Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Domestic Spying Case

Cross posted from Stop The ACLU

by Jay

Basically because the case had nothing to do with spying on domestic citizens, was supposed to be a secret program, and common sense the ACLU lacks. What it came down to was that none of the plaintiff’s had any standing. The ACLU feared that some of their conversations with terrorist representatives might have been listened to, however they couldn’t provide any evidence of that.

Wake Up America:

The ACLU consistently insists that programs such as the NSA wiretapping program goes against civil liberties and opposing opinions just as consistently insist that National Security depends on being able to monitor calls and contacts from the U.S. to terror groups outside the U.S to be able to protect America from further terrorist attacks.

The courts are caught in the middle and have to walk a fine line between civil liberties and protecting America because ruling against one may “step on” the other.

However, in this case it was a position from the ACLU that was full of holes and couldn’t pass muster to even be argued. The ACLU are calling it a catch 22 because the program being secret keeps them from being able to prove whether they haved been listened to. Really, I hope the government is listening in on the ACLU phone calls.

Here is the news:

“It’s very disturbing that the president’s actions will go unremarked upon by the court,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s national security project. “In our view, it shouldn’t be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits.”

The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.

The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.

I’m just curious as to why the ACLU had to alter the way they were communicating with foreigners. When did the Constitution provide civil liberties for anyone besides American citizens? What did the ACLU need to talk to foreigners about that they were afraid of the government knowing? Nice to see the ACLU slapped down with some common sense.

Michelle Malkin says, “America 1. ACLU 0!

Rusty at MPJ:

If the ACLU is correct, it means that the lapsing of the FISA law is no big deal. In fact, law enforcement may now have more ability to monitor terrorist activities because of the compromises included in the new law which give FISA courts much more power to oversee law-enforcement monitoring activities.

Pirate’s Cove mocks the ACLU!

Liberty Pundit sums it all up nicely.

[Permalink]

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Crossposted with Stop The ACLU

ACLU Disappointed: FISA Court Denies Access to Wiretap Records

[1] Via the ACLU:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a request for the documents with the FISC in August following passage of the Protect America Act, a law that vastly expands the Bush administration’s authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ international phone calls and e-mails. In attempting to justify passage of the law, the president and members of Congress publicly made repeated veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year.

Today the FISC ruled that, despite the fact that release of the orders would inform the public about the government’s surveillance powers, the court would not conduct a review to determine whether the legal rulings were properly determined to be classified.

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project:

“The decision is disappointing, both in its reasoning and its result. A federal court’s interpretation of federal law should not be kept secret from the American public. The Bush administration is seeking expanded surveillance powers from Congress because of the rulings issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court earlier this year. Under this decision, those rulings may remain secret forever.”

[2] More…

Writing for the court, U.S. District Judge John Bates refused:

‘The identification of targets and methods of surveillance would permit adversaries to evade surveillance, conceal their activities, and possibly mislead investigators through false information,’ Bates said.

Of course this common sense approach of avoiding the revelation of our “secret” methods of listening in on terrorist activity disppoints the ACLU. Their history of looking out for the “rights” of our enemies during war time is [3] long and documented. Thank goodness common sense triumphed over the ACLU’s dangerous agenda this time around. Since it was the ACLU whining that everything should go through this court for approval, this should shut them up. Don’t count on it.

[4] Jason Javitz:

It’s good to see that someone over in D.C. has a functioning cerebrum, eh?

P.S. – Judge Bates was nominated to the federal bench — yeah, you guessed it — by President George W. Bush.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Gideons Keep Out of North Carolina’s Elementary Schools!

A North Carolina school district is putting an end to the donations of Bibles to elementary school kids.
The Cumberland County school system says state law limits the practice strictly to high schools and has issued instructions banning it at 54 elementary schools in the metro Fayetteville area.
The move comes after a parent complained about the stack of Bibles left in her son’s classroom earlier this month. The same parent filed a complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Fayetteville Observer said that while a 1998 court decision allows outside groups to make Bibles available to high school students, the ACLU contends it doesn’t apply to elementary kids who might see the practice as promoting Christianity over other religions.
The Bibles came from the Gideons, the group best known for supplying Bibles to hotel rooms.

Gideons be warned. The ACLU are likely to jail you if you try to share the gospel to kids. What? You thought the Constitution protected freedom of religion? Not according to the ACLU’s version. Maybe you should try pro-Palestian, or pro-Communist propaganda. Or maybe install some footbaths to accomadate Muslims. The ACLU seem to think these are protected speech.
The ACLU have a long history of going after the Gideons, but talk about splitting hairs. I thought their argument was based on public schools being government funded. Whats the difference between Elementary and High Schools on that basis? A biased loophole is all. Once again the ACLU lives up to its reputation as America’s number one religious censor.
Conservative Belle:

I wonder if parents of an elementary school student in NC could sue the state now and claim there is age discrimination by only allowing Bibles for teenagers. They seemed to be the ones now discriminated against. The ACLU is once again picking and choosing their ridiculous battles.

