<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>ACRU</title>
      <link>http://www.theacru.org/</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:40:26 -0500</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>ACLU Opposes Three-Strikes Law</title>
         <description><![CDATA[      Connecticut is seeking to tighten its three-strikes law, under which violent felons on their third conviction should be sentenced to life without parole. The Connecticut law has a loophole. If the criminal pleads guilty to his latest felony, the judge may never see or consider his prior convictions. The brother of a woman murdered 23 years ago, is seeking to get that changed concerning the man who murdered his sister. The ACLU, as usual, is opposed to an effective three-strikes law.

      The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the Bristol Press, in Connecticut, on 9 August, 2008. The article concerns a man who is honoring the memory of his murdered sister by leading a campaign for an three-strikes law in that state.

      Greg Camillieri's sister, Perry Krull, was murdered 28 years ago, when she was 31. From the description in the article, she was a fine and loving woman. She was murdered by Martin Hammond, who was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Hammond was let out on probation in August, 2003, because of "good behavior" days earned..

      He then violated his probation by threatening to kill his probation officer. But instead of being sentenced to serve the remainder of his original sentence, Hammond was sentenced to only four years in prison.

      The reason that the three-strikes law would apply, if used, is that Hammond had been sentenced to just two years in prison for the 1982 rape of a 15-year-old girl. Had the three-strikes law that Connecticut already has, been applied, Hammond would now have gone to jail for life without parole.

      Three-strikes laws vary from state to state, and not all states have them. In general, they require that any criminal who is convicted of his third major felony, MUST be sentenced to life in prison without parole.
 
      The reason for the light sentence is that most criminal cases are plea-bargained, in Connecticut as in other states. In Connecticut, however, if the defendant pleads guilty, apparently the court is either not informed of the three-strikes law, or is free to disregard it. Both problems would be dealt with by the proposed tightening of the law.

      The ACLU opposes three strikes laws wherever they are proposed in any state. The ACLU of Connecticut has spoken out against an enhanced three-strikes law, saying it is "likely to increase the racial disparity" in the state's prisons and could bring costs that run into the millions of dollars.

      There are actually four racial disparities in American prisons. Americans of Asian descent are seriously underrepresented in prisons, compared to their proportions in the populations of each state. Americans of Caucasian descent are about equal to their proportion. Those of Hispanic descent are higher than their proportion. Those of African descent are even higher in their proportion.

      There is also the point that illegal aliens are higher than any of those groups, but that is not today's subject.

      As for the fact that it costs more money to incarcerate more prisoners, or the same number of prisoners for longer sentences, that is quite true. But hardened criminals, like those that three-strikes laws are written for, are repetitious. As long as they are on the street they will be committing multiple crimes per year. In its objection, the ACLU ignores both the economic and personal costs of crimes committed by career criminals if left on the streets.

      An online petition in support of an enhanced three-strikes law in Connecticut has garnered 40.000 signatures. Its sponsor, Assistant Minority Leader Sen. Sam Caligiuri, said, "The one thing that will defeat this proposal over time is if we stop pushing for it. Just putting one or two away could save some families untold misery or horror."

     The article ends with this comment from Greg Camillieri about his sister, "I always thought we were going to grow old together, and it didn't happen. It's like a part of me went with her. I don't want her to be forgotten after 23 years."
 
Source for original story on the Net:

<a href="http://www.bristolpress.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19902033&BRD=1643&PAG=461&dept_id=665528&rfi=6">http://www.bristolpress.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19902033&BRD=1643&PAG=461&dept_id=665528&rfi=6</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_opposes_threestrikes_law/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_opposes_threestrikes_law/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:40:26 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>ACLU Opposes Insurance Benefit because Companies &quot;Make Money&quot;</title>
         <description><![CDATA[      Five American states now have programs that offer "pay-as-you-drive" insurance policies.  These offer rate discounts up to 60% for drivers who agree to have "black boxes" installed to record miles driven and driving habits.  An ACLU state executive director is opposing this innovation because it puts data in the hands of private companies that are in business "to make money," revealing the ACLU bias against the heart of the American free market economy.

       The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the Morris County, New Jersey, Daily Record on 29 July, 2008.  The article concerns a technology-driven change in auto insurance based on driving habits.

       Insurance companies are offering lower rates for customers who agree to have devices installed in their cars to keep track of their actual driving - distance driven, speed, and hitting the brakes.  The first company to suggest the arrangement is offering a 10% discount to drivers who sign up,   Then, when the policies renew, rates would go down as much as 60% or up as much as 9%, depending on the driving results recorded on the devices.

       New Jersey has the highest statewide auto insurance rates in the nation, so the offer may be well received when it starts there on 8 August.  The program is already being offered in Alabama, Oregon, Michigan and Minnesota by Progressive Insurance, and elsewhere by other companies.  A similar program is offered nationwide in Great Britain.

       The policies are usually called "Pay-as-you-drive," since the customers' rates are based on their actual driving habits.  You may wonder what the ACLU has to do with this practical application of technology to auto insurance rates.  The connection is through Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota.

       He opposed the institution of the new technology in Minnesota, and was also quoted by the New Jersey newspaper in opposition to the technology.  He referred to this as "a creeping abduction of the people's data."  This was despite the fact that the insurance companies put it in writing that the data belongs to the policy holders, not the company, and is used only to set rates and no other purpose.

       Mr. Samuelson, for the ACLU, makes a very telling statement in response to the insurance companies' safeguards concerning the data.  He says that the danger is "that the insurance companies are in the business to make money."  Think about that.  The whole basis of the American economy is businesses that seek to provide goods and services that people want, at prices people are willing to pay.  But none of those businesses will survive to do that unless they made a profit more often than not.

