From the bang your head against the steering wheel department, the stupidity of some people comes shining through …

In another example of the upside down nature of our nation today, a man who murdered his ex-girlfriend and then killed himself is getting a nice memorial plaque in a Minnesota kid’s ballpark because his love for the kids was “greatly appreciated.”

Never mind that he stalked his ex-girlfriend and murdered her. Never mind that, like a coward, he killed himself afterwards. It was enough that after this mental case died the Park District remembered he was a cool guy. That’s all they needed… their maudlin warm “feelings.”

Anyone have a bandage to help with the blood flood from my eyes after reading this?  

Parents Can Stop ACLU Lawsuit Against Wilson Co. Schools

April 11, 2007 10:08 PM
NewsChannel5.com

A federal judge has granted permission to a group of parents to try to stop a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.

The suit claims Wilson County schools violated constitutional separation of church and state.

It alleges Lakeview Elementary school in Mt. Juliet and the Wilson County school board endorsed and promoted religious activities on campus that led to constitutional violations.

Very short article, lacking much information, but here is an Oct.2006 piece from Alain’s Newsletter that gives a bit more detail.

Old Hickory, TN –

U.S. Senate candidate Bob Corker today said the Tennessee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is woefully wrong to have filed what he called a “frivolous liberal lawsuit” against the Wilson County School District alleging a morning prayer endorsed by Lakeview Elementary School officials is a constitutional violation of church-state separation.”When the President declared September 14, 2001 — just two days after the attacks of 9-11 — a National Day of Prayer, no one sued him for crossing some arbitrary line between church and state,” said Corker. “We just bowed our heads and prayed. When a school in Wilson County or anywhere in our country allows children to do the same on the National Day of Prayer, or at a gathering at the flagpole, the courts ought to stay out of the way.”

Corker said he supports the efforts of Mt. Juliet Commissioner Glen Linthicum, who said it was time for the community to take a stand against the ACLU lawsuit recently filed against the Wilson County School District. Linthicum co-sponsored a resolution unanimously approved last Monday night by the Mt. Juliet City Commission that encourages the elementary school and the Wilson School District to fight for their rights to religious expression.

“Like many parents across our state, I pray for my family everyday,” Corker stated. “We should never force anyone to believe a certain faith or pray a certain way,” Corker continued, “but if a school decides to set aside some time to allow children who wish to pray to do so, we ought to support that school and community. That is precisely what it means to protect our freedom of religious expression — and I will fight to do just that in the U.S. Senate if elected.”

It appears that the ACLU has set it’s sights on this school district…The ACLU Targets Christians

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.

School has “legitimate state interest” in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, parents have no choice

Lawyers representing a Massachusetts school district named as a defendant in a parent’s civil rights complaint have said teachers at Estabrook Elementary School have a “legitimate state interest” in teaching the homosexual lifestyle, and parents have no input into those decisions.

“of the people, by the people and for the people”, taxpayers, aka parents “have no input into those decisions.” The “State” no longer serves the people, the people serve the “State”. “A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.” – Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and third U.S. president (1743-1826), in a letter to George Hammond, 1792

Note from Jo:  This is what the socialists (ala Billary) want to do to YOUR children. Without parents like Mr. Parker (story below), standing up for the THEIR rights as parents, we would not know what is being taught in schools.  Do YOU want your child taught about the birds and bees from the view of Adam and Steve?  Think about it really hard, then go below the fold and read what is happening in Massachusetts, and is where Presidential Candidate Mitt Romeny is from.  Mitt Romeny, who stated that homosexual marriages are “legal”.  Scratch him off my “to vote for list”.  

The arguments came in a recent hearing on the district’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by David Parker, a parent whose concern over the school’s promotion of the homosexual agenda to grade-schoolers prompted a meeting with school officials, for which they had him arrested for trespassing.

According to a report from the activist group MassResistance.org, those arguments echoed the claims made earlier in the case when a brief in support of the school’s position was filed by a collection of homosexual advocacy organizations.

“The state must fight ‘discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation’ in ways that ‘do not perpetuate stereotypes,’” the lawyers for the school district argued. They also explained to the judge that, in their opinion, parents have no right to control what ideas the school presents to elementary schoolchildren, and if parents disagree with that dictate, they can take their children elsewhere.

“Once I have elected to send my child to public school, my fundamental right does not allow me to direct what my child is exposed to in the public school,” said the school’s lawyer.

Dozens of parents’ rights supporters of the Parker family braved freezing temperatures to offer moral support to David Parker in the hearing on his case against school officials in Lexington, Mass.

Parker was represented by lawyers Jeffrey Denner, Robert Sinsheimer and Neil Tassel, who argued before Judge Mark Wolf that what the school calls “diversity training” more accurately would be called “indoctrination,” since several viewpoints were absent from the school’s presentations, and only the pro-homosexual position was present.

And lawyers said the school “ultimatum” to “remove yourself and go somewhere else” was vulgar.

“American values rely on religion. Religious rights trump the secular. Parents have the right to direct the moral upbringing of their children,” said Sinsheimer. “It is the Constitution that protects the minority segment from the majority… The Parkers choose to send their children to the Lexington Public Schools to be part of the fabric of the community.”

The elementary curriculum promoting homosexuality, he said, was specifically intended to change a child’s outlook of the world to something that his parents didn’t teach him.

An ACLU lawyer, however, told the judge that “it is a tremendous bonus” for children to be given information of which their parents wouldn’t approve, and that teaching children homosexuality when their parents’ Biblical beliefs do not support that has nothing to do with a violation of religious freedom, according to the MassResistance.org reports.

“David Parker’s dilemma … threatens the parental rights and religious freedom of every Massachusetts parent, and indirectly every parent in America,” said John Haskins of the Parents’ Rights Coalition. “As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state’s right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people’s children arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney’s nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal.“

Haskins said when the Massachusetts state Supreme Court demanded homosexual marriages in the state, it didn’t have the constitutional or legal authority to order the governor to act or to order the Legislature to make any changes.

Officials said Wolf usually announces a decision within several weeks of a hearing, and that’s what is expected in this case. Parker’s lawyers are scheduled to supplement their oral arguments with written briefs this week. The brief filed earlier by the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in support of the school’s homosexual promotions said parental rights “have never meant that a parent can demand prior notice and the right to opt a child out of mere exposure to ideas in the public schools that a parent disapproves of.”

Brian Camenker, a spokesman for MassResistance.org, said the high-profile groups must see Parker’s claims “as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children.” He said his organization, a “pro-family action center for Massachusetts” which equips citizens to fight attacks on freedoms, constitutional government, children and parental rights, can see the “true agenda” of the homosexual organizations in their demands.

Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his request – and the school’s refusal – to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his elementary-age son. The school took that position despite a state law requiring such notification.

Then in April 2006 the same school chose to present the same single-perspective information, and again refused to notify Parker, who followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit.

[snip] The arguments on behalf of homosexuals were remarkably similar to a recent European court’s conclusion. The European Human Rights Court several months ago concluded in a case involving similar objections that parents do not have an “exclusive” right to lead their children’s education and any parental “wish” to have their children grow up without adverse influences “could not take priority over compulsory school attendance.”

That court said a German family had no right to provide homeschooling for their children. The family had argued the public school endangered their children’s religion beliefs and violated the family’s Christian faith.

Irrelevant, said the court. “The parents’ right to education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience,” it said.

“The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society,” the European ruling said.

In Germany, the situation has continued to deteriorate for homeschoolers, with one 15-year-old student recently being taken into custody by a SWAT team and ordered by a judge to a psychiatric ward of a hospital because she was being homeschooled. WND’s latest update on that situation has confirmed authorities now have removed the teen from the psych ward, and she has been taken to a location that is being withheld from her parents and lawyer.

We have listed the “Communist Goals” on this site several times in the past two years and this is a good time to repost two of them…16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at 20Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

I just finished reading Indefensible: 10 Ways The ACLU Is Destroying America by Sam Kastensmidt. I highly recommend it for everyone.

The book covers most of our own top ten reasons to stop the ACLU, however much more extensively. It covers everything the ACLU stands for. From the agenda of silencing the churches and abortion to the sexualization of children … the book covers it in excellent detail.

There have been many great books written on the ACLU. Most focus on the social and religious issues that are under attack. Alan Sears’ book, ACLU Vs. America, focused on mainly on these issues, however it did touch upon how the ACLU attacks our soverignty. This book, Indefensible, also focuses on the social issues, but I was happy to see that it devoted an entire chapter on how the ACLU is Impeding America’s War On Terror. I’m going to share a few excerpts from sections within that particular chapter.

ACLU Fights Measure To Halt Terrorists’ FundingOnly weeks after the tragedy (911), Congress acted to dismantle the financial infrastructure supporting known terrorist organizations. On October 3, 2001, U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley (OH) introduced the “Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001,” seeking to freeze all accounts directly linked to the “financing of terrorism.”

The need for such legislation was deemed so vital to national security that it passed the U.S. House on a vote of 421-1. Almost the entire Congress recognized that this legislation’s passage was imperative. Still, on the day before the vote was scheduled, the ACLU delivered letters of opposition to all members of Congress.

“We urge you to oppose the ‘Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001,’” the letter began. Why? One portion of the bill made it a federal crime to conceal large amounts of “illegally obtained” cash (over $10,000) while traveling. In a desperate and shameful attempt to justify its stance, the ACLU played the race card. The letter argued, “This provision may impact, disproportionately, people of color and immigrants….[because] these groups of people often have a more difficult time getting access to sources of credit and bank accounts and so use cash transactions more frequently than others do.”

Under the ACLU’s reasoning, impoverished people would be discriminated against by this bill. The likelyhood of impoverished minorities carrying around more than $10,000 in cash and concealing it was supposedly a grave concern for the ACLU. Thankfully the ACLU’s efforts to stop this were unsuccessful.

A little more from the book:

Later in the war, the ACLU actually volunteered its legal services to represent suspected terrorists! In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from several alleged “illegal combatants,” including two cases involving U.S. citizens and one case involving 14 foreign “illegal enemy combatants.” The ACLU filed amicus briefs on behalf of the suspected terrorists in each case, arguing that ll “enemy combatants” captured during a time of war should have access to American courtrooms-regardless of their citizenship.

The Pentagon contended that “enemy combatants” should face military tribunals-the standard procedure in all previous international wars. U.S. Solictor General Theodore Olson, whose wife, Barbara Olson, was killed on September 11, when Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, reminded the Supreme Court Justices that the plaintiffs were requesting a “jurisdiction that is not authorized by Congress, does not arise from the Constitution, and has never been exercised by this Court.”

Though the U.S. Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizen enemy combatants, judicial restraint did not prevent the moder Court from creating this new right out of thin air.

Thankfully this decision was made moot by the passing of the Military Commission Act. However, the ACLU’s war on National Security continues, and giving habeous corpus to non-American citizens is on their New Year Resolution list. It is actually number one on the list, followed by destroying the NSA terrorist surveillance program, and destroying our ability to keep secrets.

Overall the book was well put together and very informative. I highly suggest checking it out.

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.

Each year the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal organizations continue their efforts to destroy traditional values that we once assumed were self-evident and beyond question. And each year we sit quietly by doing nothing to stop their relentless assault on our culture and our religious heritage. As our resolution for the New Year, let us join together to defeat the ACLU’s anti-Christian agenda and restore our civil and religious freedom.

Most definitely the ACLU’s attack on religious freedom is one of many good reasons we should resolve to join together and fight back. We have a whole list of other good reasons. The damage the ACLU has done to our National Security, the War on Terror, and our National Soverignty are at the top of my personal list.

There are many reasons to stop the ACLU’s agenda, but what people need to know is how. Everyone needs to get involved. There is a lot that can be done.

One thing to do is to get active. Email, write, or call your elected officials and let them know that National Security is of primary concern. This time last year the ACLU were running full page ad propaganda war against the NSA and the Patriot Act. Even though the Democrats made a show of not clapping for the Patriot Act, in the end they lost that battle. They are still beating the dead horse over the NSA program.

Another thing is to elect people who will appoint Constitutionalist judges. We’ve made progress in this area over the past year. Last year around this time the ACLU announced their official opposition to the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Many of the ACLU’s biggest fans in the Senate fought hard to paint him as a woman hater and bigot, to the point of bringing his wife to tears, but in the end they all lost that battle.

When it comes to religious freedom, the ACLU is America’s number one censor. They have compared Christians to terrorists, and even called for jailing people over prayer. The most outrageous thing about this is that when these cases their attorney’s fees are paid for by the taxpayer. We have made progress against this in the past year. Currently there is legislation to put a stop to this and we got it passed in the House of Representatives. The bill is still pending before the Senate, and just because we lost the majority is no reason for us to let up.

Support groups that are fighting the ACLU. There are many out there including the Alliance Defense Fund, ACLJ, Liberty Council, and Thomas More Law Center. Join one of them, donate to them, and tell others about them.

Educate the public about the ACLU’s agenda. This last one is the New Year’s resolution we are making…to continue our fight against the ACLU by educating the public. Join us and over 200 other blogs in helping to expose the ACLU’s agenda to the people.

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.

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.

The scene will also display a terrorist shepherd and an angel in the form of Nancy Pelosi.

John at Stop the ACLU has the picture of the results.

I think the Angels must be cringing — cause I can’t see them singing!!

Maybe the idiots in Chicago would let this be displayed - since the real version of the story can’t be. 

Its that time of the year again. The time when the intolerant grinches like the ACLU start trying to fill their stockings with your tax dollars in their attempts to secularize Christmas. The ACLU try their best to deny their attacks on Christmas. They call those defending Christmas the well organized extremists out to make a buck in the guise of defending Christmas. This is of course false. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), just like last year, are offering their services to defend Christmas completely FREE!

However, the lies continue again this year as the ACLU denies their attacks on Christmas. However, their actions speak louder than their words.

Already the ACLU have began their attacks. They have already been successful in bullying the Berkley City Council into moving their Christmas nativity scene off public property. This, despite the fact that the display also included other religious and secular elements including a Star of David, Christmas trees, a Santa Claus figure, a Santa’s Mailbox, and a “Seasons Greetings” sign.

In their latest attempt to censor Christmas they have sued the Wilson County School System outside of Nashville, TN. because their Christmas program includes “Christian themes and songs.”

The plaintiffs and the ACLU allege that several kindergarten students role-played a nativity scene of the birth of Jesus—and had the audacity to sing “Away in the Manger” and “Joy to the World.” According to the ACLU, these songs are exclusively Christian in nature because they celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and are, therefore, inappropriate.

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) is defending the school in this case.

The ADF has a long list of attacks on Christmas from the ACLU and its allies dating back from 2002 to the present.

Yes, its that time of the year again. The season that I get bombarded with emails encouraging people to waste their money on a stamp for a Christmas card wishing the ACLU a merry Christmas. Don’t get me wrong. I understand the sentitment behind the whole thing. I was all on board last year. If you really want them to have a Merry Christmas, or just feel like throwing your money away I won’t discourage it. It will be about as effective as barking at the moon. Your Christmas cheer will be tossed in the mail room shredder and never reach any those you intended to send a message to.

I propose that your money could be spent in a much more efficient manner. Save the money you would throw away on the stamp for a message destined to fall on deaf ears. There are many organizations out there fighting to protect Christmas and the expression of its true meaning.

Why not take the money you would be throwing away on a noble yet ineffective gesture, and put it to real use as a gift to the organization of your choice that is out there fighting the ACLU?

• Sign the ACLJ’s Petition here. Contribute Here.
• See the Alliance Defense Fund’s educational on your rights here. Contribute Here.
• See the Liberty Counsel’s free legal memorandum here (pdf). Contribute Here.
• Contribute to Thomas More Law Center here.
• Buy from the Bulldoze the ACLU store for great Christmas gifts.
• Contribute to Stop The ACLU’s efforts by going to their website and clicking on the donation button.

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.  

This week the ACLU held its 2006 membership conference. Over 1,500 moonbats from across the U.S. gathered to listen to the ACLU alarmist exaggerations and lies. The event was televised on CSPAN and there were some interesting moments such as when Justice Scalia slam dunked Nadine Strossen in a debate about the bill of rights.

Over 1,500 moonbats from across the U.S. gathered to listen to the ACLU alarmist exaggerations and lies. The event was televised on CSPAN and there were some interesting moments such as when in a debate about the bill of rights.One of the more humorous highlights of the ACLU’s conference this week was when Bush signed the Military Tribunal Bill into law. The ACLU came up with one of its most clever and cute full page ads to date in which they claimed to be “the most conservative organization in America.”

To highlight concerns with the act, the ACLU took out a full page advertisement in today’s Washington Post, calling itself “the most conservative organization in America.” Since its founding, the ACLU has fought to conserve the system of checks and balances and defend the Bill of Rights.

I guess this claim is technically true. They do more work to “conserve” political correctness, protections for terrorists and traitors, and judicial activism than any other organization out there. I guess it all just depends on what one is trying to conserve.

One thing the ACLU is not trying conserve is a Conservative majority in Congress. As a matter of fact they are actively working against this. One of the most honest moments of the ACLU conference was when Caroline Fredrickson came out in reference to a pending NSA surveillance bill and rooted for the Democrats.