Lobo emails this article on it as well and says:

“The ACLU also argued that the case did not support Bible distribution in elementary schools. >>>Those students are impressionable<<< and would likely think that the school was promoting the Bible by making it available, said Katherine Lewis Parker, the legal director for the ACLU of North Carolina.”
Is the ACLU admitting that students are “impessionable” when it comes to the Bible but NOT when it involves teaching and advocating Islam in our schools? Or homosexuality? etc.

A North Carolina school district is putting an end to the donations of Bibles to elementary school kids.
The Cumberland County school system says state law limits the practice strictly to high schools and has issued instructions banning it at 54 elementary schools in the metro Fayetteville area.

The move comes after a parent complained about the stack of Bibles left in her son’s classroom earlier this month. The same parent filed a complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Fayetteville Observer said that while a 1998 court decision allows outside groups to make Bibles available to high school students, the ACLU contends it doesn’t apply to elementary kids who might see the practice as promoting Christianity over other religions.

The Bibles came from the Gideons, the group best known for supplying Bibles to hotel rooms.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

It seems a German citizen claimed that the CIA abducted him, drugged him and sent him to a prison in a third world country where he was tortured and finally released on a hilltop in another country in a case of mistaken identity.

The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed the case without comment after the Bush Administration said that if the case were not dismissed it would threaten state secrets.

What I want to know is WHY a group that calls itself the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union is so concerned with the civil liberties of a German citizen. The last time I checked our civil liberties did not apply to the citizens of other countries, and the ACLU is not the arbiter of international law.

Last March, the ACLU went crying to the U.N. about how ‘evil’ the U.S. is.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Human Rights Network today urged the U.N. Human Rights Committee to hold the U.S. government accountable for flagrant and repeated violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

“Locally, nationally and globally, the United States has repeatedly failed in its responsibility to uphold basic human rights,” said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. “We are appealing to the international arbiters to hold the U.S. accountable to basic human rights standards.”

As sickening as this is; it is only one step in the ACLU’s agenda to undermine America’s sovereignty and freedom that so many soldiers have sacrificed and died to preserve. The ACLU are obviously frustrated by their inability to advance their radical agenda more quickly under the U.S. Constitution, and are now determined not only to convince the American judiciary to look to international law, but also to use it as a means to their ends. They hold it as a higher authority than our own Constitution and are more than willing to sacrifice our sovereignty in their pursuit to radically force change on America to fit their own radical views.

The sad thing is that they don’t have to try very hard to convince our judiciary. While they lost ground in the case above, they win enough to make it scary. Last year, former ACLU lawyer, and current Supreme Court Justice, Ruth “Snoozer” Ginsburg gave a speech that argued explicitly for the relevance of foreign law and court decisions to interpretation of the American Constitution. She isn’t the only Justice that buys into this philosophy. FIVE Justices believe that international law should bear weight in interpreting our constitution.

The ACLU don’t hide this agenda, they are proud of it.

The ACLU sponsored a conference at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, October 9-11, 2003, to promote the use of international law in U.S. courts. The conference was titled “Human Rights at Home: International Law in U.S. Courts.” Publicit for the event stated, “The emphasis throughout the conference will be on using international law and human rights norms to advance justice in U.S. courts or on behalf of U.S. clients.” Some of the alleged human rights “injustices” cited were in the areas of “environmental justice,” “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights,” and “children’s rights.”

ACLU publicity included comments from ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero and conference organizer Ann Beeson. Romero said, “Our goal is no less than to forge a new era of social justice where the principles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are recognized and enforced in the United States.”

Beeson added, “From the grassroots level all the way to the Supreme Court, international human rights law is beginning to emerge as a tool for the victims of discrimination here at home.”

The ACLU’s rhetoric and efforts to use international law to rewrite, undermine, and bypass the Constitution has already gone beyond academic debate into the realm of actual use. As stated earlier, there are plenty of judges that have already adopted the philosophy and the ACLU are already participating in court cases where the judge uses international law in their decisions. It isn’t only at the federal level, but has penetrated even into the state level.

All through the confirmation process of Justice Alito, the ACLU and leftards were screaming that Alito was a racist bigot that would undermine judicial precedent. However, this judicial philosophy has more potential to undermine judicial precedent than any current philosophy being espoused, and it has already proven to do so. The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret the law and determine if laws are constitutional. There are several major flaws in the use of international law in our courts. Not only does it undermine the very authority of the Constitution deeming it impotent of any power, but it also gives the judicial branch a power that was never intended to be granted to it; the power to write law. Followers of this philosophy view the Constitution merely as a persuasive authority, equated with foreign law, to be relied upon if they are in line with her predetermined beliefs. It doesn’t really matter if their beliefs are inconsistent with the Constitution itself, they can simply find a foreign law that is.

New rights, such as gay rights, or abortion should not be stretched from our Constitution that never granted them. If new rights like these are to be given, then the people should have some say in that. There is a process set in place by the founders to do just this. They should be granted through law or a constitutional amendment. They should not be granted via judicial fiat.

Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation’s sovereignty and national security.

For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “With today’s action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations.” Source

Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.

Right now, Britain is practically banning freedom of speech and the Bible in the name of gay rights and tolerance.