       This remark by Charles Samuelson for the Minnesota ACLU reveals a political attitude that lies just below the surface of many ACLU's legal positions which have economic aspects.

       The ACLU is not fundamentally concerned with the law.  It is not fundamentally concerned with constitutional rights.  It is concerned with bringing more and more of the private economy under the thumb of the government, regardless that the results of that may be disastrous to the American economy.  This is one of those instances where a spokesman for the ACLU revealed much more than he intended.  (The second part of Mr. Samuelson's comments was quoted in Minnesota papers, but not in the New Jersey one.)

       Source for original story on the Net:

<a href="http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080729/BUSINESS/807290335/1003">http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080729/BUSINESS/807290335/1003</a>
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_opposes_insurance_benefit_because_companies_make_money/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_opposes_insurance_benefit_because_companies_make_money/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:28:57 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Update on ACLU, Illegal Aliens in Hazleton</title>
         <description><![CDATA[      When a federal judge two years ago struck down the efforts of residents and officials of Hazleton to protect themselves from crimes by illegal aliens, it was the first such case.  Now there are several cases, some in which federal judges have rejected attacks and left such ordinances or laws standing.  There are also now crime statistics in adjacent Virginia counties, suggesting that controlling illegal aliens protects the lives and property of legal residents.

       The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the Citizens Voice in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on 27 July, 2008.  It is an update on the case challenging Hazleton, Pennsylvania's laws concerning illegal immigrants in that town.

       Hazleton passed three related ordinances concerning employment by illegal aliens by local businesses, and housing for illegal aliens provided by local landlords.  The purpose of all the ordinances were to make it difficult for people who are identified as illegal aliens by the federal government, to live and work in Hazleton.  The final impetus for the law was the murder of a local resident by an illegal alien.  The ordinances were passed by the City Council and confirmed by the overwhelming reelection of Mayor Barletta who supported the ordinances,

       The ACLU both brought the federal case against the Hazleton ordinances, and applauded the ultimate dismissal against the apparent murderer, when the key witness who had turned over the weapon used and recounted the murderer's confession, was deported from the US to his native country.

       Hazleton has appealed the decision against it.  The appeal should be set for argument before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in October or November.  Hazleton received $427,000 in contributions to support its defense, mostly through its Small Town Defenders' website.

       In the meantime, federal courts in Valley Park, Missouri, and in Arizona have upheld laws similar to those in Hazleton.  There have been losses as well.  A federal court in Texas ruled to be unconstitutional, several ordinances in Farmer's Branch, Texas, similar to those in Hazleton.  The odds of success for the City on appeal are better than they were at trial when the issue was unprecedented.

       Regular readers of these articles are familiar with the grounds for the Supreme Court review.  Whenever there is a "conflict between the Circuits," the Supreme Court is almost compelled to review the issue, since the Constitution cannot have different meanings in different parts of the country.

       Since this issue is being raised in local jurisdictions and in states across the country, it is likely that such a conflict among Circuits will develop.  Since the subject is growing, not shrinking, Supreme Court review seems inevitable.

       Just today an example was reported of the effectiveness of local restrictions on the crime rates.  While World Net Daily is not a well-known source, crime statistics are reported in each individual jurisdiction.  The Daily has an article on 28 July, 2008, entitled, "Crime skyrockets in 1 county, plummets right next door."

       The article recites that Prince William County in northern Virginia, began a widely-reported crackdown more than a year ago on illegal immigrants there.  The Supervisors for the County cited "higher crime rates" and "lower living standards" for their actions.  Meanwhile, Fairfax County, located next to Prince William, continued its policy of inaction on the issues of illegal immigrants within its boundaries.

       In overall numbers, the crime rate in Prince William County went down 19.3% in the first quarter of 2008, while the crime rate in Fairfax County went up by 22.0% in the same quarter.

       A century ago, Justice Brandeis wrote about the states that they are "legislative laboratories" which prove or disprove the value of the laws they pass.  His observation seems to apply equally well to counties and other local jurisdictions.  When crime increases in places that encourage illegal aliens but decreases elsewhere, this is an indication that "sanctuary" policies mean that elected officials are gambling with the lives, safety and property of the citizens of their jurisdictions.

       Source for original story on the Net:

<a href="http://www.citizensvoice.com/articles/2008/07/27/news/wb_voice.20080727.a.pg4.cv27cdiira_s1.1838843_loc.txt">http://www.citizensvoice.com/articles/2008/07/27/news/wb_voice.20080727.a.pg4.cv27cdiira_s1.1838843_loc.txt</a>

       Source for the comparative crime rate story on the Net:

<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70728">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70728</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/update_on_aclu_illegal_aliens_in_hazleton/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/update_on_aclu_illegal_aliens_in_hazleton/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:31:22 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>ACLU Targets Effective Police Work</title>
         <description><![CDATA[     The ACLU has objected to the use of "jump-out squads" in high crime areas of Elsmere and Wilmington, Delaware, which target parolees and habitual criminals.  The results are that significant numbers of criminals are being taken off the streets of both cities.  Local officials and residents support the use of the squads.  And the efforts are apparently constitutional.


       The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article on Delaware Online, on 20 July, 2008.  The article is about "Jump-out Squads" being used in two Delaware communities.  The ACLU claims that the squads are unconstitutional.

       The article begins with the sad tale of Joseph Lilly who "wasn't a fugitive" nor "a suspect," yet who wound up being detained on his own front porch.  Deep in the article, the reader finds out that the police were seeking this man's brother who was on probation.  And that this man consented to let the police into his parents' home.  And that police found in the home "six rifles, a .357 magnum, packaged marijuana and digital scales."  Before police left, Lilly's brother Jacob, arrived, and was arrested.

