Thursday, September 28, 2006
In case you haven't heard, a group of dissenters from the ACLU are rebelling and calling for a change in the current leadership of the main organization. The summary of things this new group is fed up with is hypocrisy and the ACLU is full of it. Purging the ACLU of its hypocrisy is bound to be a goliath task.
Where do we even begin with the ACLU's hypocrisy? How about its odd stance on the Second Amendment? They have decided that the term "the people" that is contained in the Second Amendment does not apply to "the people" as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. They defend even the most radical in free speech for individuals, but somehow have adopted the opposite position on the Second Amendment. Surely it couldn't be that the Second Amendment doesn't fall within the boundaries of their liberal agenda! Could it?
Read the rest of this wonderful article here.
Category: Stop the ACLU.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its disappointment with the House passage of a bill placing undue and unnecessary burdens on Americans' fundamental right to vote. H.R. 4844, the "Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006," requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote in federal elections. In addition, beginning in 2010 voters would be required to present a photo ID that was issued based on proof of citizenship in order to vote. The measure passed by a vote of 228-196. The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office: "Less than two months after the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, the House of Representatives has chosen to pass legislation disenfranchising the very citizens the VRA was designed to protect. No eligible citizen should have to pay to vote. There are voters who simply don't have photo ID and requiring them to purchase one in order to vote would be tantamount to a poll tax. This measure will disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minority voters, senior citizens, voters with disabilities, and others who do not have photo identification nor the financial means to acquire it."
What a load of crap! This ridiculous "poll tax" meme is quickly making its rounds. Nancy Pelosi has taken the ball with this one and ran with it headlining with the alarmist title, "Voter ID Bill Is an Attempt to Suppress the Votes of Millions of American Citizens!" Give me a break! You have got to be kidding! Perhaps they are worried this act will supress "millions" of illegals and dead people from voting! An I.D. is required in many of the most basic things in America such as driving a car or even cashing a check. Please, tell me how all of these poor people that can not afford to get an I.D. cash their welfare checks? Rep. Henry Hyde makes the same point.
But Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who sponsored the Federal Election Integrity Act, says requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls "presents no greater hardship than people face performing everyday activities." For example, Hyde noted that government-issued photo IDs are required for driving vehicles, applying for Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, food stamps, boarding airplanes, entering government buildings, registering at school, getting student loans, renting movies, and cashing checks. Given all the cases in which U.S. citizens are asked to produce photo IDs, it should not be difficult to produce IDs to guard against fraud in the electoral system, Hyde said.
It really isn't surprising that the ACLU would be against making our democratic process have more integrity. After all, they know which side butters their bread. They even keep a scorecard on Congress. The ACLU are involved across the country fighting voter I.D. laws. In Missouri at least 16 St. Louis area Democrats have been found guilty of election crimes in the last year and a half! When Republican Gov. Matt Blunt signed a law requiring voters to provide I.D. the ACLU had to come up with a different argument than the poll tax crap. Even though Missouri the Missouri law provided for free photo IDs that voters could obtain before election day the ACLU represented a group of Democrats to challenge the law by arguing for a loophole they found stating the law violated a state constitutional provision against imposing costs on local governments without providing state funding. So much for the poll tax argument or putting an undue burden on the poor. As a matter of fact as Digger's Realm points out:
Those against it are claiming it's a poll tax on the poor, minorities and elderly and that they can't afford to get a drivers license or passport. They fail to mention that the bill includes a portion to pay for free for the poor who can't afford a photo ID.
People can see for themselves. The full text of the bill is here. The ACLU were also involved in the recent case against a similar bill in Georgia that was struck down. It also provided free I.D.s. They also fought voter ID laws in New Mexico, Michigan, and Indiana. The ACLU has clearly shown its true colors in support of voter fraud. The only possible reason I can realistically see why someone would be against this bill is if they actually desire for voter fraud to continue. Once again the ACLU has shown just how transparent their lie of non-partisanship is. It is clear what the ACLU and democrats want. They want rights for illegal aliens, dead people, and felons to vote early and often. 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.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
I found a NEW way to PROTEST THE LEFT!!
Number one what do commies hate most of all? The Bible, God's Word!
So join me in sending NEW TESTAMENTS to Iran. Many Iraninans are NOW hungry for the truth about Jesus Christ, right now the window of opportunity is open. The best way to defeat terrorism, and clobber radial islam is too reach the people with the Gospel while we have a chance. On top of that, in doing so you will be protesting against the Left here in America, who embrace terrorists as freedom fighters, who refer to Islam as the "religion of peace", and make a practice out of persecuting Christians here in America by attacking the very essence of our Christian faith and heritage. Thanks for your help!!
One iranian person was heard saying
“the Koran says Jesus never died on the cross, but this film says He did…How
I wish I could have a New Testament to know what really happened.”
powered by performancing firefox
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism.
"We are pleased the court recognized that attorneys should not be forced to sign these ineffective and offensive pledges," said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link. "The Ohio Patriot Act is an assault on the fundamental liberties of all Ohioans. Hopefully, this decision is a stepping stone to reining in this overreaching and flawed law."
I have only one question here. Why does the ACLU of Ohio have a problem giving an oath that they are not terrorists and are not involved with terrorist groups? What the law is attempting to do is ensure people have not supported terrorist organizations.
The law requires applicants under final consideration for a government job, contract or license to complete and sign questionnaires to determine if they have supported organizations on a federal list of terrorists.
Actually this isn't suprising.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because they objected to promising that none of the funds would be used to engage in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state. They got the provision scrapped after a long and vigorous fight, then accepted the funds.
The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations today said they have successfully challenged Office of Personnel Management's Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) requirements that all participating charities check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for "terrorist activities" and that organizations certify that they do not contribute funds to organizations on those lists.
So what was it in this that the ACLU objected to? Here's what the CFC letter said.
"I certify that as of (date), the organization in this application does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on the following terrorist related lists promulgated by the U.S. Government, the United Nations, or the European Union. Presently these lists include the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Nationals List, the Department of Justice's Terrorist Exclusion List, and the list annexed to Executive Order 13224. Should any change of circumstances occur during the year OPM will be notified within 15 days of such change."
Obviously the ACLU had a problem ensuring the exlusion of terrorists from its funds and employment. What a shame.
It isn't difficult to understand why the ACLU would object to such terms, after all they have defended numerous terrorists, including an individual that participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. With the help of CAIR, they also defended an admitted agent of Al Qaeda that has confessed to attending jihad camps in Afghanistan, and is being charged with lying to the FBI about his terror ties and activities. Palestinian terrorists have also found a friend in the ACLU.
I don't see what the problem is. The State doesn't want its money going to individuals that might support terror. What problem does the ACLU have with not supporting terror? Why don't they just come out and say that they do support it? What is absurd is that no one is investigating the ACLU for terror ties. Start out with one or two of its employees, and go from there.