The ACRU Blog

The facts for this story, but not the legal conclusions, come from a story
on the KOTV website, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, on 31 October. From the story,
it is not clear whether the ACLU was directly involved in this case. But
from other litigation, it is clear the ACLU would seek to have this new
Oklahoma law struck down in court.

Oklahoma passed a law with two types of provisions against illegal aliens in
the state. It will penalize businesses which hire illegal aliens, with
denials of licenses to operate for repeat offenses. It will also penalize
owners of rental property who knowingly rent to illegal aliens.

Two tries before a federal court in Oklahoma produced a ruling by U.S.
District Judge James H. Payne that "the plaintiffs had failed to produce
enough evidence" to entitle them to a preliminary injunction against the new
law. Note that this is the exact opposite result from the federal court
decisions concerning Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and Framers Branch, Texas.

In both those city cases, the respective federal courts ruled that the
cities did not have the constitutional power to act in this area, and struck
the laws down. Had the federal court in Oklahoma taken the same approach,
it would have struck down the new state law as facially invalid. In all
three instances, the ordinances and the state law used definitions in
federal law of who was, or was not, an illegal alien. So, the conclusions
by unelected federal judges about what elected officials could do, should
have been the same.

As the article notes, the Oklahoma statute "received bipartisan support from
state lawmakers who expressed frustration with Congress' inability to pass
comprehensive immigration reform." Pat Fennel, director of the Latino
Community Development Agency in Oklahoma City, said, "So many Latinos have
already left Oklahoma and many plan to do so, which is precisely what Randy
Terrill [sponsor of the legislation] wanted -- cleanse the state."

The gist of this article is that all Hispanics, legal and illegal, will be
harmed by this law. It does not explain how legal aliens, who have an
established right to be in the United States, and may be working toward full
citizenship, would be affected by the new law.

The article claims that thousands of legals and illegals are leaving
Oklahoma. The reporter did not bother to research the prior history of
efforts to deal with illegal immigration. The last President to work
actively in this area was Dwight Eisenhower. He appointed a retired general
to act in this area. He, in turn, started cracking down on employers who
hired illegal aliens, and deporting the aliens themselves. But many more
tens of thousands of aliens "self-deported" and returned to Mexico in
response to this change of attitudes, than were directly affected by either
the actions against employers or the individual deportations together.

In short, Oklahoma has just provided to the Congress and the other states an
example of a law that is so clear and so effective that it is
self-enforcing. People get the word of the provisions of the law, and they
act. In this case, however, they are self-deporting to other states with
lax laws, rather than back to Mexico.

The federal judge in this case has also provided (for now, this was the
denial of a preliminary injunction) an example to judges across the country.
It is this: it is the business of elected representatives to act for the
welfare of the citizens in their cities or states. It is not the business
of unelected judges to second guess those decisions of the legislators.

Source for original story on the Net:
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=138946

The facts for this comment, but not the legal conclusions, come from an
article carried on the CBS website on 1 November. It is unclear whether the
ACLU was involved in defending the Westboro Baptist Church in this case, but
it is clear from other cases that the ACLU defends the most reprehensible
"speech" like that present here.

A federal jury in Baltimore awarded a total of $10.9 million to Albert
Snyder, father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who was killed in Iraq,
against the apparent Church and three of its leaders who demonstrated at his
son's funeral. The defendants carried signs that said, among other things,
"Thank God for dead soldiers," and "God hates fags."

Twenty-two states have passed laws seeking to curtail the activities of this
so-called Church and its members. The Church was founded by Fred Phelps.
His two daughters, Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis, are active in the
Church and were also found liable. One of them is a lawyer and was active
in the defense of the case.

Fred Phelps said, after the verdict, ""Oh, it will take about five minutes
to get that thing reversed."

Speaking as a three-decade First Amendment practitioner in the Supreme
Court, this will be a difficult verdict to uphold on appeal. "Freedom of
religion" is a broad right, but it is not absolute, as shown by cases on
medical treatment of children over their parents' religious objections. ""Freedom
of speech" is also a broad right, but it is also not absolute, as shown by
cases concluding "there is no right to cry fire in a crowded theater."

Because of interviews I have seen with members of this so-called Church, I
believe this verdict will be upheld. They have stated in public their
intent to hurt other people by the demonstrations they hold, and the
statements they present on their posters at these funerals. And, in order
to appeal, they should be required to post bond. If they do not post bond,
their church building, vehicles and personal property will be taken away,
and the Westboro Baptist Church will disappear.