       These squads operate in high crime areas of Elsmere and Wilmington, Delaware.  Parole and probation officers accompany the police in the jump-outs.  The reason is that people on parole are under conditions which allow their homes and cars to be searched without warrants, for evidence of illegal activities, which are also violations of parole and probation.

       The new Elsmere Police Chief, Liam Sullivan, brought the tactic from Wilmington, where he had been a sergeant.  The article recites that "in Wilmington, police said the squads have succeeded in a department that has 18 percent of Delaware's law enforcement officers but makes 44 percent of the state's arrests."

       Jump-outs are named for the fact that they use multiple vehicles, and take control of an area immediately on arriving.  In a one-month period in Wilmington, the squads detained 261 people.  The youngest person arrested was 12, for possession with intent to deliver heroin.

       26 percent of those arrested were on probation. Nearly a third were categorized as career criminals. The people rounded up had an average of 22 prior arrests and two prior felony convictions. One had been arrested 110 times. Another had 16 felony convictions.

       Wilmington Police Chief Szczerba said, "I hope that shows that we don't go after people willy-nilly.  Repeat offenders is the name of the game when it comes to who the jump-out squads come into contact with."

       Drewry Fennell, director of the Delaware chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, "Your constitutional rights are not determined by your geographical locations. Police officers are not entitled to stop you without reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed."

       Mr. Fennell was partly right.  Constitutional rights do not vary with where people live.  However, anyone with any knowledge of medium to large cities knows that the crime rate DOES vary with location.  Also, Mr. Fennell missed the fact that the police conduct surveillance and receive tips, before making these raids.  He also ignores the fact that parolees can be searched at will, without warrants.

       In both Elsmere and Wilmington, the local City Councilmen are generally in favor of the jump-outs.  Wilmington Councilman Sam Prado also thinks the squads should be used more.   He said, "I'm sick of criminals ruining the lives of good people.  What some people think is going over the line to me is more like we're finally taking a stand."

       Despite ACLU objections, the Police Chiefs in both Elsmere and Wilmington say that the jump-out squads will continue to do their work, going into high crime areas armed with photographs and warrants.

       Even the local residents are in favor of the squads.  The article ends with this: "On the first block of Poplar Street, where Joseph Lilly's brother Jacob was arrested, neighbors watched and sighed.  'I have been waiting patiently for police to do something over there,' said Denice Fioravanti. 'I suspected that it was drugs going on over there.' "


       Source for original story on the Net:

<a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080720/NEWS01/807200371&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL&template=printart">http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080720/NEWS01/807200371&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL&template=printart</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_targets_effective_police_work/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_targets_effective_police_work/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:03:38 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>ACLU Attacks US Terrorist List</title>
         <description><![CDATA[     The ACLU has issued a press release decrying the addition of the one millionth name to the Terrorist Watch List of the Department of Homeland Security.  It brought forward just two people who were inconvenienced by the list.  It claimed that no terrorists have been caught by the list.  It demonstrated it is willing to sacrifice any number of American lives for the ACLU definition of freedom.

       The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from a July 14th press release from the ACLU itself.  The release takes the assumed occasion of the one millionth name added to the Terrorist Watch List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, to attack that list.

       The growth of the list to one million names is an extrapolation from a September 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Justice Department that it was then "growing by 20,000 names a month."  The importance of this story is not the precise time that the list reached one million.  It is the absurd conclusions the ACLU reaches about the list.

       Here are the ACLU's own statements about how bad this list is: "Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes and other `suspicious characters,' with names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Congress needs to fix it, the Terrorist Screening Center needs to fix it, or the next president needs to fix it, but it has to be done soon."

       What is the evidence for this massive infliction of harm on the traveling public?  Exactly two citizens joined with ACLU officials in decrying the one million milestone.  Here are their stories, assuming these are true.  "Jim Robinson, former assistant attorney general for the Civil Division ... flies frequently and is often delayed for hours despite possessing a governmental security clearance and Akif Rahman, an American citizen ... has been detained and interrogated extensively at the U.S.-Canada border when traveling for business."

       Think about that.  Is there any list of a million names, assembled by any human entity from the federal government to Sears Roebuck and Company, which had as few as two, serious mistakes on it?  With unintended irony, the ACLU has just proved that the list works just fine, considering the flaws all human endeavors are prone to have.

       The ACLU's own press release demonstrates that it is not concerned with making the Terrorist Watch List more accurate.  It simply wants to destroy that list by wrapping it in bureaucracy and red tape, so it disappears like the terrorist, Mr. Tuttle (Robert deNiro), at the end of the movie, Brazil.

       Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program proclaimed, "I doubt this thing would even be effective at catching a real terrorist."  Mr. Steinhardt is behind in his reading.  The list has already caught more terrorists than the ACLU has found complainers to speak against the list.

       Perhaps the most telling point about the ACLU press release against the list is it never mentions either the reason the list was created, or the agency that maintains it.  Just a refresher for the ACLU, the list was created after it came out that several of the 9/11 hijackers and murderers were on immigration watch lists, which did not reach the level of police and other officials who came in contact with them before the attacks.

       There is also tremendous irony in the masthead of the ACLU at the top of this press release.  It says, "Because freedom can't protect itself."  No, freedom cannot protect itself.  That's why the US has a Terrorist Watch List, among other steps to defend Americans.  In this one-page press release, the ACLU shows why it is the opposite of what it proclaims to be, that it is an enemy of American freedom, not a defender of it.

       Source for original story on the Net:

<a href="http://www.aclu.org/privacy/35968prs20080714.html">http://www.aclu.org/privacy/35968prs20080714.html</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_attacks_us_terrorist_list/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_attacks_us_terrorist_list/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:38:17 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>ACLU Attitudes Infest the Ford Foundation</title>
         <description><![CDATA[     The Ford Foundation has just appointed a longtime administrator for the ACLU to head the Foundation's international program that instructs people in other nations how to build their laws and societies. The bottom line is that disrespect for the will of the people, for written constitutions, and for those who disagree with the chosen views, will now be backed by Ford millions, around the world.

     The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from a July 6th article on Maxims News Network, which is a "news network for the United Nations and the international community." It concerns the appointment of a long-term ACLU official as the new director of a Ford Foundation division.
    
     Taken at face value, it is an honest appointment of an able person to hold an important position. The title says, "Ford Foundation Names [A] Renowned Civil Rights Attorney ... to Lead Peace and Social Justice Program." The unanswered questions are, what is this person's real background, and how will she spend millions of dollars from one of the nation's oldest Foundations?

      The appointee was formerly the Executive Director of the Northern California Chapter of the ACLU, its largest affiliate in the nation. Luis UbiZas, president of the Ford Foundation, said that her "extraordinary dedication to human rights, equal opportunity, and the rule of law make her an outstanding leader for our work on peace and social justice."

      What is her outstanding work? In her five years with the ACLU she litigated to keep questionable voters on the roles in California. She fought for lower standards in public schools, on allegations of discrimination. She also led ACLU "policy work" in areas such as "police practices and the death penalty ."

      To translate the last two, the first means that she increased the barriers to effective police protection of the citizens. The second means she tried to prevent all death penalty sentences, contrary to the repeated and clear actions of legislators who wrote those laws on behalf of the citizens.

      On most of these issues, it was her task to obtain the ACLU's desired result from unelected judges, over the opposition of elected representatives of the people. Her work was contrary to the central idea that the people hold the sovereign power in California, as in the rest of the United States.

      And what did this ACLU experience in forcing ACLU ideas and results on the people prepare her for, in her new position for the Ford Foundation?
 
     The Foundation's Peace and Social Justice program, according to the article, "addresses human rights, democratic participation and good governance issues around the world." When the views of the ACLU are grafted onto the Foundation's money, "human rights" translates to advancing the important rights of preferred groups over the less-important rights of other groups.
"Democratic participation" means that the people should vote, as long as they vote the right way. When they vote the wrong way and establish undesirable laws, judges should overrule them. As for "good governance", the Jeffersonian idea that the people hold the power is clearly wrong. People who have the right ideas should hold the power and all who disagree should be marginalized.

      Does anyone get the impression that Henry Ford, the old industrialist who believed in free markets and free governments, is spinning in his grave like the distributor cap on a Model A?

Source for original story on the Net:
<a href="http://www.maximsnews.com/news20080706fordfndtnnamesmayaharrisprgmhead10807061602.htm">http://www.maximsnews.com/news20080706fordfndtnnamesmayaharrisprgmhead10807061602.htm</a>
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_attitudes_infest_the_ford_foundation/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_attitudes_infest_the_ford_foundation/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:32:31 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>ACLU Attacks Lifelong Tradition at Naval Academy</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The ACLU has threatened to sue the Naval Academy to end a tradition as old as the Academy itself. Before noon meals in King Hall, midshipmen may voluntarily participate in non-sectarian prayers. The Academy has officially rejected the objection letter from the ACLU based on complaints of certain midshipmen who choose to remain anonymous.

* * * *

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the Baltimore Sun on 25 June, 2008. The title aptly captures the subject at hand, "ACLU tries to halt mealtime prayer at Naval Academy."

Since the Naval Academy was founded in 1845, it has had a tradition of brief, non-sectarian prayers said before lunch in King Hall. According to the article a "group of midshipmen have complained to the ACLU. The ACLU has, in turn, written a letter to the Academy, threatening to sue against this nefarious practice of prayers at lunch.

The Academy responded with this statement from Cmdr. Ed Austin, "The Academy does not intend to change its practice of offering Midshipmen an opportunity for prayer or devotional thought during noon meal announcements."

Even one of the graduates, who asked that her name be concealed, acknowledged that the prayers are optional. "They always say, 'If you will, please join me in prayer.' It's obviously optional, but the fact that everyone around you is doing it makes it a peer influence." The reference to peer influence is key to the ACLU claim that even though the participation is voluntary, it is actually compulsory.

Rep. Walter Jones from North Carolina, injected some common sense into the fray with his comment which appears at the end of the article, "This has just been part of the education of the midshipmen for years and years," Jones said, pointing out that midshipmen aren't forced to pray. "If that midshipman is standing there with his or her head bowed, they could be thinking about the next Notre Dame-Navy football game."

Some federal court decisions would lead to the conclusion that these prayers would be halted. On the other hand, there are the Supreme Court decisions upholding the use of Chaplains in the Houses of Congress, and in state legislatures. Odds are, reason and those chaplain cases, will prevail.

Source for original story on the Net:

<a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/college/bal-prayer0625,0,5200587.story">http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/college/bal-prayer0625,0,5200587.story</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_attacks_lifelong_tradition_at_naval_academy/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_attacks_lifelong_tradition_at_naval_academy/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:25:15 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Sanctuary Insanity in San Francisco</title>
         <description><![CDATA[It is perhaps not surprising that San Francisco has provided the ultimate example in civic madness of where the concept of "sanctuary city" can lead. After being caught flying "juvenile" drug dealers back to their home countries accompanied by city personnel, the City switched to dumping the drug dealers in unsecured facilities in other counties. They promptly escaped. The City has done all this to avoid turning the criminal "juveniles" over to federal authorities.

* * * *

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the L.A. Times on 2 July 2008. It concerns the ramifications of San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city.

