Top Ten Reasons To Stop The ACLU (Blogburst)

Stop the ACLU Blogburst:

There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. For this blogburst I decided to list my top ten list.

10. The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly…

My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment�Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself�I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.

ACLU POLICY �The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court�s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual�s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.�ACLU Policy #47

#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.

#7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it’s the ACLU’s top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU’s pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

#6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.

#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.

#4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don’t practice the principles they preach.

Take a walk into the NYCLU�s Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you�ll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

#3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.

In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it�s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.

�The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that �promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.�

The Rockefeller Foundation�s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not �directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.�

#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.

As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General�s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.

There is no doubt the The ACLU are perverting the Constitution.

#1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one?

There are countless reasons the ACLU needs to be stopped. So don’t just stand by and complain, do something. Get involved. Here are some ways you can get involved to help us stop the ACLU.

Support and donate to organizations fighting them in Court. Here are the ones at the forefront.

ACLJ
Alliance Defense Fund
Thomas More Law Center

Join the Stop The ACLU Coalition

Help us write Churches to get involved.

Tell your Congress to support the Public Expression of Relgion Act of 2005. This legislation seeks to limit attorney’s fees in Establishment Clause cases to injunctive relief only.

SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU

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 115 blogs already onboard.

Other reading:

Be sure to read "The Islamist Strategy: Based on the Evidence" at Foehammer's Anvil

At Reject the U.N.: United Nations conference at EU parliament compares Israel to apartheid South Africa

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

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

Hateful Conservatives Beware

Stop what you are doing! Get a cup of coffee, and Write Your Officials today.

Hearings on H.R. 1592—“The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” began on Tuesday, April 17th. A vote is expected this week (April 23-27) by the U.S. House on the hate crimes bill. The bill will empower the federal government to prosecute 'hate-crimes' based on a person's "sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability."

There is a companion bill in the Senate, S. 1102.

This bill, H.R. 1592, is supported by the ACLU, and by most liberals who thrive on generating victims for the hate-crime industry. Naturally, I’m opposed to hate crime legislation for the following reasons.

(1) Any violent crime is an act of hate!
(2) We have sufficient laws in America to deal with violent crime.
(3) The FBI’s most recent statistics show that hate crimes are on the decline in the U.S.
(4) There is no need for this kind of legislation unless, of course, you are attempting to pander to certain segments of the population.

Setting up special categories of protected victims is the best way to keep the flames of hatred fanned and to further divide this country. Additionally, there is a slippery-slope that liberals always deny. What is called a hate crime today will eventually lead to hate speech legislation and then thought crime legislation. Think about it. Have you even known any liberal who was given an inch and didn’t want to take every last mile???

There has been a great deal of controversy over this particular bill – much of it generated by concerns that the bill might jeopardize freedom of speech and the religious freedoms of Christians in particular. I’ve read a lot of hype generated on both sides of this issue. It’s pretty hard to find a balanced opinion about the real implications of this bill.

Three issues are of great concern to many Christians and conservatives.
(1) This bill will expand coverage of hate crime victims to include gender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and individuals with disabilities.
(2) Punishment of politically incorrect bias appears to be the ultimate goal of this legislation.
(3) It will also give incentives (grants) to state and local authorities to bring in the Feds.

As a conservative who often rails against the abuses of the left, I’m equally appalled when I read the words of so-called Christians on the right who use defamatory statements against any group of people. For example, Traditional Values Coalition has a form you can fill out and send to your congressional representatives concerning H.R. 1592. But do you really want to send a letter to your congressional representatives from an alert entitled “Homosexual/Drag Queen Hate Crimes Bill On Fast Track”? This is defamatory and abusive!

Most conservative Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin against God. But, call me old fashioned, I’ve always believed that it is our Christian duty to hate the sin but never the sinner! Ok, I’m not going to sermonize any further here. Suffice it to say, that defamatory language is not only un-Christian, it gives fuel to the left’s argument that all Christians, all conservatives, etc., are hate-filled right-wing zealots!

To alleviate fears many Christians had that the bill would restrict religious expression opposing homosexuality, proponents of the bill added the following provision which led to endorsement of the bill by the ACLU.

“In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.”

Hmmmmm. . .”unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense”??? That doesn’t sound like much assurance or protection, does it???

According to an April 12th article in Civil Rights (a hate-crimes industry giant):

"Senators Edward Kennedy, D. Mass., and Gordon Smith, R. Ore., announced the introduction of a comprehensive hate crimes bill at an April 12 press conference in the Capitol. . .

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act (LLEHCPA) will expand coverage to include gender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and individuals with disabilities. It also provide grants to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes. . .

The ACLU noted that it was the first hate crimes bill for which they had ever offered full support. The Interfaith Alliance said that many different faiths "speak with dramatic unanimity in vehemently condemning hate" and that passage of the bill will "send a clear message about America's values."

Yes it will send a clear message about America’s “NEW” values.
(1) The Federal government will dictate your new values to you.
(2) Your religious beliefs may be in direct conflict with “NEW” American values.
(3) You may not be free to express your religious beliefs if such beliefs could be viewed as an incitement to violence.

But when it comes to the actual need for this hate crime legislation, even these lefty zealots had to admit within the same article that:

"Recent data shows that hate violence continues to be a problem in the U.S. FBI statistics for 2005 showed a slight decline in hate crimes (about 7,163, down from 7,649 in 2004.), but major cities like New York City, Phoenix and states like Alabama and Mississippi did not report."

Read the text of H.R. 1592—“The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.)

Join the Stop the ACLU coalition

"If you support the cause of the Coalition and believe hate crimes legislation
is dangerous for America, then you must act today. This bill (HB 1592), along with the so-called comprehensive immigration “reform” bill, also just introduced (no doubt with the ACLU’s full support as well), are likely the most critical pieces of legislation that absolutely must be defeated in this Congressional session. We will cover the immigration legislation sometime next week. But both are extremely important. If we fail to defeat either one or both, it will further set America back to the point we may lose our greatness and distinctness as a nation forever. "

Permalink:
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/hateful-conservatives-beware.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/599454210329697439


Technorati tags: issues, politics, anti-discrimination, religion, marriage equality, extremists, religious right, spirituality and social action, religion and politics, republicans,
liberals, christianity, moonbats, progressives, democrats, left wing extremists, left wing, lefties, the left, morons, news, democrat, liberal, political, 1st amendment, ted kennedy, gay, homosexual, news, marriage, christian, culture, ACLU, Hate Crimes, Stop the ACLU,Legislation

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

Stop the ACLU 3/15/07

'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.