can only add; Impeachment of Federal Judges


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Permalink: http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/03/14/district-gags-14-year-olds-after-gay-indoctrination/

Technorati Tags: ACLU children Christianity