In line with the ACLU position that all foreigners in the US are immigrants, and that illegal status doesn't matter, the City has, at its own expense, begun flying young, illegal immigrants arrested for drug dealing, back to their home countries, rather than turn them over to US Immigration control (ICE). This came to light when a City juvenile probation officer was detained in Houston, Texas, while escorting two Honduran juvenile drug dealers back to their home country.

The City has now stopped its frequent flyer program, but is still protecting the offenders from any federal action. Most recently, it has dumped the juvenile offenders in unsecured group homes in other jurisdictions. As a result, eight convicted juvenile drug dealers from Honduras walked away from facilities run by Silverlake Youth Services in San Bernadino County.

Here is the reaction of San Bernardino County Supervisor Gary Ovitt, to this deposit and escape, "I was unaware that the city had its own foreign policy and immigration laws that superseded federal law. No one should have to suffer from a poorly thought-out policy such as this."


San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had this to say, "Those unfortunate escapes are unacceptable and are producing no intended results...." He also blamed the problem on the local courts, saying that all transactions involving these juvenile drug dealers were "pursuant to court orders." Apparently, no reporter thought to ask him why San Francisco juvenile prosecutors were seeking and approving such court orders."

The City District Attorney said, in a written statement, "Every city agency needs to work together to balance our obligations under federal law and the sanctuary ordinance to solve crimes and put the offenders behind bars." Apparently, the idea that the sanctuary ordinance itself might be a violation of federal law, never occurred to her.

The US Attorney for the Northern District of California countered that, "the phenomenon of Hondurans being trucked into the Bay Area, housed in Oakland and sent out to sell crack cocaine" has been going on for years. He claimed that dealers claim to be under 18 so they can avoid harsher treatment by federal authorities, and further, that San Francisco does not even verify the claims that these are juveniles.

Of course, not being fully identified on the way out, they are able to come back in at will. The US Attorney added, "This was an open loop."

The story does not mention what researchers on drug-related crime have long known. Most drug users commit hundreds of crimes a year, to finance their habits. So, the special treatment by San Francisco of illegal alien drug dealers who claim to be juveniles, is contributing to crime in general, throughout the Bay Area.

Source for original story on the Net:
<a href="http:// http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-immig2-2008jul02,0,7608082.story?page=1">
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-immig2-2008jul02,0,7608082.story?page=1</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/sanctuary_insanity_in_san_francisco/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/sanctuary_insanity_in_san_francisco/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:20:02 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title></title>
         <description><![CDATA[<strong><h1>Supreme Court Upholds Individual Right to Bear Arms</h1></strong>
<strong><h3>American Civil Rights Union Hails Court's Decision as a "Victory for Freedom Lovers"<h3></strong>

     The American Civil Rights Union, which filed amicus briefs in support of Heller at every stage of the case, called today's Supreme Court decision "a long overdue return to the Constitution."

     In deciding DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court upheld individual Americans' right to own guns, overturning the District of Columbia's ban on guns--a decision fully in accordance with the Constitution's Second Amendment, which reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

     "The United States' formation was fundamentally affected by the fact that most individuals were armed. The equality that necessarily resulted from a well-armed populace--and the national security guaranteed by the coordinated action by these individuals--made our country what it is," said Peter Ferrara, General Counsel to the ACRU and the author of the ACRU's amicus briefs. "It bodes well for our future liberty and safety that the Supreme Court recognizes and gives Americans the full protection of the Second Amendment."]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/supreme_court_upholds_individual_right/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/supreme_court_upholds_individual_right/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Press Release</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:10:13 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>ACLU, Live and Uncut on TV</title>
         <description><![CDATA[     Arianna Huffington's blog, in conjunction with The Nation magazine, has created a series of five "conversation" videos entitled "This Brave Nation."  The third in the series pairs the Executive Director of the ACLU with a "video peace activist."  It is more revealing than it intended to be about why the ACLU is a clear and present danger to the survival of the United States Constitution.

*   *   *   *

       The facts for this story, but not the legal conclusions, come from the third of a five-part video series entitled "This Brave Nation," on Arianna Huffington's website.  Each in the series is a "conversation" between two people whose stories are somehow illustrative of the American experience.  Episode three pairs Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU, with Ava Lowery, who is a "peace activist" from Alabama.  The Nation magazine is also a partner in this venture.

       The website blurb on this program says of these two, "Together they discuss the legal quagmire the country has become since 9/11, among other quagmires created by George W. Bush and his Administration."

       Why listen to this conversation involving these two people?  Because there are hundreds of thousands of people in the US who take these people, and their comments, seriously.  And such people vote, and give money and time to their causes.  They may be factually clueless about what is happening in America, but they do have an impact on our future.

       Lowery is (apparently) famous for being a peace activist, coming to public attention when she conducted her 16th birthday party at the state capitol in Montgomery.  Hundreds of students joined her for this party.  There were candles in paper bags, and a rock band of course.  As she says, "we chanted for peace."

       Apparently she is totally unaware of Arlo Guthrie's satirical comment in "Alice's Restaurant," when he sings, "If you want to end war and things, you gotta sing loud."  One of her claims to fame was a video clip in which she used the photographs of the first 1,000 US soldiers to die in Iraq to form the word "LIE."

       Although a good part of the conversation between her and Romero was about personal rights, she did not notice that she was using the faces of these young men without the permission of their families for a message they would never have approved.

       She referred to the total number Americans killed in this war.  She evinced no knowledge whatsoever of any of the individual battles, much less wars, in which American sacrifices were thousands of times of the Iraq War losses.  Normandy, Iwo Jima, Antietam, Gettysburg and Chancellorsville should  come to mind, for those who are educated.  Miss Lowery is uneducated in such matters.