Like the child pornography case that was argued this week in the Supreme
Court, there are certain cases whose content are so vile that they give a
bad name both to the concept of free speech, and to the lawyers who defend
such cases. The Westboro Baptist Church case goes further, and gives a bad
name to freedom of religion, as well.

Source for original story on the Net:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/ap/national/main3439663.shtml

BY JOE DEJKA
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

Security was tight Monday as a Kansas woman appeared in Sarpy County Court to answer charges that she mutilated a flag and put her child in danger while protesting at the funeral of a Bellevue soldier.

Although the Sarpy County Sheriff's Office prepared for a possible protest by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, to which Phelps-Roper belongs, none materialized. Shirley Phelps-Roper, 50, came into the courthouse in the company of just a few family members and her attorney to push for more specifics on the charges she faces.

According to Bellevue Police, Phelps-Roper had her 10-year-old son stomp on an American flag. Church members had obtained a City of Bellevue permit to protest.

The church, founded by her father, has protested across the country at the funerals of numerous soldiers, alleging that their deaths were God's retribution for America's toleration of homosexuality.

Last Wednesday, a Maryland jury awarded nearly $11 million to a man who sued Westboro Baptist for invasion of privacy after its members protested at his son's funeral.

The pretrial hearing centered on a defense motion requesting that the prosecution describe in detail the specific facts that support the charges, which include disturbing the peace, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and negligent child abuse.

Her attorney, Bassel El-Kasaby, argued that without specifics on what actions broke the law in each case and who was victimized he can't prepare his case.

"I don't think you can disturb the peace of a police officer or firefighter," he said.

He said it was "unorthodox" and potential "overreaching" by prosecutors to charge Phelps-Roper with contributing to the delinquency of a minor and negligent child abuse.

"I'd like to know who the victim is and what harm they suffered," he said.

He said if the flag mutilation charge is found unconstitutional, the other charges likewise may be dismissed, but he needs to know the relationship between the charges.

Deputy Sarpy County Attorney Marc Delman resisted El-Kasaby's request, saying he didn't want to limit the basis for the charges.

Delman told the judge that Phelps-Roper had "cleanly, openly and notoriously" made her son step on an American flag while her church protested at the funeral of William Bailey.

"Clearly the Bailey family was very upset by this," he said. Delman said Phelps-Roper's contempt for the flag gave rise to the case, but the rest of the charges stemmed from other actions as well, including slogans on signs and other conduct.

Phelps-Roper, outside the courtroom, said she didn't force her son, Jason, to do anything.

She said he has grown up attending protests and acted on his own.

"He laid it on the ground, and he stood on it. And he stood there peacefully," she said.

Sarpy County Court Judge Todd Hutton told both sides he wants written arguments on whether the prosecution should specify in more detail the actions that support the charges.

He said he wanted to proceed cautiously and would give both sides ample time to submit arguments. Given the filing deadlines, a decision on the motion could take six months.

Although church members did not protest, a few military veterans gathered outside the courthouse.

Veteran John Henry Pearcy of American Legion Post 32 in Papillion said they showed up to ensure there wasn't any desecration of the veterans' memorial monument in the middle of the courthouse plaza and to show their support for the country.

In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas flag desecration statute. A year later, the court struck down a federal flag protection law. In both cases, the court ruled that flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment.

Sarpy County Attorney Lee Polikov, however, has said that Phelps-Roper's actions at the Bellevue funeral went beyond civility and common decency and inserted an "overly provocative" message into the emotionally charged funeral.

Last Wednesday, a Maryland jury awarded nearly $11 million to a man who sued the Westboro Baptist Church for invasion of privacy after its members protested at his son's funeral.

World-Herald Staff Writer Leia Baez contributed to this report.

The bulbs are dim and growing dimmer in Fort Collins, Colorado where recommendations from a city appointed task force threaten to outlaw from the public square everything associated with Christmas. No more colored lights or God fobid - a wreath with a bow! Snowflakes, white lights and unadorned penguins will be the only outside decorations permitted if the silly recommendations are approved at the City Council's next meeting on November 20. The ACLU was of course represented on the task force, along with fourteen other Ft. Collinians with obviously too much time on their hands. To view the product of this extraordinary effort to remove Christmas from our culture go to www.fcgov.com/holidaydisplay.

Many Congress watchers assumed that the fight between the House Judiciary Committee and the White House over subpoenas to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten would end when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
resigned.

Read more here.

