Stop the ACLU Blogburst 9-27-07
Sep 27, 2007 Stop the ACLU
Recently, the ACLU set their doomsday clock at six minutes before midnight! Once it reaches the ‘dark hour’ of midnight…we will be slaves to the ominous and evil ‘surveillance society’. This isn’t science fiction. This is typical scare tactics from the ACLU.
They prey upon the paranoid. This is how they get donations to fund their machine. They cry about “violators of that very liberty. They have a massive database of their own member’s private financial information they use for soliciting donations.
The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.
He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”
Now the ACLU are proudly defending Rep. Larry Craig on grounds of privacy. In another recent case they are defending a “pre-operative transsexual” anatomically male’s “right” to use the female public restroom. Terrence Jeffrey calls out the ‘privacy hypocrisy’ on this one.
“The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime,” said the ACLU. “It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or a restroom.”
But then the ACLU went a step further, arguing that there is not only a right to solicit sex, but also to engage in it, in a public restroom.
“The Minnesota Supreme Court,” said the ACLU, “has already ruled that two men engaged in sexual activity in a department store restroom with the stall door closed had a reasonable expectation of privacy. They were, the Court held, therefore acting in a private, not a public place.”
The conflated logic of the ACLU’s bathroom briefs seems to be that someone entering a public restroom intending to use it for traditional purposes has no protection either from the gender sign posted at the door or from the otherwise vaunted right to privacy. Someone entering a public restroom intending to solicit and engage in sex, on the other hand, is protected by both the First Amendment and the right to privacy.
What else would you expect from a group that embraces an ideology that holds that partially born babies have no right to keep their skulls intact?
Indeed. As my good friend Glib Fortuna puts it:
This about sums up the ACLU’s worldview. To the ACLU, the only “freedom” the ACLU truly believes in is “ACLU and its partisans.
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. Stop the ACLU
Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Random Yak, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, The Pet Haven Blog, Nuke’s News & Views, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, The Yankee Sailor, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: freedom, hypocrisy, Link Fest, Privacy, sexual misbehavior, Stop the ACLU
RI ACLU Sues Police for Arresting Lawbreakers
Jan 9, 2007 Stop the ACLU
The State Police of Rhode Island have found themselves in the cross-hairs of the ACLU affiliate in that state. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit alleging that the State Police violated the 14th Amendment rights of a bunch of Illegals who were being transported in a van. The van was stopped for a minor traffic violation and during the stop a state police officer asked the passengers for ID and became suspicious of a group of non-English speaking men who could not provide the requested ID.
A police officer stopped these men and became suspicious and he did his job. The Supreme Court has ruled that officers may ask passengers for ID and the United States Code allows local police officers to check the immigration status of anyone of whom they are suspicious. Yet, when this officer did his job he became the subject of an ACLU campaign of disinformation. The police officer was basically called a bigot in that he was accused of racial profiling. Just because these men were Hispanic looking does not mean they were NOT breaking the law and to suggest that their skin color played a part is ridiculous. Did the fact they were Hispanic play a part? Probably but does it make it profiling? Maybe, but only in that a group of non-English speaking Hispanics being transported in a van through town and unable to produce ID fits the profile of how Illegals are transported.
This whole idea that somehow the rights of these people under our Constitution were violated is amazing. I understand that the 14th Amendment gives equal protection under the law and even though it was written to prevent discrimination of blacks after slavery had ended the Supreme Court has (incorrectly in my opinion) indicated that the Amendment applies to everyone who is here regardless of whether they are here legally or not. The Supreme Court has also interpreted this Amendment to mean that any child born here is a citizen when that was not the original intent and that is not how it is written. The words “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” have been misapplied by the courts and the Amendment has been interpreted differently than its original meaning.
