The ACRU Blog

On Thursday, July 10 at 10:20am ET, John Armor will be on "The Morning Magazine" on KRMS 1150AM out of Osage Beach, MO. He will be talking about the ACLU and its upcoming campaigns. You can listen live here.

On May 6th at 8:00pm ET, Peter Ferrara will be on The Mike Porcaro Show on KENI out of Anchorage, Alaska. He will be talking about how the ACLU has been attacking Christianity by censoring legislative prayers.

UPDATE: On May 8th at 10:20am ET, Peter will be on The Right Balance with Greg Allen. He will again be talking about the ACLU attacking Christianity. You can find your local station here

On Wednesday, April 30 at 2:15pm ET, Ken Blackwell will be on Janet Parshall's America talking about a recent ACLU Outrage: Judges censoring prayer. You can find your local station by going here.

John Armor will be interviewed a couple times in the coming days to talk about the latest ACLU Outrage, the assault on "In God We Trust."

On Saturday, April 26, John will be on The Trevor Carey Show on 710AM KNUS out of Denver, CO. He will be on at 8:30pm ET. You can listen online here.

Then on Weds, April 30, John will be talking to Cindy Barnett on the American Family Radio Network. He will be on at 11:00am ET. Click here to find your local station and click here to listen online.

Today, April 22, at 3:00pm ET, John Armor will be on the "Chuck Baker Show" on KKKK-AM in Longmont, CO. He will be discussing the latest ACLU Outrage, In God We Trust. Tune in if you are in the Longmont area.

John Armor is going to talk to Pat Snyder on 550 WSAU-AM out of Wausau, WI on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 9:20am. He will be talking about on of the recent ACLU Outrages, Teacher Testing in MA Biased Towards Incompetence.

On Friday, April 4th, both John Armor and Peter Ferrara will be on the radio.

At 9:06am ET, John Armor will be on with Craig Hammond on WHIS 1440AM and WTZE 1470AM out of Bluefield, WV. He will talking about the Droopy Drawers Bill.

Then, at 1:30pm, Peter will be on the "Rick Jensen Show" on 1150AM WDEL out of Wilmington, DE. He will be talking about the ACLU's defense of sex offenders and whatever else might come up. Listen live online by clicking here.

John Armor was quoted on March 20th on the latest ACLU Outrage: ACLU Wants the US to Lose the War on Terrorism on American Family Association's OneNewsNow.com.

Says John:

"They do want to aid these guys," he exclaims. "If you look at it politically, not legally, the ACLU wants the United States to lose in the war on terror because it feels that governments which are socialistic are preferred to what we have -- and those are the kind of people we're up against," he adds. "Of course, the fact that they're murderous dictators seems to escape the interest of the ACLU, so they're rooting for the other side to win and trying to help them."

Check out this ACLU Outrage or any of the others by going here.

John Armor will be talking to Mike McConnell on 700 WLW-AM on Monday, March 17th at 10:00am. He will be talking about the latest ACLU Outrage: The ACLU Gets "Behind" Civil Liberties. You can listen online here or if you are an XM subscriber, you can also tune into Channel 173.

This week is a busy radio week for the ACRU.

On Tuesday, March 11, John Armor will be talking to Greg Allen on "The Right Balance" at 10:20am EDT. He will be talking about the latest ACLU Outrage: ACLU defends: Exhibitionist by Night, Teacher by Day. You can listen online here.

On Wednesday, March 12, John will be talking to Pat Snyder on 550 WSAU-AM in Wausau, WI at 10:05am EDT. He will again be talking about the latest ACLU Outrage: ACLU defends: Exhibitionist by Night, Teacher by Day. You can listen online here.

On Thursday March 13, Hans Zeiger will be talking to Dr. Judy Heist on the "Let Freedom Ring Show" out of Atlanta, GA. He will be talking Lambda Legal and the Boy Scouts at 1:15pm.

On Friday, March 14, will be on the "Stan Milam Show" on 1230 WCLO-AM in Janesville, WI at 11:30am EDT. He will again be talking about the attack on the Boy Scouts. You can listen online here (a free signup is required).

Also on Friday, Hans will be on the "Tri State Viewpoint" with Jean Dean on WRVC-AM in Huntington, WV. He will be on at 12:35pm EDT and will be talking about the attack on the Boy Scouts.