Read article in The New York Sun, here.

On 20 November, the Supreme Court accepted for review the Heller case, on the right to own a gun, from the District of Columbia. The lower court, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, had ruled that individual citizens had a Second Amendment right to own guns for self-defense in the District, contrary to the law passed by the D.C. Council.

This is a critical case to bring the 2nd Amendment in from the cold. All other basic rights from the Bill of Rights have long since been declared "fundamental" and applied to the states as well as to the federal government. Now, it is finally time for the Supreme Court to recognize that the right of self defense is the basic reason why they wrote this right into the Bill of Rights. The history of the writing and the ratification of the 2nd Amendment leads inexorably to the conclusion that it is an individual right.

Read George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation here.

The American Civil Rights Union wishes its valued supporters a Bountiful and Happy Thanksgiving!

The Post's description is a classic example of moral equivalence, in which aggressor and victim are co-belligerents.

By Robert Knight
Culture and Media Institute
November 20, 2007

The Washington Post this week stepped delicately around the thuggish tactics employed by Philadelphia City Solicitor Romulo Diaz, who has engineered a coup against the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts of America.

In the November 19 article, "Philadelphia Gives Boy Scouts Ultimatum," Post staff writer Dafna Linzer noted that Diaz had given the Boy Scouts until December 3 to agree to pay $200,000 or lose the headquarters the Scouts have had in a city park for nearly 100 years.

The local Scouts, who serve 64,000 mostly minority boys in Philadelphia and in two adjoining counties, had an agreement to lease the building for a dollar a year. Urged on by Diaz, the City Council on May 31 invoked a "sexual orientation" law and reneged on the agreement.

Here's how the Post summarized the city's crackdown: "The confrontation between the city and the nation's third largest Scouts chapter has been building for four years, with each side blaming the other for backing out of previous agreements and for escalating tensions."

So who's the bully? Egged on by local homosexual activists, city officials are clearly the aggressors, not the Scouts. But the Post's description is a classic example of moral equivalence, in which aggressor and victim are co-belligerents.

The Post also noted that the city "has invited the Boy Scouts to remain in the nearly 100-year-old building as paying tenants."

"Invited?" That's a little like saying a mugger "has invited" his victim to remain unharmed as long as he forks over his wallet.

Here are a few things the Post story left out:

. The architect of the harassment against the Scouts, City Solicitor Diaz, is openly homosexual, as has been reported in the Philadelphia press.
. The Scouts built the building with their own money, and then gave it to the city in 1928.
. The Scouts had a lease "in perpetuity" with the city, an agreement the City Council broke.
. The Scouts bar openly homosexual Scoutmasters and members for moral reasons and for the sake of protecting young boys from possible harm, not because they are motivated by bigotry or prejudice. The Post article read as if the Scouts have no rational reason for wanting to determine whether prospective leaders or members are attracted sexually to males.
. The national Boy Scouts of America organization gets no ink to defend itself. Cradle of Liberty spokesman Jeff Jubelirer told the Post that the local chapter was trying its best in 2003 to cave in, with a statement saying that "prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of Cradle of Liberty Council."

Quoth Jubelirer: "We were trying to be amendable to all sides, but National would not allow us to keep that language, so we rescinded it. We can't have a policy where we put in specific words that National won't allow or we'll loose [sic] our charter. We can't afford not to be part of the national Boy Scouts."

It might be nice to know what the mean, bigoted old National headquarters thinks of this.

. No one was quoted who has any problem with the city "fathers" threatening to kick out the city's premiere youth organization.
. Philadelphia suffers from the leading murder and violent crime rate among top 10 cities in the United States. Most of it is being committed by fatherless young men.

The chief bully, Diaz, got the last quote: "If I do not receive an executed lease, signed by the Boy Scouts, to remain as tenants paying a fair market rent, we will begin looking for alternative tenants that can take over the property June 1, 2008."

How about a Gay Pride Center? No problem there with a lack of money or connections. And it would make a fine kick-off to Gay Pride Month, which the city celebrates annually in June with taxpayer-sponsored activities. Diaz could be the first guest speaker.

As for the ongoing slaughter in the streets, Philadelphia had 406 homicides in 2006, courtesy of fatherless barbarians who could have benefited from character building offered by the Boy Scouts.

"It's a disturbing statistic, we're very concerned about it, and we're going to do everything we can to reduce it," Police Commissioner Sylvester M. Johnson was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Over at City Hall, the City Council and the mayor are doing their part by blessing the city solicitor's ambitious social agenda. If the Scouts are forced out of town, it might not make Philadelphia a more livable place.