       The program also offers insights into the driving forces in Anthony Romero's life.  The first clue is that his first description of himself is that he is a "gay Puerto Rican."  He begins by reciting the discrimination against his father as a Puerto Rican.  Later in the program he recites the "discrimination" against gays.

       The program includes clips of the burning World Trade Center buildings while Romero talks about civil rights.  There is no hint of self-awareness that the efforts of the ACLU, allegedly for the "civil rights" of Americans, will necessarily lead to more deaths of Americans, either overseas, at home, or both.

       When he is talking about actions taken in wartime by the Bush Administration, Romero displays a lack of knowledge of how American presidents have conducted wars in the past.  He refers to President Bush as "suspending the right of habeas corpus."  A competent lawyer would have recognized that no President can suspend habeas corpus.  Only Congress can do that - a power which the Supreme Court stole from Congress just last week in the Boumediene case.

       A section of the program is entitled "Heroes."  It is quite telling that both Romero and Lowery name Michael Moore as their leading hero.  Both spoke of him as if he were presenting simple truth on the screen, rather than using the tricks of the cinematic trade to present lies to be accepted as truth.

       At the end of the program, Romero spoke glowingly of Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU and supporter of the Communist Party.  He included a clip of Baldwin speaking, and calling for "peace, order and justice."  That was, of course, what the Soviet Union provided for its people, though millions suffered the peace of the grave and all non-party members enjoyed the justice of equal deprivation.

       It is important to dip into sources like this Huffington series, from time.  There are people who actually think this way.  There are others who take them seriously.   And when such people create organizations backed by real money, the consequences are generally harmful to the United States.

Source for original story on the Net (the first is the video series, the second is Huffington's web site):

<a href="http://bravenation.com/anthony_romero_ava_lowery.php">http://bravenation.com/anthony_romero_ava_lowery.php</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/dont-miss-anthony-romero_b_107274.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/dont-miss-anthony-romero_b_107274.html</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_live_and_uncut_on_tv/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_live_and_uncut_on_tv/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:35:20 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title></title>
         <description><![CDATA[<h3>Terrorists Using 1960s Legal Precedent to Escape Punishment<br>
New Study Exposes the "Terrorist Get Out of Jail Free Card"</h3>

     In a report released today by the American Civil Rights Union, best-selling author and terrorism expert Richard Miniter demonstrates how a 1969 Supreme Court ruling is being used to get terrorists off scot-free--an extremely pertinent issue, given today's ruling by the Supreme Court that Guantanamo Bay detainees are allowed access to civilian courts.

     The case, Brandenburg v. Ohio, effectively safeguards suspected terrorists from prosecution by categorizing their fatwas--or calls to terrorism--as protected free speech if the threat does not designate a specific date and time for the action.
     
     Using Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Miniter shows that the total number of prosecutions of terrorists has fallen dramatically since 2002, while the percentage of terror cases that federal prosecutors refused to prosecute has climbed from 34% in 2002 to 90% in 2006. This decline in prosecutions of terrorists coincides with a sharp increase in citations of the Brandenburg case.

     Of the 40 times Brandenburg has been cited since 1969, nearly half of these citations happened between 2001 and the beginning of 2006 (the latest year data was available).

     "Critics of the war on terror consistently contend that terrorism is a crime that should be combated in the courts, with the full panoply of civil rights for suspected terrorists," Miniter said. " Sadly, the Brandenburg precedent--set in a starkly different time--makes it almost impossible for the government to prevail against terrorists who are caught in planning stages in the federal courts."  

     The statistics show a disturbing trend on terrorism prosecutions:
          *In 2002, 355 cases were brought. 
 	  *Only 66 cases were brought in 2003.  

     While prosecutions climbed slightly to 93 in 2004 (a Presidential election year), they fell to 46 the following year. During the first eight months of 2006, TRAC found only 19 terrorist prosecutions--the lowest level since 1998. 

     "There are two possible explanations," Miniter said. "Either terrorist activity--everything from recruiting and financing to plotting attacks--is actually declining.  Or suspected terrorists have found a strong defense."

     "With the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detentions in federal court, the Brandenburg precedent has become a hole in America's armor," Miniter said. "If our system of justice is to play a vital role in the war on terror, the Supreme Court should narrow the scope of Brandenburg."

     For a copy of the report "Is Terror Winning in the Courts?" please visit <a href="http://www.theacru.org">www.theacru.org</a>. To schedule an interview, please contact John Doyle at 703.447.1124 or at <a href="mailto:doyle@theprincipalnetwork.com">doyle@theprincipalnetwork.com</a>.

     <em>The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) is dedicated to protecting our fundamental rights and liberties across the board. The ACRU focuses, in particular, on those areas of our civil rights which are ignored, or even actively undermined, by other supposed civil liberties groups. These include property rights, freedom of religion, equality under the law, the right to keep and bear arms, individual liberty and federalism. The ACRU also supports freedom of speech and of the press, sound principles of criminal justice, and proper voting processes and procedures, among others.</em>

]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/terrorists_using_1960s_legal_precedent/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/terrorists_using_1960s_legal_precedent/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Press Release</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:09:46 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>ACLU to Raise $335 Million to Attack the US Heartland</title>
         <description><![CDATA[     The ACLU has just announced a $335 million fund-raising campaign intended to strengthen its operations in "heartland" states.  In most cases, it will publicly attack in court and out, positions on issues such as "immigrants' rights, gay rights, and opposition to the death penalty."  In those issues, the ACLU will be asking unelected judges to reverse the policies set by elected officials or by voters themselves through initiatives.

       The facts for this story, but not the legal conclusions, come from an Associated Press article on 9 June, 2008, and published many places on the Internet and in newspapers.  The ACLU has announced its "largest fund-raising campaign in its history."   It is seeking to raise $335 million dollars, of which $258 million has already been raised in "behind-the-scenes solicitations."