More interviews will be posted as they come in.

Both Hans Zieger and John Armor will be on the radio March 4.

At 9:40am EST, Hans will be on with Jay Kersting on KLIK 1240AM. He will be talking about the attack on the Boy Scouts. You can listen live here.

Then at 11:33am EST, John will be talking to Greg Allen, on his show, "The Right Balance." He will be talking about the latest ACLU Outrage, ACLU argues over church tax exemption. You can find your local affiliate here or listen online here.

Over the next week, the ACRU is going to be on the radio several times talking about the issues.

Hans Zeiger will be talking about the attack by the left on the Boy Scouts of America. First he will be on today, the 28th at 7:00pm EST with Mike Bastinelli and "The Afternoon Update" on KIT-AM in Yakima, WA.

Then on February 29th, Hans will be on "The Guetzloe Report" on WAMT 1190AM in Orlando, FL. He will be on at 11:00am EST and you can listen live here.

Hans will also be on KKKK in Longmont, CO and the "Chuck Baker Show." He will be on at 3:00pm EST.

Finally, on Sat, March 1 at 9:00pm, Hans will be on "The Trevor Carey Show" on KNUS 710 in Denver, CO. You can listen to Hans live here.

Also on the 29th, John Armor will be on talking about the latest ACLU Outrage, the ACLU having blood on their hands.

First, at 8:35am EST, John will be on with "Sean and Casey" on WCBM 680AM in Baltimore, MD. You can listen live here.

Then at 4:00pm EST, John will be on "The Chuck Baker Show" on KKKK in Longmont, CO.

On Saturday, March 1, John will on with Niel Young and "The Advocates" on WEZS-AM in Lanconia, NH. You can here him at 9:10am EST.

Horace Cooper will also be on next week. He will be on the "Zeb on the Ranch" show with Zeb Bartley on Wednesday, March 5 at 8:06am EST. He will be talking about the ACLU and FISA.

More updates as they come in.

On Friday Feb 29th, John Armor and Ken Blackwell will be on the air.

At 12:30pm EST, John Armor will be talking to Bill Darwin on WRTC AM 1340 in Elkhart, IN. He will be talking about Immigration, Drivers Licenses or any other subject that comes up. You can listen live here.

At 5:00pm EST, Ken Blackwell will be on the Michael Medved Show. He will be talking about Second Amendment issues. You can click here to find out what station the show is on in your area.

At 7:00pm EST, Ken Blackwell will be talking to Terry Gilberg, who will be filling in on The J.D. Hayworth Show. Ken will be talking about Congress' failure to pass the Protect American Act. You can here him in Phoenix, AZ on KFYI 550AM or online by clicking here.

John Armor will be on the radio in Jacksonville, FL on Friday, Feb. 15 from 11:05-11:20am. He will be talking Ed Banker on Intelligent Radio. He will be talking about the latest ACLU Outrage: the Sex display on at William and Mary.

John Armor will be talking about the latest ACLU, the Sex workers show on the William and Mary campus. He will be on with Chuck Baker on KKKK-AM in Longmont, CO on February 6, at 4:00pm EST.

UPDATE: John's interview has been cancelled. Hopefully John will be on again soon.

John Armor will be on the air a couple times over the next few days to talk about the latest ACLU outrage.

On January 31st, listen to John on The Morning Show with Craig Anderson on KWEL-AM, Midland Texas. He will be on at 8:35am EST. Listen live here.

Also, on February 2nd, John with be on The Advocate with Niel Young on WEZS-AM 1350, Lanconia, NH. He will be on either at 9:10am EST or 9:30am EST for about 30 minutes.

John Armor will be discussing the latest ACLU Outrage, The ACLU siding with illegal immigrants, with Elaine Lawson and The PartyLine on WILO/WSHW in Frankfort, KY. He will be on from 8:30-9:30am EST January 18.

Al Knight wrote this column, which appeared in the Denver Post a couple days ago. He talks about how the Philadelphia City Council is forcing the Cradle of Liberty Council out of its headquarters. In the article he also mentions the ACRU and the fine work we are doing.

Knight sums up the entire problem with the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia in one sentence:

The youth of Philadelphia need the Boy Scouts as much as ever, but the City Council is too cowardly to stand up to the unreasonable and vindictive demands of special interest groups.

Please, let the Philadelphia City Council know what you think about this. Contact information for the members of the Council can be found here.

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.

Read article in The New York Sun, here.

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.

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

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 mostly from an article published in the Raleigh News & Observer on 27 October. This story is related to the positions of the ACLU because, contrary to its stated mission, the ACLU favors maximum freedom of the press for those media who favor the political views as them.

This editorial in the Raleigh News & Observer is entitled, "Above and Beyond." It tells in plain but powerful words the story of Lt. Michael Murphy, a Navy Seal, who was part of a four-man team sent on a dangerous mission, deep into enemy controlled territory in Afghanistan, on 27 June, 2005.

His team was discovered, and ambushed. Lt. Murphy was the leader of this team, when they came under attack by about 50 of the enemy. The only chance of survival was to communicate with their base. Lt. Murphy went into an exposed position to make a satellite connection. Although shot in the chest, he completed that call. Three of his unit survived, but one was saved.

This week, President Bush awarded the Medal of Honor to Lt. Murphy, handing that medal to his family, at the White House. Lt. Murphy was from Patchogue, N.Y., in the backyard of the New York Times. Yet the Times did not see fit to feature this extraordinary award to him and his family, on its front page.

To give readers an idea of how rare and important this award is, there are only about 109 living holders of this Medal. And whenever any holder of this Medal appears in public wearing it, that person is entitled to be saluted by any other soldier including a five-star general, regardless of the rank of the Medal holder.

It wasn't just the print media who ignored this story of great courage, dedication, and sacrifice. The national broadcast networks also did not feature this story. The only network which featured the story in prime time was Fox, on cable. And, of course, the story of the slighting of Lt. Murphy's Medal of Honor was widely discussed on talk radio, across the nation.

In the meantime, journalists with this bent, and their political allies in the outside world, are promoting a new edition of the Fairness Doctrine. Is it for the purpose of increasing coverage in the mainstream media? No, it is to cut down the coverage in the radio media, the same people who took time to cover and honor the award to Lt. Murphy.

Does all this represent a failure of the First Amendment? Directly, no. But indirectly, yes.

Media operate in what Thomas Jefferson called "the marketplace of ideas." When the First Amendment was written and ratified, the media consisted of hundreds of small and independent newspapers, originally only four pages each. They lived or died often and easily, depending on their success or failure in the marketplace. And that, in turn, depended on their ability to attract advertisers and to satisfy the interests of their readership.

Though we now have many forms of media, the bulk of them electronic, the principles of success remain the same - advertising and attracting readers / listeners / viewers. In theory, those parts of the media who fail to serve their audience should wither and die. Those that do serve their audiences should grow and prosper. That's what Jefferson meant by "the marketplace of ideas."

To choose two examples not entirely at random, the New York Times and CBS, who were both derelict on this particular story, have been bleeding financially for a long time. Both are steadily losing audience share to other media who do better than they do in serving the audience. But neither has changed direction. And both continue down their failed paths.

This is an indirect failure of the First Amendment. When media become large institutions, with a bureaucracy committed to certain political directions, they can insulate themselves (for a time) from the consequences of their own bad journalistic decisions. Evidence shows that insulation from reality can last at least a generation. But it also shows that such ostrich-like behavior cannot last forever.

Source for original story on the Net:
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/story/747227.html

The facts for this comment, but not its legal conclusions, come from an article in the New York Post on October 24th.

This story in the Post speculates that Governor Spitzer's plan to force the issue of drivers' licenses for illegal aliens will cause political harm to Democrats. The paper reports senior Democrat officials as predicting that the Governor's action will cause "a mass exodus" from the Democrats in state and local races.

That may be true, but there are stronger and more basic reasons for opposing the Governor's plan, opposition which today includes a law suit filed by an upstate County Clerk, who claims that state law forbids him from issuing a driver's license to anyone who is not a legitimate resident of New York. Therefore, the Clerk argues, the Governor's executive order is itself illegal, and should be struck down by the court.