“Inciting homophobic hatred will become illegal, the justice secretary, Jack Straw, announced last night, following a campaign by gay rights groups. The introduction of an offence of rallying hatred against gays and lesbians follows similar measures to tackle religious hate crime, which were passed earlier this year after lengthy rows over freedom of speech.

“It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the last 10 years that we are now appalled by hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality. It is time for the law to recognise this,” said Mr Straw, introducing the second reading of the criminal justice and immigration bill.

If you can’t imagine the ACLU helping make the same thing happen here, you need to wake up. All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn’t directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU’s embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.

In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the UNHRC’s discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a “showdown with religion,” clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source

After the first amenendment, the next thing you can kiss goodbye with international law is the second amendment.

It is a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, and religious exercise. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.

Another rant from Kender:

The ACLU, the NYT and other groups and organizations that fight against our government on the GWOT are basically attacking freedom and the safety and security of this nation, putting Americans in harms way in their misguided attacks on our governments attempt to track and deal with terrorists.

What I want to know is this;

When the islamists get control and impose sharia law, will the ACLU have the balls to stand up and say “no way achmed”, or do you think it more likely that they will realize that speaking against the caliphate is a death sentence?

I am betting they will shut up and become good little dhimmis.

If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs…why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America’s freedoms, and our very sovereignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU’s vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churchs and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them.

Get involved. Donate and support organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund and the ACLJ that are out there fighting the ACLU’s agenda. Contact your representatives and Senators and tell them to support Constitution Restoration Act that would put an end to the use of foreign law in our courts. Tell them to support the The Public Expression of Religion Act which would put a stop to taxpayer funding of the ACLU in establishment clause case. Sign Our Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding Of The ACLU. Pray that America wakes up before its too late.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Part I
Part II and III

Here is Part IV:

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:

Here is Part I if you missed it.

There are gaps between these videos. I would love to see the entire presentation and I’m talking to the guy that put these snips together. The first one here is short, so I went ahead and put part III as well.

Part III:

Tune in for Part IV tomorrow night.

Also see: Selective Civil Rights
ACLU’s Top Priority

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Crossposted from 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 ’surviellance 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 “American citizens being spied upon” when in fact there is no evidence that anyone has been hurt by the government’s terrorist surviellance program.

While the ACLU cry that they are the guardian’s of liberty, and that privacy is one of those liberties….they have been exposed as being 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 “sexual freedom” and the concomitant “right” of people who choose aberrant sexual behavior to be free of any criticism and free from anyone else exercising common sense (and more threateningly, religious liberty) if it “infringes” on these “rights” recently invented by the 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. Over 200 blogs already onboard.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Cross Posted With Stop The ACLU

Court Bans Mojave Cross on Private Land In Public Park

What a tangled up sticky legal mess this one is.

In 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a cross on a prominent rock on public land was unconstitutional, prompting Congress to pass a law allowing a trade so its immediate area would become private land.

People have been putting crosses in the spot since the 1930s, most recently with one man drilling a metal cross into the rock a decade ago without permission. In 1999, a man requested and was denied permission to build a Buddhist shrine there, setting the stage for a tangled legal fight.

“A grave constitutional injury already exists,” Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court ruling. “The permitting display of the Sunrise Rock cross in the Preserve is an impermissible governmental endorsement of religion.

“The government’s long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government’s purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place,” the judge said. “Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve – like a donut hole with the cross atop it – will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement.”

9th Circus once again. The ACLU did not immediately return a call for comment:

The decision today is the latest in the lengthy case. The American Civil Liberties Union originally filed a lawsuit in 2001 on behalf of a man who said its location on federal land violated the U.S. Constitution.

The original cross was erected in 1934 by a prospector to honor World War I veterans. The latest version was installed in the mid-1990s. President Bill Clinton authorized the Mojave National Preserve in 1996, including the land where the cross sits.

The cross has been covered, first by a tarp and now by a box, as the case makes its way through the courts, Wanda Sandoz said.

A while back, a friend of mine took a trip to the Mojave Desert where this cross is. Below is a little film of his experience.

So here is the cross, rendered unable to offend under plywood. Except that the placing it under plywood offends me. Quite a bit.

Here is a good history synopsis of the case written by former ACLU lawyer, Rees Lloyd.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Cross posted with Stop The ACLU :

I wanted to put something up for Labor Day here to get some inspirations sparked. For a while my priorities have been shifted. I want to announce that we will be more active in our original cause and want to thank everyone that has supported us thus far. To get our blogburst reinvigorated, I thought I’d pull out a classic…one that explains why we started and what we are all about…

Stop The ACLU was started on February 9th, 2004. We started with high hopes, and we realized we were facing a goliath. There were many reasons why we thought the ACLU needed to be countered, and they are numerous. We wanted to provide a way to inform the public of the ACLU’s agenda, as the MSM sugar coated it. We wanted to be a central database for people to gather, exchange ideas, and get actively involved in real ways of stopping them. It is a monumental task, exhausting, time consuming, and often frustrating. But it is a fight worth fighting.

We would be nothing without our supporters. To all of you, we appreciate the continued support. We have called you to action and you have answered.

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.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites