Crossposted from Stop the ACLU.
Every year we watch as the secularization of the birth of Christ happens around us. This year people are being preemptive, and its been quite successful. Kevin McCullough has started a campaign to send the ACLU Merry Christmas cards. Another effort is out there as well called Operation Nativity.
Dr. Charles Nestor, director of The Truth Matters, is announcing a project called “Operation Nativity” with the goal of having Christians across the country set up nativity scenes on their own property.
Nestor states, “It’s that time of year again. We’re not even out of October and already the forces are aligning to prohibit the public celebration of the birth of Jesus.
“December 25 is the day in our culture that is set aside to acknowledge and to celebrate that Jesus of Nazareth was born. For Christians it is more than a day of feasting and the exchange of gifts, it is a holy and solemn time to join our voices in unison as the angels proclaimed on the hillside to the shepherds, ‘Glory to God in the highest.’
“I am calling for Christians everywhere to join me in Operation Nativity. While we continue to support the public displays, let’s flood the country with nativity scenes on our own properties!
“Think with me what could happen if on lawns in every community, on business property, on church lawns, at Christian schools, on empty land, and literally everywhere you looked, there was the depiction of the scene that recognizes the birth of Jesus.
“Simple cutouts are available. Many already own lighted sets. It could be a family project, filled with opportunities to teach children about the events surrounding the birth of the Savior.Source
We are all for this, and encourage everyone to join in this expression of Christmas. And we want to take this idea and run with it! Decorate your blog for Christmas with a nativity scene, in support of religious expression, and as a sign of your support for stopping the ACLU. The ACLU will be busy this Christmas season, lets be prepared.
Please download the pics, and host them yourself…I can not afford the bandwidth of hotlinking. If you want to put the nativity scene pic in support of Stop The ACLU, and to decorate your blog for the Christmas season, copy the code below, and replace the URL of the pics with the downloaded pic that you host.
If you want to put the Homeland Holiday Advisory System, copy this code.
If you decide to add these to your sidebar, spread the word with a post, and then let us know with a trackback! Here’s to the Christmas holiday!
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.
Crossposted from Stop the ACLU.
First of all, Stop The ACLU got a full page, color ad in the Washington Times. If you haven’t seen it yet, you can do so HERE.
Every year we have come to expect the ACLU to wage war on Christmas. Just recently, the ADF won a victory for a school threatened by the ACLU over a nativity scene. The ACLU have created an environment that has spread like a virus across the nation. The far left have taken the politically correct ball and ran with it. They have redefined in their own minds, and in the minds of many Americans that “all inclusive” means “excluding” Christianity.
The environment the ACLU have created through threatening tactics across the years have made many schools proactive. In order to avoid lawsuits, some schools straight out banned the C word. This year, however, legal groups are being preemptive. The Alliance Defense Fund has even devoted a website, and offered free legal advice to any who feel they are being censored this year.
A backlash is happening this year as the American people are making their voices known. Wal-Mart felt the backlash, and backed off the politically correct exclusion of the word Christmas after being threatened with a boycott. Boston set off a furor this week when it officially renamed a giant tree erected in a city park a “holiday tree” instead of a “Christmas tree.”
The Capitol officially returned to calling it a Christmas tree instead of a holiday tree. Lowes also dumped the “holiday” reference after public outcry.
One Michagan family was told they could not display a nativity scene on their own lawn. After being threatened with fines if they did not remove it, they contacted the Thomas More Law Center, and were victorious in standing up for their rights.
Bill O’Reilly is leading the charge on his show, featuring the secularization of Christmas. John Gibson, also of FOX news has even written a book about it.
They are not alone, bloggers are reacting too. California Conservative has teamed up with us, and created a petition to support Christmas. Stop The ACLU is providing Christmas decorations for your blog. Kevin McCullough is asking his readers to send the ACLU Christmas cards.
Across the nation, people are standing up to the ACLU. In Georgia, legislators are proposing a bill that would allow counties to freely display historical documents “without threat from the ACLU. The Louisiana Legislature has approved a resolution urging Congress to pass the Constitution Restoration Act, a bill that would prohibit federal courts from ruling in cases involving government officials who acknowledge God “as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.” Under the bill, any judge who violates the proposed rule by making “extrajurisdictional” decisions will have committed an offense that is grounds for impeachment.
Representative Hostettler has introduced legislation to the House that would limit attorney fees in Establishment Clause cases to injunctive relief only.
We have a petition set up asking Congress to stop taxpayer funding for the ACLU. Stand up, and fight 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.
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
In conjunction with the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the ACLU has lobbied hard against Arab-profiling at airports for years. “Profiles are notoriously under-inclusive,” says ACLU legislative counsel Gregory Nojeim. “Who knows who the next terrorist will appear as? It could be a grandmother. It could be a student. We just don’t know.”Source
The airline industry’s fear of such lawsuits is based on solid historical precedent. In 1993, for instance, the ACLU joined forces with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) to sue Pan American World Airways for having detained a man of Iranian descent during the first Persian Gulf War.
