New Jersey, New York and California should start learning what the people in Chicago have figured out!

A Memorial To What?

This comes from our dear friends at PETA.  You know those idiots who believe that a cockroach has more rights than you do.  The idiots who promote being a Vegan, even though medical science has discovered that Veganism is unhealthy.  But this outrage isn't about Veganism, but about a Memorial they want to cows.

PETA has asked the Department of Transportation in Illinois to commemorate the spot where 16 cows lost their life on May 22 in a traffic accident says a report in the Chicago Tribune.

The cows plunged from the back of a tractor trailer when it jackknifed on a bridge on an I-80 highway overpass.

I’m wondering if we could just have a memorial BBQ. I’ll bring the grill.

Now, before you start laughing remember: This is Illinois.

Yes, that state.

You know how people warn you about avoiding stupid mistakes by saying, “You don’t want to be that guy.”

Well, ladies and gentleman I present you your Daley-Obama-Rahm Emmanuel-led State of Illinois. That state.

It’s a state where graft makes everything “work,” and where 3 out 4 governors go to prison, because someone has to take the rap for all that graft. You have to keep up appearances that you are interested in good government. And there is nothing like sending both Republican and Democrat governors to jail to make the message clear.

You don’t want to be that guy? Then, don’t become governor of Illinois.

In other states the position of governor is one of honor. In Illinois governors are elected patsies so the graft machine can keep going.

The PETA proposal memorializing the Cow-Victims-of-5/22 asks Illinois to glorify the animals that died while performing their function “in the meat trade.”

The “meat trade” is what you and I call groceries.

"These proposed signs would also remind tractor-trailer drivers of their responsibility to the thousands of animals they haul to their deaths every day," said Tracy Patton, 26, a campaigner for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals according to UPI. "It's a big enough tragedy that these animals end up in slaughterhouses, where they are kicked, shocked with electric prods and finally dragged off the trucks to their deaths. Sparing them from being tossed from a speeding truck and deprived of care afterward, sometimes for several hours, seems the least that we can do."

So they want drivers to act more responsibly while driving animals to their deaths? Maybe keeping truck drivers’ eyes on the road and not on some signs would be a good start.

Because, that’s all we need: truck drivers squinting at memorials to cows while speeding across bridges in downtown Chicago. What’s next? Cow-sensitivity training?

PETA submitted their application under a 2007 provision in Illinois law, where family members of those who die as victims of DUI accidents may request memorials to the victims. The law was passed, according to a DOT spokesman, in order to regulate unofficial roadside memorials says the Trib.

That’s been a terribly pressing problem for the US. If we could only get federal control of those roadside monuments, this economy would really boom. And certainly replacing spontaneous, personalized, ad-hoc memorials by friends and relatives who knew the victim with a sanitized government memorial will probably better aid the grieving process for those who are left behind.

Thank God for good government in Illinois.

The problem for PETA isn’t that their proposal is outrageous, stupid, ridiculous, insulting and loony; no the problem for PETA is the same problem that the rest of us have with government. The only reason why Illinois politicians aren’t rushing to support PETA in raising a memorial is because PETA doesn’t have the cash to get the graft machine to use the misguided law regulating personal acts of grief to help PETA with their outrageous, stupid, ridiculous, insulting and loony proposal.

Because earlier this year the Illinois legislature, in an outrageous, stupid, ridiculous, insulting and loony move, raised personal income taxes by 67 percent and corporate income taxes by 47 percent…and then started exempting the very biggest corporations from the tax.

And if you don’t think that those exemptions weren’t driven by cash and graft, then congratulations!

You qualify for either the Republican or the Democrat nominations for governor in Illinois.

What you are witnessing is the Illinois machine at its graftest.  In fact, this should pass in Springfield without a problem.  And the taxes of honest people will be used to build this piece of pork (Cook like a steak.).  In fact I have the best Memorial to place roadside:

This should help serve everyone.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Breaking News: Obama Actually Accomplished Something as a Legislator!

Obama has lashed out at the McCain campaign for questioning his support of a bill during his tenure in the Illinois Senate that authorized sex education for kindergartners. But it did. Obama finesses the question by asserting that sex education should only be “age appropriate.” According to an online ABC News article:

'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'

Great, so whack job Illinois public school boards would decide what constitutes “age appropriate” sex education for kindergartners? Is there such a thing?? How about letting parents decide! The bill did provide with an opt-out provision for parents which guaranteed that “refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.” How comforting. No suspension, but what would happen? Would the child be ostracized in class? I wouldn’t put anything past our “education” establishment at this point. Fortunately this bill never passed.

However, while reviewing the validity of each candidate’s claims on this issue, I found that Obama really has done a few things! According to Factcheck.org:

He was a cosponsor of what became the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003, which allowed for an increase in the number of Chicago charter schools and required the Chicago Board of Education to enter into a formal partnership with the Chicago Teachers Union to "advance the Chicago Public Schools to the next level of education reform." He was also a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to help Illinois high school graduates be eligible for in-state college tuition rates even if they weren't U.S. citizens.

On the federal level, Obama sponsored three amendments to The America COMPETES Act, which became law in 2007. All three amendments were passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and became law. One amendment proposed language that would create a mentoring program for women and minority groups during their studies in Department of Energy programs. He also proposed language to support summer learning programs and boost their math curricula. And he put forward a requirement that women and minorities be represented in the President's Science and Technology Summit.

Wow! Truly presidential timber! Now, this Factcheck article was written to disprove McCain’s charge that Obama supports sex education for children. The title of the piece is:

“Off Base on Sex Ed - A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.”

It appears that yet another member of the “objective mainstream media” has jumped into the tank for Obama, because the article itself makes clear the legislation did call for kindergarten sex ed, only finessed with the caveat “age appropriate.” And technically speaking they are right that Obama did accomplished things in the Illinois and U.S. Senate. They’ve made it glaringly obvious. Count them: one law and three amendments passed! WOW!! Mindboggling!

After providing this glowing account of Obama’s real accomplishments, Factcheck.org does go on to acknowledge “Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they're accomplishments nonetheless.”

Need we say more?

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