Back to Rhode Island. The argument that the officer profiled is specious. A police officer is allowed to ask all passengers of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation, for ID. The officer is permitted to document who is in the vehicle for the purpose of providing accurate accounts of the stop and names of witnesses if the matter goes to court. If a person does not have ID the officer is allowed to ask for other documents or ask for names and is allowed to verify the information given. The Supreme Court ruled on that very issue in Maryland v Wilson:
Although the court emphasizes the danger to the police officer, the authority to order a passenger from a vehicle is authority granted as a matter of course and, in our judgment, does not depend upon whether the officer felt threatened by the presence of the passenger. Our conclusion is that Wilson is an example of the relaxation of some of the more inflexible search and seizure rules that were stated in earlier decisions. In reasoning by analogy, we conclude that if an officer has the right to order a passenger out of a vehicle on a routine traffic stop, the officer surely has the right to ask that passenger for identification in order to complete his or her record of the arrest and to note the potential witnesses to that arrest. We also require that the duration of any detention of a passenger be reasonable in view of the circumstances existing.
A police officer’s job is to enforce the law. Not only must he or she arrest lawbreakers, the officer must provide the necessary evidence to support his or her actions at trial. In order to do his or her job correctly, an officer must determine the identity of the witnesses to the incident. We hold the securing of names of witnesses is part of the scope of a traffic stop and, if done within the duration of that stop, any evidence obtained as a result is admissible against the driver or a passenger. [my emphasis] State of Kansas v Michael Jones
The officer in Rhode Island certainly falls within the guidance given by the Supreme Court. He stopped a vehicle for a violation and he asked the occupants for ID. When they could not produce ID he asked for other documents which they could not produce. Since he could not verify who they were he became suspicious that they were here illegally so he detained them until their identities could be verified. In the course of this they were determined to be illegals. Now, the ACLU is suing the Rhode Island State Police in an effort to intimidate them for doing their jobs. This lawsuit is the result of the ACLU not being satisfied with a State Police review of the situation that cleared the officer.
The people of Rhode Island should sue the ACLU for filing a frivolous lawsuit and the officer should sue for defamation of character. Perhaps if entities started throwing lawsuits back at the ACLU they would not be too quick to pull the trigger in their desire to allow all things illegal.
Also discussin:
Stop the ACLU
Stop the ACLU Blogburst 12-14-2006
Dec 14, 2006 Stop the ACLU
Crossposted from Via the ACLU we find out the U.S. government is finally being proactive against the ACLU in protecting classified information from being leaked for our enemies to know.
The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has asked a federal judge to quash a grand jury subpoena demanding that it turn over to the FBI “any and all copies” of a December 2005 government document in its possession.
The ACLU called the subpoena, served on November 20 by the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York, a transparent attempt to intimidate government critics and suppress informed criticism and reporting.
“The government’s attempt to suppress information using the grand jury process is truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in the ACLU’s history,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “This subpoena serves no legitimate investigative purpose and tramples on fundamental First Amendment rights. We recognize this maneuver for what it is: a patent attempt to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing.”
The three-and-a-half page document, issued in December 2005, is marked “Secret” and apparently is classified. The ACLU received the document, unsolicited, on October 23, 2006.
Apparently a document marked “Secret” is classified? You don’t say! Quite a scary thing that such a dangerous organization like the ACLU has its hands on classified information. I think the ACLU has already demonstrated how reckless they can be with secret information. You can bet there would be no regard to National Security.
The ACLU think that exposing government wrongdoing is exposing to the enemy the governments efforts and techniques to secure our nation.
In legal papers, the ACLU said that while release of the document might be “mildly embarrassing” to the government, the ACLU’s possession of it is legal and its release could in no way threaten national security. To the contrary, the ACLU said, the designation of the generally unremarkable document as “Secret” “appears to be a striking, yet typical, example of overclassification.”
So who elected the ACLU to determine what should or shouldn’t be classified? And if the document is so “unremarkable” why are they fighting so hard to keep it? The ACLU then goes on to justify having classified information by stating that some of the biggest news of the past year came from leaks of classified information, like the NSA surveillance program, SWIFT, etc. I think we all remember how the ACLU handled these leaks. When it comes to National Security, the ACLU has created a dangerous reputation. I don’t think they should have any say so in what remains classified or not.
Rob at Say Anything sums it up:
So, basically, the ACLU is claiming that the Bush administration is trying to “suppress information” by getting some leaked classified documents back. But isn’t the government supposed to suppress classified information? Isn’t that the reason it is classified in the first place? I mean, if the government isn’t supposed to be suppressing classified information, then why are we classifying it in the first place?