The eavesdropping bills’ fate in the short, post-election session that is set to begin next month hinges on whether Republicans lose their leadership in either chamber, ACLU Washington Office Director Caroline Fredrickson said in an interview. “If Democrats take control, they won’t let a bad spying bill get jammed through,” she said.

As if putting out over a dozen political ads opposing particular candidates wasn’t enough to show their partisanship, Caroline just comes out and says it. What happened to the ACLU’s proud claim that they are “wholly non-partisan, neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat?” Nevermind that old cliche slogan, the ACLU now claim they are the most Conservative organization. So lets look at some of the things they are trying to conserve this election season.One thing the ACLU is working to conserve is voter fraud. Conserving the right to vote for illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and dead people goes right along with the ACLU’s agenda to get dhimmicrats elected this election cycle. The ACLU expressed its disappointment when the House passed the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,” requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote in federal elections.

In Missouri at least 16 St. Louis area Democrats were found guilty of election crimes in the last year and a half and now there is even more fraud going on.

When Republican Gov. Matt Blunt signed a law requiring voters to provide I.D. the ACLU represented a group of Democrats to challenge the law. It was successful in striking down a similar law in Georgia and with the help of the 9th Circuit Arizona as well. They also fought voter ID laws in New Mexico, Michigan, and Indiana. Unfortunately for the ACLU they may not be able to pull things off in time over in Indiana.

A federal appeals court judge says the panel is unlikely to rule on an Indiana law requiring people to show government-issued photo ID at the polls before the November seventh election.The Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago heard arguments in the case Wednesday.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana is asking a three-judge panel to overturn the state law.

ACLU attorney Ken Falk says there’s no evidence of the vote fraud that the law is aimed at eliminating. He says Indiana’s requirements to obtain identification are too cumbersome.

But Thomas Fisher of the Indiana Attorney General’s office argued that the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party failed to find a single person who would not be eligible to vote under the law.

Yes, I guess it is difficult to get dead people to show up at court.

What the ACLU is really seeking to conserve is a 9/10 mindset for America. They hope to conserve privacy rights for terrorists. They want a Democrat controlled Congress and they are not ashamed to admit it. They know this is the only way they can be successful striking down the NSA legislation and other important terror bills and tools that come may come along. They fear legislation currently pending in the Senate to strip them of their taxpayer funded attorney’s fees in Establishment Clause cases, and they know a Democrat controlled Senate is the sure fire way to kill it.

Concerned with illegal immigration? If you think we are not making any progress now, just imagine the slow down with the Democrats in control. The ACLU will be right their lobbying against every effort to secure the border. The ACLU’s agenda is pushed by more than just the courts. Want more conservative judges put on the bench? Let the loony liberals gain power and you can kiss that goodbye as well.

One sure fire way to help the ACLU progress its agenda against America is to stay at home during election time. Discouraged by the polls? Dan Riehl can help you put things back in perspective. Don’t get discouraged and allow the liberals to gain power. Get out and vote.

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.

Imagine if a Church used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. Can you imagine the outrage from groups like the ACLU if a Church used its tax exempt donations to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain “American values” as interpreted by that Church? What if a Christian Religious organization were to use its official title to oppose certain political issues such as abortion?

We don’t have to imagine, the ACLU’s history shows us. They would challenge that Church’s tax exempt status.

“In 1970, the year after the ACLU issued its first policy opposing the tax exempt status for churches; it accepted the advice of church and state extremist Leo Pfeffer and drafted a brief opposing tax exemptions in Waltz v. Tax Commission. In 1987, the ACLU Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in support of Abortion Rights Mobilization to secure standing in a suit challenging the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was charged with violating its tax-exempt status by taking a stand against abortion.”Source

However the ACLU’s official policy goes even further. In the ACLU’s eyes a Church doesn’t even have to be politically involved to deserve having its tax exempt status stripped.

During the 1988 presidential campaign the ACLU was brought under the spotlight. Michael Dukakis, the democrat nominee, proudly stated, “I’m a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union.” These words would soon come back to haunt him. I will not focus too much on this campaign other than using it as evidence of the ACLU’s position on the tax exemption of churches. However, Dukakis’s association with this group proved to be a major factor in his defeat.During the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC asked George Bush why he continued to make an issue out of Dukakis’s membership in the ACLU. Bush replied that he didn’t like most of the ACLU’s positions and offered four of them. We will just focus on the one we are talking about right now. Bush said, “I don’t think they’re right to try to take away the tax exemption of the Catholic Church.”

