ACLU Defends Sex Offenders, As Usual

It’s been a while since I wrote about the ACLU, an organization that I have strongly opposed since the horrific Curley case in Massachusetts in 1997. Curley was a young boy who was violently assaulted sexually by two homosexuals while tied to a tree, and then beaten to death. His parents filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) after they learned that NAMBLA had a website that coached homosexuals on how to entice young boys and how to avoid detection by the police. The ACLU entered the case as a friend of the defendant, NAMBLA.

It also didn’t endear me to the ACLU when they sued a high school principal in Westerly, RI for telling a student she could not wear a tee-shirt to school that contained an obscenity that defamed President Bush. The multiple and continuing attempts to stamp out all signs of Christianity in America also raise my ire, and I wonder how many voters understand that when the ACLU wins a so-called, religious freedom court case, it is a federal law that the defendants (usually a small town) have to pay exorbitant legal fees to them. This provides a major source of funds to the ACLU, and always makes me believe they have a double motive beyond misguided attempts to defend the First Amendment.

Every place I have lived has an ordinance that prevents known sex offenders from living near places where children are likely to be found, like schools and playgrounds. Imagine my chagrin when I read this in my morning paper today:


      RI's ACLU asks court to protect 3 sex offenders from        homelessness

By W. Zachary Malinowski July 16, 2012 Providence Journal

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state law that makes it a felony for registered sex offenders to live within 300 feet of a school.

The lawsuit, filed by Katherine Godin, a volunteer lawyer for the ACLU, claims that three plaintiffs face homelessness if the law is enforced against them.

Two of the plaintiffs, Dennis Gesmondi and Dallas Huard, live in Warren Manor II, a facility run by NRI Community Services, a nonprofit provider of mental health and substance abuse treatment.

The third plaintiff, George Madancy, would also face homelessness or hospitalization if forced from his apartment, the suit says.

Godin said that all three men had been upfront with police and probation officials about where they reside. They all live close to elementary schools.

ACLU v. Religious Liberty

You would have to be brain-dead not to be aware of the number of incidents involving prayers, signs, decorations, sculptures, crèches, Christmas trees, Santa Clauses, blessings, etc., wherein the ACLU, famous defenders of the Nazis' right to march in Jewish Skokie, have harassed and brought charges against citizens attempting to do something worthwhile and in keeping with the traditions and history of our country – a country that was founded and established by Christians applying Christian principles.

What you may not know is that our government has in place a law that forces the loser, in a case involving religious liberty, to pay the court costs and attorneys’ fees of the plaintiff. This is why most cities, towns and organizations that are sued by the ACLU give up so quickly. They realize that the ACLU collects millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees, and to fight them in court risks bankruptcy.

The Democratic Party and the ACLU maintain that the “establishment” clause precludes any organizational unit that is wholly or partly supported by public funds, from allowing any display of religious beliefs, period. The rest of us maintain that the clause means just what it says – that the FEDERAL government cannot establish a state religion – as was the case in many foreign countries from which our Founding Fathers came. We also think it odd and significant that Congress has always been opened with a prayer.

The ACLU also intrudes in many other matters in a harmful way. In Rhode Island, a high school student wore a tee-shirt that said f**k Bush. When told to replace the shirt, the ACLU stepped in. In Massachusetts, the ACLU defended the right of a website that showed, in detail, how to seduce and molest a child, and then how to stymie any police investigation of the incident.

ACLU v. Religious Liberty

By J. Matt Barber March 24, 2011 The American Thinker (Excerpt)

“Irony is defined as "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning." The term doublespeak means "evasive, ambiguous language that is intended to deceive or confuse."

There is perhaps no greater example of ironic doublespeak than inclusion of the phrase "civil liberties" within the inapt designation: "American Civil Liberties Union."

Indeed, few leftist organizations in existence today can compete with the ACLU in terms of demonstrated hostility toward what the Declaration of Independence describes as "certain unalienable rights" with which Americans are "endowed by their Creator."

Consider the doublespeak inherent throughout the "progressive" Goliath's flowery self-representation :

“The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.”