The Governor argued that this would "bring the immigrants in from the shadows," and "improve public safety by making these drivers legal." This proposal may well attract more illegal aliens to New York State - like the sanctuary cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and ones as far from the border as New Haven, and Milwaukee, have done for cities. But even if the number of illegals does not go up, here is the problem as shown in the American press:

Combining deaths on the highways and deaths in crimes, illegal aliens are killing more Americans per year than all the armed enemies that American soldiers face in all the hot spots in the world. Let me repeat that, more American men, women and children are being killed on the highways and in crimes by illegal aliens inside the US, than all military deaths during the same time.

Governor Spitzer's plan apparently violates New York law. It also violates the provisions of federal law on drivers' licenses to be used for federal ID purposes, such as boarding planes or getting passports. (The federal law doesn't kick in for a year, but Spitzer is obviously going in the wrong direction.)

But most importantly, Spitzer's plan will lead directly to deaths of legitimate residents of New York. And it will be the public backlash from those deaths which will lead to the "exodus from Democrats" that this article predicts.

Polls reported as this is being written, state that 70% of New Yorkers oppose the Governor's plan. There is even speculation that this issue will affect the presidential race concerning Senator Clinton and Mayor Giuliani. It is particularly troublesome for Senator Clinton, since she must choose between breaking with the Democratic Governor of her home state, or handing her opponents, including Mayor Giuliani a clear and significant issue.

Go here for this story on the Net:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10222007/news/regionalnews/spitzer_steering_us_toward_a_c.htm

The facts for this comment, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article published in the Houston Chronicle on 9 October.

The subtitle of this article correctly states the trend that is steadily growing. "Federal inaction means more than ever, nation's law agencies take issue into own hands." The public will is that illegal aliens are committing crimes, killing people in auto accidents, overwhelming local schools and hospitals with unpaid services. The public will is that effective steps to stop, and reverse, illegal immigration are required. The result is that inadequate action at the federal level is forcing some states and localities to act on their own.

The article recites that 23 county and state agencies have received training this year on working with immigration authorities to arrest and process illegal immigrants for deportation. This is "more than five times the number" who sought such training under an existing federal law, last year. Such training is done only when the local government takes the initiative and requests it.

The total impact of this program is significant and growing. The article notes that since the program began in 2002, "597 local officers who received training have made 26,000 arrests."

The article refers to the "void of immigration reform in Washington, D.C." that has caused eight states to pass a dozen laws on the subject, and a total of "182 immigration-related bills" in 43 states. The latter apparently include a Texas law requiring notification of immigration authorities whenever a non-citizen is convicted of family violence charges.

The article cites two critics of such policies. A professor at the University of Houston says, ''The worst consequence is not what the police do, but how the people begin to feel. Latinos who are U.S. citizens begin to feel the police are after them." This is the kind of thinking the ACLU engages in.

First, it is not the business of police at any level to protect the feelings of people, if that means abandoning the rule of law. Second, Hispanic Americans are apparently smarter than this Professor. Law-abiding Americans of Hispanic background do NOT think the same as illegal immigrants.

An attorney at the El Paso Catholic Diocese said, "In the end [the program] is being used to go after individual undocumented immigrants and their families, many who are U.S. citizens." This is typical of the ACLU position, and is both true and deceptive. In many of these families, the adults are illegal immigrants and in violation of the law. Some of the children, however, are born on American soil, and under current law they are citizens and therefore "anchor babies" who provide benefits to the parents in attempting to stay in the US.

Another attorney for illegal immigrant interests refers to "harassment" and "racial profiling." In the view of the ACLU, efforts to enforce US law are classified as harassment. It is not a surprise that about 90% of the illegals arrested are Mexicans who speak Spanish, since about 100% of those who sneak across American borders, are Mexicans who speak Spanish.

Source for original story on the Net:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5198340.html

The facts for this comment, but not its legal conclusions, come from an item reported by Fox News on October 7th.

The death penalty for Jose Ernesto Medellin has been confirmed at all levels in the Texas courts, and in federal courts, for leading a gang that engaged in a particularly reprehensible torture, rape and murder of two young girls in Texas, years ago. But Medellin is an illegal alien, so he has mounted one more challenge to his death sentence.

Whether the ACLU is engaged in this particular case, there is no doubt that it approves of any effort to prevent this man from being executed. That is the universal approach of the ACLU's Death Penalty Project.

There are 51 Mexicans in jail for major charges, including Medellin, who claim that their convictions in the US are illegal because US authorities did not inform the local Mexican consulate, to provide legal services to the charged individuals. They made this claim in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. That Court ruled that the convictions of these individuals violated their rights under the 1963 Vienna Convention.