But let's look at the bright side. Taxable champagne sales will soar in some circles.

Maybe the city can put the money toward building a more efficient morgue.

Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/21/160103.php

Written by John Bambenek
Published November 21, 2007
Part of The Culture Wars

See also:
The Politics of Reality
Out In The Middle of Nowhere: The U.S. Border Patrol
First Woman, First Black, First Latino, or First Honest President?

Much like the Christmas shopping season, the ACLU's War on Christmas begins earlier and earlier every year. This year in Fort Collins, Colorado, the city council decided to revise their policies to honor appropriately the holiday that almost ninety percent of America celebrates as Christmas. A task force was drawn up, given their task, and put to work.

Like most task forces set up by governing bodies, the result is only as good as the people you put in charge. In this case, the head of the ACLU in Fort Collins was tasked with running the committee. The result was obviously predictable.

The task force recommended no Christmas lights, no recognition of Christmas, no use of the colors red and green, no Christmas trees, and to otherwise squelch anything even remotely connected to Christmas. Instead, they suggested decorations of icicles and prominent use of the color brown. In short, they suggested returning Christmas to its millennia old pagan roots.

At the city council meeting to vote on the proposal, hundreds of people showed up to voice their concern (instead of the 10-15 people who usually show up) and the proposal was shot down 6-1. The lone dissenting voice protested saying that residents would feel left out and alienated by the city recognizing that the overwhelming majority of citizens are celebrating Christmas.

It's an interesting argument. Tolerance requires that people practice their faith in such a way that never leaves anyone out. Even if you took this argument at face value; that would effectively mean that no one could practice religion because the moment you identify with a group, you tacitly isolate those who are not part of that group. The idea that the First Amendment, designed to protect citizens from government, requires a destruction of all uniqueness is odd indeed.

However, it isn't a matter of simply suppressing religion from public life. These calls simply do not exist (even in the Fort Collins matter) when the religion in question is Judaism or Islam. The ACLU's goal, based on their track record, appears to be to prevent the public proclamation of Christianity in the name of the First Amendment. The bastardization of the Establishment Clause far beyond its intended meaning to require the government to enforce secular humanism on the people is to get the entire Bill of Rights backwards.

Horace Cooper, senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union stated that it is inappropriate for "the government to pick and choose with faiths it will support and denigrate." The Establishment Clause, followed immediately by the Free Expression Clause, does not allow the suppression of a religion in the name of "diversity." In this case, the champions of diversity aren't really interested in what they preach; they simply want to redirect hate and intolerance to their desired targets. It's using the government to play the game of power politics. However, in this case -- because of the efforts of the ACRU -- the effort failed.

The ACLU generally uses intimidation to achieve victories that even the courts won't provide. By intimidating local officials with the threat of the ACLU, many simply cave and give the ACLU what they want. It is telling indeed that the Fort Collins ACLU head was in charge of this task force. In this case, it was the vigorous opposition of the local people combined with the ACRU that prevented the suppression of free speech and expression of an overwhelming majority of the community.

This intimidation has led to groups being formed to counteract the far-reaching agenda of the ACLU to build and impose a societal view outside the framework of the democratic process. Examples include the ACRU, which also has a courtwatch project to monitor Bush's judicial nominations, and other groups like the Thomas More Law Center and the American Center for Law and Justice.

One fact that should give everyone pause is that these debates about society now take place in courtrooms, argued by lawyers and decided by unelected judges. While there is a degree of balance with these groups, the wholesale removal of large social questions from the people has done much to not only undermine the notion of American self-government, but also call into question whether this country is really a republic anymore.

While this latest battle in the War on Christmas has subsided, the removal of the battle from the people to lawyers and courtrooms, and the fact that free expression of Christianity is under fire by the largest "civil rights" group in the country, should make us all think. This year, we can at least be thankful those who celebrate Christmas can still do so publicly as those who celebrate Ramadan or Hanukkah can do. Time will tell if the ACLU will succeed in telling us which religions and holidays we're allowed to recognize.

Email this Stumble It! Subscribe to this feed

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for BC Magazine and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. By trade, he is an information security professional, part of the Internet Storm Center and a courseware author and certification grader for the GIAC family of security certifications. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.

The above article, by Jack Kemp, found here.

Peter Ferrara's, Slimming Entitlement Costs, dated October 8, 2007, found here.