Now contrast that depiction with ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's candid vision :

“I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

Ironic, isn't it? So much for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." By combining straightforward segments from each ACLU rendering we arrive with an accurate portrayal. One that cuts through the doublespeak:

The ACLU is...working daily in courts, legislatures and communities. Communism is the goal….”

“Even the ACLU's own promotional materials overtly advocate religious discrimination: "The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion."

Utter hokum.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause -- a mere 10 words -- says nothing of the sort. Its message is abundantly clear, requiring severe distortion to stuff within the ACLU's Marxist parameters. It merely states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That's it.

Now let's break it down. What do you suppose the Framers of the US Constitution -- a document expressly designed to limit the powers of federal government -- intended with the word "Congress"? Did they mean State government? Municipal government? Your local school district? Your third grade teacher?

Of course not. They meant exactly what they said: Congress . As in: The United States Congress! It takes someone with a distinctly disingenuous ulterior motive to derive anything else.

Now what did they mean by "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"

Well, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson -- often touted by the left as the great church-state separationst -- answered that question. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was singularly intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively "establishing," through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).

Or, as Jefferson put it : "[T]he clause of the Constitution" covering "freedom of religion" was intended to necessarily preclude "an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States."

How far removed we are today from the original intent of our Founding Fathers. The ACLU is largely responsible for creating the gulf between the Constitution's original construction and its modern misapplication.

The ACLU remains one of America's most powerful secular-socialist political pressure groups. It relentlessly tramples underfoot the First Amendment, which guarantees sweeping and absolute liberty for all Americans -- including government employees -- to freely exercise their faith both publicly and privately without fear of reprisal: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Examples of its constitutional abuses are manifold, but one of the most recent involves an ACLU assault against a group of Christians in Santa Rosa County, FL. Liberty Counsel represents those Christians.

An ACLU-crafted Consent Decree has been used as a weapon to threaten school district employees with fines and jail time for merely praying over a meal, and for exercising -- even while away from school -- their sincerely held Christian faith. You read that right. The ACLU is literally seeking to criminalize Christianity.

In August of 2009, Liberty Counsel successfully defended staff member Michelle Winkler from contempt charges brought by the ACLU after her husband, who is not even employed by the district, offered a meal prayer at a privately sponsored event in a neighboring county.

Liberty Counsel also successfully defended Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman against criminal contempt charges, after the ACLU sought to have the men thrown in jail for blessing a lunch meal served to about 20 adult booster club members.

Under the Consent Decree teachers are considered to be acting in their "official capacity" anytime a student is present, even at private functions off campus.

Liberty Counsel describes this unconstitutional decree:

Teachers cannot pray, bow their heads, or fold their hands to show agreement with anyone who does pray. Teachers and staff cannot 'Reply' to an email sent by a parent if the parent's email refers to God or Scripture. Teachers either have to delete such references from the original email or reply by initiating a new email. Teachers and staff are also required to stop students from praying in their own private club meetings.

During witness testimony, Mrs. Winkler sobbed as she described how she and a coworker, who had recently lost a child, literally had to hide in a closet to pray.

Although the case continues, on Monday the ACLU suffered a tremendous setback while freedom took a significant step forward. Federal District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers granted in part a Preliminary Injunction in favor of Liberty Counsel's twenty-four Christian clients.

Judge Rodgers concluded that even though "a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy," one aspect of the Consent Decree -- its attempt to prohibit school employees from fully participating in private religious events -- is so flawed that it must be immediately halted.

The Court thus enjoined the School Board "from enforcing any school policy that restrains in any way an employee's participation in, or speech or conduct during, a private religious service, including baccalaureate" pending a trial on the merits.

"Progressives" are nothing if not consistent. As they gain confidence, they invariably rush across that bridge too far. They engage wild-eyed efforts to "fundamentally transform America" to reflect their own secular-socialist self-image.