       The important questions are three-fold.  Where is the ACLU raising this money?  Where does it plan to spend this money?  And, what are the targeted issues?  The answers to all three questions are dangerous to the future of the US.

       Only one major donor is identified in the article.  George Soros gave $12 million through his Open Society Institute.  Soros is legendary for his support for left-wing issues, candidates, and political organizations.  Given the recent history of the ACLU, it is likely that other major donors are of the same stripe.  Unlike openly political organizations, the ACLU is not required to report in public and in searchable data bases, the people who contribute to it.

       Where is the money to be spent?  The article says that the ACLU intends to target "relatively conservative states such as Texas and Florida."  The ACLU is more circumspect in its own press release.  It says, "The purpose is to build a civil liberties infrastructure in the middle of the country -- where battleground states are often under-resourced and our efforts are most needed...."

       The history of ACLU litigation offers a reasonable prediction of what it will do with this massive funding.  It will threaten law suits, and file law suits, in towns and states where ACLU views are least popular.  And in each case, it will seek attorneys fees and costs when it badgers a potential defendant into submission, or when it prevails in court.

       These hundreds of millions of dollars are not intended to pay for this kind of litigation.  The money is only intended to prime the pump, so the litigation can be conducted in states where ACLU fund-raising is not as successful.  The litigation is intended to pay for itself, by funds extracted from local and state taxpayers, either because the potential defendants cave under pressure, or because courts order such payments from public coffers.

       Lastly, what are the preferred issues on which the ACLU will go on the attack in the heartlands?

       ACLU executive director Anthony Romero named the issues in statements made available to the AP.   They will be "issues such as immigrants' rights, gay rights, police brutality and opposition to the death penalty as causes that would be pursued vigorously as the ACLU expanded in heartland states."

       These issues, long rejected by the voters and elected officials in the targeted states, will be forced on the following states, among others, by order of unelected judges: Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico and Tennessee, "with even the smallest ACLU affiliates in line to get extra funding to hire new attorneys and launch new advocacy programs."

       What can be done about the rising tide of dictated government from the bench, rather than what Abraham Lincoln quaintly called "government of the people, by the people and for the people"?  Congress controls both the jurisdiction of the federal courts and awards of attorneys fees and costs by those courts.  Furthermore, if the ACLU has in fact become an ad hoc political party, its preferred status under the IRS laws on charities could be ended.

       At the very end of the article, the AP spends three paragraphs talking about organizations which strongly oppose what the ACLU is doing.  "The most dangerous organization in America is trying to become more dangerous," said Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.  One other, Florida-based, conservative organization is quoted.

       This announced and deliberate assault on the citizens and elected officials in America's heartland by the ACLU can be deflected and stopped.  But that can happen only if some elected officials in Washington wake up and smell the coffee.

THIS IS WHY GROUPS LIKE THE ACRU ARE SO CRITICAL TO THE DEFENSE OF OUR FREEDOMS.

Source for original story on the Net:

<a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNQbm1rMYp_b6OxO7ccLq3n7gQ4gD916OOTO0">http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNQbm1rMYp_b6OxO7ccLq3n7gQ4gD916OOTO0</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_to_raise_335_million_to_attack_the_us_heartland/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_to_raise_335_million_to_attack_the_us_heartland/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:00:03 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>California About to Invade Charitable Bedrooms</title>
         <description><![CDATA[     The California Assembly has already passed, and its Senate is now considering, a "diversity" bill that would require all of its major foundations to report information on the racial and sexual backgrounds of all of their boards and staffs, as well as the boards and staffs of the charities they support. They would also have to report the degree to which they support, or are run by, certain preferred minorities. The mere stating of what the bill does should alarm most that this is a bad idea.

    The facts for this story, but not the legal conclusions, come from an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal Online for 30 May, 2008. The article is entitled, "The 'Diversity' Threat to California Charity." The author of the piece, Heather Higgins, is a Board Member of the Philanthropy Roundtable.

     As the article recites, a bill "to encourage diversity among non-profits" has already passed the California Assembly and is now before its Senate. The bill would require that "California foundations with $250 million in assets ... report the composition by ethnicity and gender orientation of their boards and staffs, the boards and staffs of the charities they support, and the degree to which they are run by or support certain minorities."

     The ACLU is not directly involved in this effort. But, the bill is in line with many ACLU efforts. An interesting point appears aboutt he Greenlining Institute, a prime sponsor of the bill. Greenlining refers to itself as a "racial justice advocacy group." According to the article, its executive director recently admitted that "most of our money comes from litigation."

     That is a very telling admission. It means that Greenlining, like the ACLU, derives a large part of its funding from taxpayers- you and me through force of court orders. And then it uses that money to lobby the government to tell free citizens how to lead their lives.
According to Greenlining, only 20% of foundation funding from the state's 50 largest foundations is going to "minority-serving" causes, a fact they find "embarrassingly low." By targeting the preferred minorities the bill ignores charities that serve everyone, such as hospitals, medical care, homeless shelters, education, substance abuse, and environmental causes. One can make a reasonable guess that neither Asian Americans nor Caucasian males are labeled as minorities in California, though both are, in fact, that.

     What would happen if this California passes? For one thing, it would create a bureaucratic nightmare among California foundations and the charities they support. Leaders of all such institutions would have to delve deeply into the private lives of all their staff and board members. Remember that "gender orientation" is one of the required data points.

     Greenlining claims that the bill is only intended to "request diversity data." Anyone who thinks that data won't be turned into a public relations attack and that the result won't be sexual and racial quotas might be interested in the purchase of a bridge in Brooklyn. In short, the bill would provide the basis for shakedowns and litigation, founded on the racial and sexual requirements of the bill. Longtime charities that have served Californians well, could find their charitable status under attack.