So, the ACLU says political correctness trumps common sense. They block that route of securing ourselves from being blown up. What to do? Hmmm.. I’ve got it! Lets do random searches!
ACLU Files Suit Over Random Subway Searches.The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the New York chapter of the ACLU, has announced that they intend on filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan today. The suit claims that the random bag searches before boarding the subway system is unconstitutional.
City lawyers have noted that an al-Qaida training manual advising terrorists to avoid police checkpoints gives the city some justification for its random searches of bags entering the subway system.
Ok, so the ACLU says no profiled searches, and no random searches. What about searches across the board? Nope. Raymond James Stadium tried it, and the ACLU sued. So, where does that leave us with searches? I think we can conclude that the ACLU are against all searches. Is this because they stand by the principle of the fourth amendment? The irony and hypocrisy here is that, the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search. Apparantly their war against searches is not based on principle.
But searches are not the only that brings criticism on the ACLU on the topic of National Security.
The ACLU and CAIR have actually taken up quite a number of cases together. In 2003, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU awarded its yearly “Liberty Flame Award” to the Ohio chapter of CAIR “for contributions to
the advancement and protection of civil liberties.” This same Ohio chapter, in August of this year, refused contributions from the United Way, as to not complete a required counterterrorism compliance form.
But it isn’t isolated to one rouge chapter.
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.
What is this all about?
Although its website proclaims that it does not receive “any government funding,” it does get money from a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions. Last year it got $470,000 from the program. (The ACLU’s 2002 annual budget, the most recent available, was $102 million.)
Now it had a choice: give up the money, or sign a promise certifying that the ACLU “does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on” government watch lists of suspected supporters of terrorism.
Trouble was, the ACLU had strongly opposed the lists, saying they were often inaccurate and violated the constitutional rights of some people.
But it really hated the idea of giving up the money.Source
So what did they do? Well, at first they decided they would try to trick the government. They decided to keep the money, AND keep hiring anyone they pleased, by what Nadine Strossen called a “clever interpretation.” Their solution was that if they remained ignorant of who was on the list, then they couldn’t “knowingly” hire anyone on the list. Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, tells the New York Times: “I’ve printed [the lists] out. I’ve never consulted them.”
To make a long story short, when The New York Times outted them, they caved in. But they didn’t cave in to the government, they just decided to forgoe the money, so they could still ignorantly hire people on the government watchlist. Isn’t that nice?
However, this isn’t the end. The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations 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. This is something the ACLU finds worthy of celebrating. In my opinion this is reason to be suspicious of what the ACLU does with its funds.
It isn’t a far fetched idea to wonder if the ACLU uses its funds to support terrorism. The ACLU’s history is tainted in this arena.
In 1985 Samuel L. Morrison, an employee of the Naval Intelligence Support Command was convicted and sentenced for stealing classified spy satellite photographs from his office, cutting off the “secret” designation and selling them to a foreign publication. The ACLU claimed that Morrison had the right to steal and sell these classified documents and the under the First Amendment.
Positions like these might be easier to understand if we look at ACLU Policy #117. They title this policy “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies”. ”
Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluating foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations. Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by eliminating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.
Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries. Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records….”
The ACLU Defends the P.L.O.
“I’m afraid even the good guys on civil liberties are going to be against us on this one.” Those are the words of ACLU Executive director Ira Glasser on the ACLU’s decision to represent an agent of Yassir Araftat’s Palestine Liberation Organization.
I wonder if his definition of “good guys” meant American citizens who care about their country and are not willing to grant sworn terrorists complete freedom within our borders. If so, he is absolutely correct. We are against that one.
“Arafat’s group of ruthless murderers had set up an “information office” in Washington D.C, only a few blocks from the White House.
The ACLU Defends “Mad Dog” of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi.
“In 1985, the ACLU learned of an alleged plan by the CIA to engineer Qaddafi’s overthrow. Outraged, they put together a “strenuous” public protest against this proposed action.
In a letter fillled with self-righteous indignation, Morton Halperin, Director of the ACLU Washington office, expressed his opinion of that plan to Sen. David Durenberger, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with copies to everyone imaginable.
And to make sure no one was left out, the ACLU also issued a press release trumpeting it’s opposition to any attempt to oust Qaddafi.”