I'm certain that both the bare-knuckle spirit of the American people and Liberty Counsel's enduring 92 percent win record against the ACLU will maintain a durable safeguard - an "impenetrable wall of separation" if you will - between our constitutionally guaranteed liberties and a subversive "progressive" agenda built upon the distinctly un-American creed: "Communism is the goal."” The American Thinker

This Careful Generation By Roger W. Gardner

This Careful Generation
By Roger W. Gardner June 19, 2008 Cross-posted from Stop The ACLU

This, my friends, in case you haven’t noticed, is a very careful generation. In fact, I’ve lived in this wonderful country of ours for a little over seven decades now, and this is without a doubt the most “careful” generation that I have ever had the misfortune to live amongst. Somehow we’ve managed to become the most careful people in the world, maybe the most careful people in history. We live in constant fear that we might inadvertently say something truthful that might offend someone, somewhere. We’ve learned to call this pervasive state of denial Political Correctness. But is it really Political Correctness, I wonder, or is it something else?

I ask myself, is this present pacifistic crop of Chamberlainesque appeasers really being “careful” of other people‘s feelings, or merely being cowardly? Are all of our so-called PCisms truly demonstrations of our consideration for others, or are they rather an expression of our fear of others? Are we avoiding confrontation with those who threaten our lives and our culture out of kindness and tolerance, or are we just desperately trying to avoid that confrontation? Are we perhaps concerned that we might just antagonize our antagonists even more by naming them? Are we hoping to avoid the inevitable nastiness of these confrontations by hiding behind this intricately-wrought screen of euphemisms called Political Correctness?

When you think about it, isn’t this really that same old weasely logic that in the 1950s induced us to call a Jew “someone of the Jewish persuasion”? As though they had somehow been persuaded to become a Jew. Isn’t this just the latest manifestation of that same old hypocritical crap? Did we also talk about “someone of the Christian persuasion” in the 1950s? I don’t think so.

In short, this is nothing all that new, it’s that old familiar circuitous obfuscation that wouldn’t allow us to call a Jew a Jew. Why? Would a Jew be offended to be called a Jew? Hardly. Every Jew I’ve ever known was proud to be a Jew. Could it be perhaps that we found that word so offensive that we could hardly bring ourselves to say it? Were these semantic acrobatics really evidence of our consideration for others or evidence of that intransigent American brand of anti-Semitism? Was this an example of some early form of Political Correctness in action? Or are we really talking about something else here. Something a little bit easier to understand, but something too awful to actually put it into words. Something called the truth.

Well, I’m going to get a lot of people pissed off right now — or at least I‘m going to give it a good try. You see, I’m getting sick and tired of being careful. I don’t know how the hell I ever let them talk me into all this [bull****] in the first place.

This all started when I read that incredible little article this past Christmas, which I’m sure you’ve all heard about by now, about that Santa school Down Under that instructed their student Santas to no longer say “ho-ho-ho”, because it had a double meaning in the American Black Community, and that some people might find it offensive.

What???

My God, what have we become? We stand by meekly and watch as our wonderful English language becomes increasingly denigrated and devalued, we allow the primitive animalistic gruntings of our Black Inner City Gangsta Rap, pants-falling-off-the-butt “culture” to infiltrate and diminish almost every aspect of our lives: our music, our movies, our television, our sports, the way our kids act and dress — and now we’re going to tell our Santa Clauses not to say “ho-ho-ho” because it too closely resembles that Gangsta Rap word for “whore”?

Wait a minute. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?

Who are the folks here who should be offended?

After that, I read another article that purported to be an investigation into the causes of the enormous increase in the murder rate in one of our largest East Coast cities — actually, two articles written explicitly to address this single major problem. However, throughout the entire two articles, not one mention was made of what had actually happened to this city. Not one single reference to the fact that this wildly escalating crime rate just happened to correspond to the most catastrophic societal upheaval in that city’s four-hundred year history. Not only did the articles not even mention these irrefutable truths, but somehow the author ingeniously avoided mentioning that any racial changes had taken place there at all. If someone didn’t know the actual facts of the city in question they would be left to surmise that the city had just suddenly started becoming more criminal for no apparent reason. This, my friends, is what currently passes for Political Correctness. But is it?

Here’s what happened: the Inner City turned Black and the crime rate soared.

Sorry, but that’s what happened.

And I really am sorry; because it was my city of origin that was the subject of these counterfeit articles. I was born and brought up there.