There are serious problems with this approach. First, the US has deliberately not approved the treaty that would give the International Court of Justice any jurisdiction over American courts and American law. Second, any defendant can waive any rights that he has, by not raising them, and Medellin did not raise any objection based on the Mexican consulate not being notified until years after his original conviction.

Third, like all defendants without funds, Medellin was provided counsel without charge. That is a right that most defendants in most cases in most nations, never receive. And lastly, there is zero doubt that Medellin led the gang which committed these brutal, double murders. He confessed, and his confession is a matter of record. Other members of his gang in this murder have already been executed, or have avoided execution by pointing out that they were "too young to be executed."

For whatever reason, President Bush is urging Texas courts to follow the finding of the Court at the Hague, even though that Court has no jurisdiction here. This idea, that the US Supreme Court should make decisions based on foreign law, has long been supported by the ACLU, and accepted, sadly, by some members of the Supreme Court.

The state of Texas and its courts have consistently taken the position that Medellin was given all rights available to citizens of Texas at every stage of his trial and appeals. They also take the position that no foreign court has any authority to direct what US courts should do, in trying anyone who has been charged with harming or killing an American citizen in America. And lastly, they take the position that the President of the US has no legal authority to instruct any court in the nation to take any particular action in any particular case.

It is the view of The American Civil Rights Union that the US Supreme Court should obey and follow the US Constitution, and not any foreign source of authority - court, legislature, whatever - in deciding what the Constitution means. If the Supreme Court does that, this final appeal by Medellin should be rejected, and he should be executed as promptly as possible.

The one part of the story which is missed in the article is the lack of jurisdiction of the International Court over any part of the US. This is critical because no President has ever submitted the treaty for that subject to the Senate for confirmation, nor has it ever been considered by the Senate.

Go here for this story on the Net:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299917,00.html

The facts for this story, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article published by CBS 13 in Reno, Nevada, on 4 October.

The facts of this matter seem clear. A bar in Reno was flying the Mexican flag above the US flag on the same flagpole. A US veteran saw this, knew it violated the US flag code by displaying a foreign flag above the US flag.

Jim Broussard explained his action by saying, "I took this flag down in honor of my country with a knife from the U.S. Army. I'm not going to see this happen to my country. I want to see someone fight me for this flag."

The Reno police recognized that the flag display in this case was wrong. But they took the position that the US flag code is "advisory" because it has no "criminal enforcement requirements."

The ACLU entered the fray, against the position of the veteran. In a statement the Nevada ACLU said, "If the federal flag rules were mandatory, they would clearly violate the First Amendment, which protects every American's right to speak and express themselves, including their choice of flag to display."

The ACLU had the chutzpah to add this, "In 1989, the Supreme Court held that we even have the right to burn our own flag." In that case, the ACLU got the US Supreme Court to rule by a narrow margin that it is freedom of speech for an American to burn an American flag.

Let's assume that is true. What is the message in burning a US flag? Does it mean "I hate America"? Or, "I hate Americans"? Well, what would be the message if this veteran had not merely rescued the US flag from misuse, but had removed and burned the Mexican flag? His real message was "I respect America." But had he destroyed the Mexican flag, would it have meant, "I hate Mexico"? Or, "I hate Mexicans"?

The ACLU defends the destruction of the American flag, for the message it conveys. On the other hand, in this case, they are protecting the Mexican flag from disrespect. This one incident demonstrates that the ACLU has no use for real, even-handed freedom of speech. To the contrary, they believe only in the freedom of anti-American speech. Any pro-American speech deserves to be crushed like a bug in a corner.

This inherent contradiction of the ACLU's flag positions was right there in front of the reporter. Somehow, he missed the story. How sad. By the way, the Reno TV station is allowing viewers to vote on whether this veteran was a "vandal" or a "patriot." By 73% to 27%, the local residents call him a patriot.

For this story on the Net, go here:
http://cbs13.com/national/local_story_277081459.html

The facts for this comment, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article published in the Minnesota Monitor on 25 September.