And how does the government requesting leaked classified documents back violate the ACLU’s first amendment rights? Surely the ACLU isn’t suggesting that first amendment rights extend to illegal leaks of private information, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to stop someone who obtained my bank records from somebody at the bank who illegally divulged them from putting my private information on the internet.
I sometimes wonder if the ACLU even takes its own arguments seriously.
Although the ACLU has been told that it is not a target of the investigation, which I think it should be, it is interesting that the the subpoena refers to the Espionage Act. That is too bad. The FBI have their own concerns over the ACLU. Between the shady business of their funding issues, helping America’s enemies, spying on their own members, and FBI concerns; there are many reasons besides illegally obtaining classified information that the ACLU should be investigated.
I’m just glad to see the government being proactive to prevent classified information from falling into the hands of our enemies. If the ACLU has its way that is where it will end up.
Stop the ACLU Blogburst 11-9-2006
Nov 9, 2006 Stop the ACLU
Cross posted From Stop The ACLU
So, America voted for change? They should be careful what they ask for because they will get it. For those that voted or stayed home in order to send the Republicans a message on election day…congratulations! Your all important “lesson” will now backfire in your face. You just cut off your nose to spite your face. Not only have you helped to give both Houses over to the left, put Nancy Pelosi in as the Speaker of the House, and completely destroyed any chance of getting a Constitutionalist majority in the Supreme Court, but groups like the ACLU seem to think this election was a mandate for their insanities. Look, you can’t say we didn’t warn you.
Yesterday voters nationwide rejected candidates who failed to uphold civil liberties and rejected ballot initiatives that undermine fundamental freedoms of all Americans.
“American voters have reinvigorated our system of checks and balances essential to stopping the abuse of power,” said Anthony D. Romero, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director. “Voters finally had enough of the 109th Congress that repeatedly rubber-stamped legislation that violates our basic rights. Voters also rejected many state ballot initiatives designed to restrict civil liberties and meddle in our personal lives. The 110th Congress should take note – voters rejected political scare tactics and government power grabs in favor of civil liberties and policies that keep us safe and free.”
Ah, the old “Safe and Free” banner! Since when did the ACLU care about us being “safe”? So now the ACLU is promoting itself as a champion of both safety for our citizens and of freedom. What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety; in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil.
They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations. That is just naming their actions off the top of my head. The fact is that the ACLU is making America less safe.
If what the ACLU means by political scare tactics are the warnings about the NSA surveillance program being put into jeopardy and other liberal techniques of surrender and stupidity then I must disagree. Perhaps the American people fell for the scare tactics of groups like the ACLU. It isn’t a scare tactic to state the truth about the threats we face from our enemies, and the threats still remain. The beat goes on.
In several congressional races voters rejected the strategy to paint national security as a polarizing issue. In Ohio, incumbent Senator Mike DeWine was defeated. DeWine sponsored legislation that condoned the president’s warrantless wiretapping program.
Looks like that is exactly what the ACLU is saying. America voted against effectively listening in our enemies plotting to destroy us. “Safe and Free” once again. Pundits and talking heads take note…it wasn’t about Iraq, the ACLU say it was civil liberties stupid!
As a non-partisan organization, the ACLU takes no official position in any race for elected office.
….except when they want to. Then they take out full page political ads opposing candidates that they do not like. They didn’t hide the fact they wanted a Democratic controlled Senate to kill the NSA program.
“The American people have spoken,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The lame-duck session should not be used to ram through proposals that the American people have clearly rejected. The rule of law has been seriously compromised over the past five years, and lawmakers must now seek to reaffirm our commitment to fundamental freedoms.”
Oh, that isn’t the message you meant to send by staying home and pouting over overspending and the lack of immigration reform? Well, that is the message the left received as you handed them the power to speak on behalf of the majority. Their beloved ACLU says you clearly rejected the kind of proposals they wouldn’t like. You wanted immigration reform? Ha! You just kissed that goodbye to hell. Say hello to amnesty.
“Punishing” politicians doesn’t make sense when you wind up enacting the very policies that caused you to want to lash out in the first place.