The ACLU has also shown itself a willing tool of the terrorists, waging a massive anti-anti-terrorism legal campaign. This pillar of the legal Left denounced the government’s requirement that men aged 16-25 holding “temporary visas” from nations with known ties to terrorism register with the INS; represented Sami al-Arian, the North American fundraiser and co-founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (filing a brief upholding his inalienable right to fresh briefs!); rallied on behalf of convicted al-Qaeda benefactor Maher Mofeid Hawash; urged local communities not to cooperate with federal anti-terror investigations; and opposed the FBI’s monitoring Islamist mosques. As David Horowitz notes in his book Unholy Alliance, radical Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer Ron Kuby notes the “passionate…identification” most lawyers feel with their clients, such as that of convicted terror enabler Lynne Stewart for World Trade Center bomber Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Given her aid for international Islamic terrorism, the government is right to keep a watchful eye on those who perpetually side with the enemy. Front Page Magazine
They have fought hard for the release of Abu Ghraib images depicting sickening torture of our enemies, further inflaming the propaganda war on the side of the enemy. The ACLU also submitted a 37-page report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee describing specific U.S. breaches of the political and civil rights covenant.
The report included sections on “Excessive Government Secrecy”; “Racial Profiling of the U.S. Arab, South Asian, and Muslim Communities”; “Criminalization of Political Protest”; “Increased Surveillance Powers”; and “Random Searches.”
Recently the ACLU have decided to represent two detainees who claim the U.S. Military threw them into lions dens. Somebody is lion alright. They have also accused the U.S. military of outright murdering 21 detainees. They have even advised the majority of the prisoners at Gitmo that they did not have to answer questions from military interrogators.
Actions like these have enraged groups like The American Legion, and Christians for Reviving American Values, who are asking Congress to investigate the ACLU. The American Legion is already mobilizing its members to fight the ACLU over issues such as the Boyscouts. The sympathy for the enemy also has them fired up. To many of these groups, and to many Americans, the perception is that The ACLU cares more about terrorists than it does about America.
As you can see, balancing national security interests with a respect for civil liberties is not the goal of the ACLU. Its goal is the absolute pursuit of civil liberties, without regard for its consequences. Gone are the the carefully worded policies that guided Union thinking during World War II. Gone, too is any kind of talk about the enemies of the United States. It is hard to imagine a person vile enought, or a crisis serious enough, to shake the ACLU from its absolutist position during wartime. The tragedy is it is not just the nation’s security that stands to lose as a result, it is the cause of liberty itself.
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.
It’s been a long time coming. Bush has taken heat from the left for far too long, without fighting back much. They constantly engage Bush, citing he mislead the American public with his reasons for going to war. I may be mistaken, but didn’t a pretty large number of Democrats vote for going to war?
Bush gave a killer speech today, slamming Democrats for rewriting the history of how the war in Iraq began.
While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.
They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: “When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.” That’s why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate — who had access to the same intelligence — voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)
I doubt this will really improve the situation for Bush. Democrats will continue lying, because well, that’s what they do. They’re already denying they’ve tried rewriting history. Lets hope Bush will keep it up and not allow the dems to continue berating him at every chance they get. What better time to initially bite back than Veterans Day?
The Political Teen has the video. Others blogging:
Iowa Voice
Pundit Guy
Point Five
Don Surber
Confederate Yankee
Stop the ACLU
Protein Wisdom
The Senate has voted 49 to 42 on an amendment to a military budget bill that will strip some rights currently retained by detainees. These detainees are detainees for a reason, they shouldn’t get rights the average prisoner gets. From the NYT:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 – The Senate voted Thursday to strip captured “enemy combatants” at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of the principal legal tool given to them last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts.
The vote, 49 to 42, on an amendment to a military budget bill by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, comes at a time of intense debate over the government’s treatment of prisoners in American custody worldwide, and just days after the Senate passed a measure by Senator John McCain banning abusive treatment of them.
If approved in its current form by both the Senate and the House, which has not yet considered the measure but where passage is considered likely, the law would nullify a June 2004 Supreme Court opinion that detainees at Guantánamo Bay had a right to challenge their detentions in court.
What the hell? It’s more upsetting to me that these criminals have these sorts of rights. Gotta love sucking up to the enemy. And from WAPO:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he also faces some resistance from Senate colleagues and the White House as he considers whether to try attaching his proposal to a defense bill the Senate is debating this week. Senators could vote on the proposal as early as Thursday.
“What I object to is criminalizing the war. Enemy combatants, POWs have never had access to federal court before,” said Graham, a 20-year Air Force lawyer.
Well put Senator Graham. It only makes sense that we shouldn’t allow the enemy access to our federal court system. They have no place being there, their place is in prison. No doubt the ACLU will throw a fit. Many liberal bloggers are already whining and crying for the rights of these criminals and murders. Before we know it we’ll be forced to grant these people citizenship within the United States. I’m sure the ACLU would be happy with that.
We’re at war. Allowing prisoners, who are fighting for the opposing side, to appeal their cases is totally bogus and goes against all basic logic.
Others blogging:
Michelle Malkin
Stop the ACLU
Say Anything
Linked at The Political Teen and Mudville Gazette.