The Minnesota prosecutors have filed their response to the plea by Senator Larry Craig's attorneys filed in an effort to have his entered and accepted guilty plea withdrawn in the airport sex investigation arrest. Contrary to the Senator's allegation that he was "rushed" or "pressured" to plead guilty, the reply notes that he pleaded guilty by mail. This allowed maximum time and opportunity for the Senator to consider whether to plead guilty to the lesser charge.

Also, the prosecutor who handled the case notes that he talked directly to the Senator several times at the Senator's request. At no time, claims the prosecutor, did the Senator express any upset or concern about his guilty plea until after it had been accepted, put in place, but then was discovered by the national press.

Larry Craig's effort to have his guilt struck from the record may fail on the record, and never get to a hearing. But, if there is a hearing, the Senator must be a witness to testify about his "misunderstanding," or "pressure," in making his plea. Among the questions this writer thinks the judge should act in such a hearing, are these: How long have you been a Member of the House, and then a Senator? While you were a Member of Congress, did you not participate actively and regularly in writing federal laws? Did you understand the laws you were writing over those decades? Did you experience times of pressure and urgency in that process?

And given the answers that the record shows Senator Craig must give to those questions, the last one is: Given your experience with law, and with pressure, how can you say without laughing that you could not handle the situation presented to you prior to your plea of guilt to a lesser charge?

The last interesting factor is that the ACLU sought to file an amicus curia brief in the trial court, supporting the position of Senator Craig. Trial courts generally are hostile to amicus briefs, unlike appellate courts which welcome them.

The fact that the ACLU has sought to file such a brief in this case indicates how strongly and consistently the ACLU supports the homosexual agenda at all opportunities - in cases concerning school programs, in a case concerning the North American Man-Boy Love Association in Massachusetts, and now in Minnesota, supporting the "right" of adult males to seek sexual relations with other males in a bathroom built at an airport for the ostensible purpose of relief for the traveling public, both men and boys.

The website listed below has a click link to all the pleadings in this case, filed both by the Senator and the State, if anyone cares to read the original documents.

Source for original story on the Net:
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2516

The facts for this comment, but not the legal conclusions, came from an article published on KGO7 TV on September 24.

The US Marines proposed to shoot a recruiting commercial on the streets of San Francisco, as they already had on the streets of New York. They wanted their famed Silent Drill Team to perform for just a few minutes on ordinary city streets. New York said yes. But San Francisco said no.

The ACLU was not directly involved in the rejection in San Francisco, but it's thinking on the subject of military recruiters definitely was. If the ACLU was genuinely concerned about preserving freedom of speech, it would take the side of the Marines in San Francisco. But for some odd reason, the ACLU is silent on this.

The rejection of the Marines in that City came from the Executive Director of the San Francisco Film Commission, Stefanie Coyote. She said the Marines could shoot film on California Street, "as long as there are no Marines in the picture." Of course, the function of a film commission there, as anywhere else in the country, is to promote film makers' choice of that locale for shooting.

Captain Greg Corrales is in charge of the police unit that supports film crews working in the City. He is also a Marine veteran, and his son is serving his third tour of duty in Iraq.

Captain Greg Corrales commands the police traffic bureau that works with crews shooting commercials, TV shows and movies in the city. He's also a Marine veteran and his son is serving his third tour of duty in Iraq. He said, "Ms. Coyote's politics blinded her to her duty as the director of the Film Commission and as a responsible citizen."

Originally, Ms. Coyote refused to offer the TV station any reason for censoring the Marines. At the meeting of the Film Commission, she claimed that it was "because they wanted to shoot in rush hour." But Captain Corrales pointed out that the Commission often approves shoots during rush hour, especially if they are short and have limited impact. The Marines wanted to close one lane, for a few minutes.

Several Marines who commented on the City's actions pointed out that it routinely allows events which can totally block traffic in the City, such as anti-war protests, and Critical Mass (a large bicycle event). They noted that this refusal is similar to the City's refusal of docking space for the USS Iowa, banning Junior ROTC from the high schools, and attempting to bar the Blue Angels from the annual air show.

Source for original story on the Net: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=5673526

The facts for this comment come from a Press Release of the Institute on Religion and Democracy on 20 September. (Ordinarily, a press release from an interested party would not be used as the basis of a comment. But the dispute between the Methodists and a lesbian couple has been reported elsewhere, and New Jersey has definitely taken the side of the lesbians.)