Sure, the GOP are to blame for their many mistakes but the reaction to that was up to the individual voters at the end of the day. It looks like some Conservatives decided to punish themselves by punishing the GOP. The left’s voting I can understand. What doesn’t make sense to me that so many were willing to shoot themselves in the foot by empowering and emboldening the very party that will make sure the policies they were protesting continue and the ones they want will never happen. Well, the fight continues and now it we just have to fight that much harder.
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.
Stop the ACLU Blogburst 10-26-06
Oct 26, 2006 Stop the ACLU
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:
Liberals always act shocked and astonished that conservatives believe that an organization claiming to be the guardian of religious liberty is actually is actually America’s number one religious censor. They will spout off token cases where the ACLU veered from its normal path of hostility toward Christian religious expression to defend free speech. They have a handful of cases they try to convince us with. However, the ACLU’s history can easily be looked at and the cases against religious expression far outweigh these token cases. If the ACLU were consistent in its positions on religious liberty despite the religion their defense on the issue would be much easier. However, many cases point out that it isn’t religion in general the ACLU fight, but the Christian religion in particular.
When the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana opened its board meetings with a prayer like they had for 30 years the ACLU sued. After the ACLU won that case and the School Board ignored the court ruling, Louisiana ACLU chief Joe Cook called for them to be jailed and compared them to terrorists. Mr. Cook is currently leading an attack on plan for a Katrina memorial paid for with private funds to be erected on private land simply because it is in the shape of a cross and might offend some sensitive passerby. When valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony the ACLU said it was the right call to pull the plug. And of course we are all familiar with the ACLU’s crusade to eliminate the Mt. Soledad war memorial because it is a cross that might offend some atheist.
It has become a tradition for the ACLU to attack Christian nativity scenes every Christmas. They has already started early this year. We have all witnessed the ACLU’s hatred of Ten Commandment displays across the nation. The ACLU sue city counsil after city counsil over praying in Jesus name. They don’t sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsil meeting. Many times it doesn’t even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick.
If the ACLU were consistent to oppose all religions in its seperation of church and state quest it would be one thing, but in all too many cases it is Christianity that is targeted while other religions get a pass. The cases of double standards are numerous. A few blatant examples are how the ACLU fought to revoke the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church while fighting for a tax exemption for Wiccans and how they fight against any Christianity being exposed to school children yet are found absent when Islamic indoctrination is going on. In fact they were involved in creating the rules to allow such indoctrination to take place.
There is no doubt that the ACLU are overzealous in their quest to secularize America and erase its Christian heritage. The good news is that there are organizations out there fighting them, and people standing up to protest against them. Currently they are attacking Lakeview Elementary School for promotion of a Prayer at the Flagpole event, a National Day of Prayer event, the activities of a Praying Parents group, teacher-led voluntary classroom prayers, and a Christian theme and overtly religious songs at a Christmas program. The school is not denying these charges but asserting that Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu students have a constitutional right to pray or to read their scriptures at school as well. They did not cave in to the ACLU’s threats but gathered a group of over 600 people to protest the ACLU in a prayer vigil.
The prayer rally, organized by two Mt. Juliet commissioners, drew hundreds, with about 200 stuck in a 1.5-mile traffic jam. The event, which also attracted some local politicians and pastors, took place outside the school recently named in a lawsuit for alleged constitutional violations.
It is encouraging to see people standing up to the ACLU in defense of their rights that they feel are being threatened. However, this will not stop the ACLU from proceeding with its attacks. On the other hand it will ultimately be the power of the people and their desire for freedom that will have to put a stop to the ACLU’s attempts to criminalize Christian free speech through the courts. One effective way to assert this power is to get out and vote for people that oppose the ACLU’s anti-Christian agenda.
Everytime the ACLU wins a case against these small schools and local governments they are awarded massive money in attorney’s fees through your tax dollars. Often this is used to threaten these cash strapped schools and local governments to surrender before the case even goes before a court. There is current legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, that seeks to put a stop to this extortion. It has already passed the House and will be up for vote soon in the Senate. It is very unlikely it will pass if liberals take control. Put an end to this abuse. Get out and vote for people you know will support this much needed legislation. Cut the ACLU off from the government teat.
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.