     Worse than the attitude of Greenlining in promoting this bill is the attitude of certain politicians supporting it.. At a recent hearing, some state senators asserted that taxpayers "subsidize" charities and therefore, charitable money is "taxpayer money." This totally misses the point of charitable giving. The exemption encourages private citizens to give private money to serve public needs, oft-times serving both better and more efficiently than government programs do. Charity may substitute for government money, but it is not money raised from taxpayers. It is not the business of politicians to micromanage the use of charitable gifts. (Mind you, this is not an objection to laws that are common in many states, which require that charities give specified minimums to charitable purposes, rather than just staff and operating expenses.)

     California represents more than 10% of the population and economy of the United States. If this bill passes, it would set a terrible example for the rest of the states and the federal government, too. It would certainly cause some foundations to pack their bags and leave California, precisely the opposite result from what any competent public advocate, or competent politician, should seek.

Source for original story on the Net:
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121210971023331419-lMyQjAxMDI4MTMyMDEzMDA5Wj.html">http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121210971023331419-lMyQjAxMDI4MTMyMDEzMDA5Wj.html</a>
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/california_about_to_invade_charitable_bedrooms/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/california_about_to_invade_charitable_bedrooms/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:17:12 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>ACLU Supports Invasion of Washington</title>
         <description><![CDATA[      The town of Mattawa in Washington State has been overrun by new "residents" who are almost entirely illegal aliens from Mexico.  The response of the federal government has been to force this town of several hundred legal, English-speaking residents, to spend money it doesn't have, to hire translators for the illegal aliens, to make their take-over of the town easier.

       The facts for this story, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article from the Seattle Times on 26 May, 2008.  After pressure from the US government, a Washington town of a few hundred residents has been forced, at its own expense, to provide translators for illegal aliens who now outnumber the legal residents of the town.

       The article from the Times was published from the wire service of the Los Angeles Times.  Nowhere does it mention that any of the "residents" who drove this change, are illegal aliens.  They are always referred to merely as "residents."  One must go to other sources, and use logical inferences, to conclude that they are illegal aliens.

       Mattawa, in Grant County, Washington State, has grown in 20 years from a town of 300 residents to about 3,200 residents.  All of the town's elected officials and its small police force, speak English.  Almost all of the new residents "speak Spanish at home," and speak English "less than very well" according to the 2000 Census.  Mattawa is a relatively poor community, and is located in the midst of Washington State's apple orchards.

       In addition to the language barrier, the demographics which give a clue that the new residents are not legal, are these: The population is Hispanic (89.8%) and White Non-Hispanic (8.5%).  The median value for houses / condos in the town is less than 45% of the State average of $227,700.  The median income in the town is less than 55% of the State average of $49,262.

       The clinchers are that the median age in Mattawa is only 22.5 years, and the ratio of men to women is 60% to 40%.  In short, the vast majority of the current population are illegal, migrant workers from Mexico.  If they were legal residents, they would have long since voted out the English-speaking town officials, and replaced the English-speaking police force.

       The town has made informal accommodations for its new Mexican population.  All businesses and shops display signs in both Spanish and English.  Police and town officials routinely use bilingual bystanders to "bridge the language barrier."  But that was insufficient for a "civil rights group" supported by the ACLU.  They filed a Civil Rights Act complaint with the Justice Department.

       With the full weight of the federal government coming down on its tiny staff and budget, Mattawa "agreed" in March to a plan " to employ at least one bilingual employee during regular business hours and to make vital information available in Spanish as well as English. It also requires police to have qualified interpreters on call at all times."  The article makes this sound like a cooperative effort to solve a problem, rather than a small town forced to bust its budget to avoid being politically destroyed altogether.

       Today, the town has only three police officers and one provisional one.  It also has a very small tax base.  As the article says, "More than half of property owners don't pay taxes because they are subsidized or nonprofits."

       The article - keep in mind it comes originally from the L.A. Times - says this agreement is "seen as a bellwether for cities with similar demographics."

       Two questions come to mind: what is there in American law which gives citizens of other nations who take over an American community, the right to dictate that the locality must adopt the language of the "new residents"?  And, is there any other nation on Earth whose government would force a local government there to adopt English and make it available, because a large number of Americans had moved in and taken over?  For that matter, what other nation would even allow such an influx of Americans, if they came in violation of local and national law?

       In short, Mattawa on a small scale, and Los Angeles on a large scale, are the future of the western half of the United States, if the Mexican invasion continues, and if the federal government turns a blind eye to the consequences of that.  Though in this particular case, the federal government did not merely turn a blind eye, it joined forces with the invaders to make their take-over easier.

Source for original story on the Net:

<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004438670_bilingual26.html">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004438670_bilingual26.html</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_supports_invasion_of_washington/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_supports_invasion_of_washington/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">ACLU Outrage</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 13:18:50 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>In Re Rachel, L.</title>
         <description>The ACLU joins other organizations supporting homeschooling to file this brief in a California state appellate court arguing for a constitutional right for parents to choose homeschooling for their children.  The argument is based on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, relying in particular on precedents holding that parents have a constitutional right to choose private rather than public schools for their children, and that Amish parents can choose the alternative of working at home within the Amish culture rather than attending public high schools.

On August 8, 2008 the Second Appellate District in a 3-0 decision, ruled that homeschooling is a legitimate form of education. A lower court had ruled home education is not permissible if a parent does not posses teaching credentials from the state.</description>
         <link>http://www.theacru.org/acru/in_re_rachel_l/</link>
         <guid>http://www.theacru.org/acru/in_re_rachel_l/</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Amicus Brief</category>
        
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag">homeschooling</category>
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 13:41:05 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