The ACLU doesn’t deny their position! Norman Dorsen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1976 to 1991, refuted Bush’s statements, and said that the ACLU opposes tax exemption for all churches, not just the Catholic Church.Source

Here is a little more history on the issue from Twilight of Liberty.

“ACLU founder Roger Baldwin once told me that the ACLU’s desire to strip the churches of their tax exempt status was “very foolish.” But in 1969, some nineteen years after Baldwin stepped down as executive director, the Union adopted its first policy opposing “tax exemption for church property which is used exclusively for religious purposes.’ In the latest policy on this subject, it makes no difference to the Union whether church property is not used exclusively for religious purposes, all are denied: “The ACLU opposes tax benefits for religious bodies”, seven examples are listed for clarification, including the benefit of tax exemption.”Source

The ACLU proudly claims that they are “wholly non-partisan.” It portrays itself as an objective organization that is “neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat.” They say instead that they are “a public interest organization devoted exclusively to protecting the basic civil liberties of all Americans.” However, while the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Wiccans. They went and got a tax administrator to rule that a coven of witches were entitled the same tax-exemption as churches had.

Does this sound like the position of a “nonpartisan” group? Does it sound like the position of a group that should be tax exempt? What happened to opposing tax exemptions on all religious bodies? Pick your policy. Either oppose it for all, or fight to expand it to all. You can’t claim non-partisanship while opposing it for one religious body and fighting to expand it to others.

Now imagine if an organization claiming to be non-partisan used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. What if this organization used its funds to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain “American values” as interpreted by that organization?

We don’t have to imagine, the ACLU’s hypocrisy shows us. It also has once again brought it into internal division as one local branch thinks it crossed the line. The Political Pit Bull has video of this being talked about on O’Reilly.

Leaders of the ACLU’s Connecticut affiliate have objected to an advertisement placed by the national ACLU that ran in the Hartford Courant late last month. The advertisement focused on Senator Lieberman, a Democrat who is running as an independent after losing a primary bid to an anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont.“Will Senator Joe Lieberman pass this test on American values?” the ad asks. It features Mr. Lieberman’s photograph and office telephone number, along with warnings about pending legislation about detainees, torture, and wiretapping. “Tell Joe Lieberman his votes on this assault on American values will help determine your vote in November,” the ad says.

The chairman of the board of the Connecticut ACLU, Don Noel Jr., said he and several other board members felt it breached the organization’s pledge to stay out of electoral politics.

“It seemed to us to cross the line on partisanship, or to cross the line on not being nonpartisan,” Mr. Noel told The New York Sun yesterday. “I have complained and the national office has agreed with me. They have said they are sorry this might have been seen as partisan.” NY Sun

The ACLU has consistently abused its tax exempt status by claiming to be non-partisan. However, a simple glimpse at the ACLU’s record shows many examples of how this is untrue. While the ACLU has proudly made abortion its number one priority it has not only ignored the free speech of abortion protesters but actively fought to silence them.

William Donohue accurately argues:

“Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality, is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization.”Source

Throughout its history the ACLU has revealed its partisanship. It opposed the Viet Nam War. It demanded unilateral nuclear disarmament. It called for disinvestment in South Africa. It violated its own policy in order to stymie the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. During the eight years of the Reagan Administration, it blasted the President with one invective after another much as it does today with President Bush. It led the fight to defeat the confirmation of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and more recently the confirmation of Samuel Alito. It frequently writes speeches for candidates that it likes. It lobbies its cause to Congress. Did you know that it has divided itself into two groups? The ACLU and the ACLU Foundation. This allows them to work the courts with one hand while being paid by taxpayer funding when the win, and lobby to Congress with the other. It even issues scorecards on Senators and Representatives evaluating their performance according to the ACLU’s own ideological measuring stick. Source

The American Civil Liberties Union is destroying America’s culture and Constitution, while the federal government allows it to operate as a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable organization. Non-profit organizations are not supposed to spend their tax-exempt assets on political campaigning, because that is not the purpose for which they were given the exemption. Furthermore, if an organization is to benefit by claiming non-partisanship it should practice that concept consistently and be held to those standards, unlike the ACLU’s double standard practices.

As a result of the above examples and much more, I believe that the ACLU has forfeited its right to operate as a tax-exempt organization. It is a political organization and should not be subsidized by my tax dollars. The IRS should do away with tax exemptions of political organizations hiding behind the mask of being non-profit and non-partisan. If only we could find some politicians willing to push for it.

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.