The Ocean Grove Camp Ground was created and developed by the Methodist Church in the 19th century. At all times it has been owned and operated by the Methodists. For more than a century the Methodists have invited citizens of New Jersey, regardless of their religious beliefs, to share in the use of the property. Many people have asked for, and been granted, permission to conduct marriages on the property. However, it is the stated policy of the Methodist Church not to conduct same-sex ceremonies on its property.

A lesbian couple asked for permission to marry on the property, and were refused. They then complained to the state. The NJ Commissioner for Environmental Protection then ruled that Ocean Grove was no longer tax exempt as a "public place" because it would not permit the lesbian "marriage" there.

It is unclear whether the ACLU was involved in the case. It is entirely consistent with the ACLU's position in other cases that it would support the "right" of the lesbians to get "married" on Methodist property. In the reporting of the story, it was not made clear why the Commissioner for Environmental Protection has any power whatsoever over the tax exempt status of any property, whether it belongs to the Methodists or anyone else.

It is black letter law that no state has the right to dictate to any religion what beliefs it must adhere to, on its own property. It is also black letter law that no state can discriminate between religions, by granting tax exemption to one religion but not to another, based on the state's opinion about the beliefs of each religion.

Of course, New Jersey does have the power, if it so chose, to end the tax exemptions of ALL religions in that state. No politician in his right mind would ever suggest such a thing, but it is theoretically possible.

The source does not suggest what steps the Methodist Church is taking next to confront the religious discrimination just presented by the State. Presumably, there are appeals available and they have been pursued. But, there is an inexpensive, simple solution which might get a good result much faster.

The Methodists could post a sign at the entrance to Oak Grove Camp Ground which says: "For a century, the Methodists have warmly welcomed people of all beliefs to share the hospitality of this Camp. Now, the State of New Jersey says that is not acceptable. So, if you are not a believing Methodist, you can no longer come here."

"If you object to that, as we do too, please call [BUREAUCRAT] at [PHONE NUMBER] and tell him to reverse his decision against the Church and the Camp Ground. If you get no satisfaction from him, please call [STATE REPRESENTATIVE] and [STATE SENATOR]."

The belief of this writer is that $100 spent to post this sign would get a just result much faster than 100 times that much, spent on lawyers.

Source for original story on the Net:
http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=390529&ct=4455835&tr=y&auid=3022851

The ACLU has settled one case against Homeland Security concerning a holding facility in Texas for whole families of illegal aliens. At the same time, one of the largest, most left-wing unions in the US files a new suit against Homeland. Both cases are of a piece in trying to prevent the US from enforcing its immigration laws.

The lawsuit Texas concerned the 512-bed T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility in Taylor, Texas. The ACLU had claimed that Homeland Security was "mistreating" families, and especially children, who were being held pending deportation at that place.

A fact-finding trial was about to begin concerning that facility. According to the article, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had begun "improving education, recreation, medical care and privacy standards at its first large holding facility for illegal immigrant families." From the Washington Post article, it is not possible to judge whether these were improvements that ICE intended to make anyway, or were caused by the filing of this law suit.

When filed, the ACLU lawsuit claimed a chamber of horrors as being inflicted on long-suffering immigrants, without ever using the word "illegal." Apparently, the ACLU abandoned any claim that the families who were taken into this facility were anything other than probable illegal aliens who could be deported when they had been given a hearing on that matter.

Also, it is worth noting that the ACLU switches sides on factual matters, choosing the position with the highest "ain't it terrible" index. In Massachusetts, the ACLU challenged ICE "raids" that "separated parents from their children." In Texas, the ACLU challenged ICE precisely because it was not separating children from their parents.

Interestingly, the Post includes in this article a separate subject of a different suit in Oregon. It states that "the Service Employees International Union plans today to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Portland, Ore., against another federal immigration agency, charging that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services exceeded its authority by raising fees significantly July 30, including increasing charges for citizenship applicants from $400 to $675.

"The increase 'presents a huge barrier to thousands of immigrants' anxious to vote in the 2008 presidential primary and general elections, said Eliseo Medina, the union's executive vice president. 'This lawsuit is about accountability.' "

Were the reporters and editors responsible for this article thinking as they were typing in preparing these two paragraphs? Everyone who has not been living under a rock knows that illegal immigrants are paying upwards of $5,000 a piece to be smuggled i