And this Black murder rate in this Black Inner City is a Black problem, not a White problem. These Inner City Black Gangstas are not selling crack because their great-great-grandmothers were slaves. And that disingenuous author who so adroitly skirted the most obvious by never once mentioning race, by referring to “these people and their drug problems” would have had that same delicate problem back in the 1950s calling a Jew a Jew.

The murder of young Black males by other young Black males in the Black Inner Cities is a Black problem and can only be solved by Blacks. Blacks who are willing to be honest with themselves. Blacks who are getting sick and tired of that criminal-worshipping, female-degrading, drive-by shooting, Gangsta Rap drug world of self-destruction. Blacks who are willing to listen to those honest and tough love messages of respected Black people like Bill Cosby, and even from those unapologetic liberals, like Juan Williams. Blacks who are willing to accept responsibility for their own lives and want to quit blaming everything on the Whites, who finally have the courage to disassociate themselves from those so-called Black Leaders, like Al Sharpton and that extortionist Jesse Jackson, who are nothing more than enablers, living off the suffering of others. Offering their followers that same old false comfort of self-pity and victimization by perpetuating the myth of White subjugation.

By pretending that this is still a White problem, that only White people are smart enough to fix it, those delusional liberals are only making matters worse. It’s trying to cure the alcoholic’s problem by telling him he has good reason to drink. And it just ain’t gonna work.

So, what are we really talking about here? Blacks? Jews? Racism? Anti-Semitism? No, we’re still talking about Political Correctness — or perhaps, more precisely, that same old cowardly dis-ingenuousness in it’s latest disguise? A problem we’ve been wrestling with throughout that whole tumultuous course of human history. It’s called moral integrity. Some people simply call it honesty.

Now, before all you liberals out there rush to get your ammunition and start bombarding me with those familiar epithets of Racist and Bigot, just answer this one simple question. If we are afraid to even identify a problem, how the hell can we expect to fix it? If no one can even address these issues for fear of being labeled a racist or bigot, then tell me how we are going to discuss the issues? With obsequious code words like “these people and their drug problems“? For God’s sake, what people are we talking about? The Swedes? The Chinese?

If the Chinese people were the major contributing factor to the rise of the crime rates in most of our major cities, then we should most certainly be able to acknowledge this fact and try to do something about it. But it isn’t the Chinese people who are causing these terrible Inner City problems, is it? And it isn’t always the Blacks. Sometimes it’s the Mexicans, and sometimes it’s somebody else. But, if we ever hope to do anything about these enormous and growing problems, we had better learn how to talk about them honestly. And have the courage to say who it is we are really talking about.

We have, it seems, traded our language of truth for some weak-kneed second-rate vocabulary of denial; and, most unfortunate of all, some of us are actually pleased with this ignoble transaction. They call it progressive; I call it regressive. They call it Political Correctness; I call it cowardice.

During this past Christmas season, when a television commercial were enticing us into thinking about buying a brand new Lincoln for our lover, while adroitly managing to circumvent that contentious word “Christmas”, substituting it with that inept and meaningless word “Holiday”, were these car manufacturers sincerely interested in promoting cultural inclusiveness, or just afraid of the ACLU? Was this just one more example of this new-fangled ideology called Political Correctness? Or was it just that same old-fashioned cowardice hiding its ugly head?

We are losing our national nerve. We live in constant fear. We are afraid of being sued, afraid of being attacked, afraid of being disliked, and we are afraid of being called names. Fear has infiltrated every area of our lives and corrupted our ability to be effective as a people, as a nation. We are even afraid to admit that we are afraid. We are even becoming afraid to be patriotic Americans.

The school board who lifts the Lord’s Prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance from that unfortunate school’s curriculum isn’t doing this out of some high-minded noble concept of inclusiveness — they’re afraid of being sued by some loathsome Dr. Newdow (described by one enthusiastic atheist as “…one of the greatest heroes in the war against religious demagogues”).

To attempt to hide this blatant cowardice behind some shining shield of Political Correctness is a lie which we can no longer ignore, and which we can no longer afford to tolerate.

When we choose to refer to our brave Israeli ally’s ongoing attempts to protect their tiny nation from that continuous generational onslaught from their vicious and hate-filled neighbors and their brutal suicide-bombers as an “Arab/Israeli conflict”, rather than calling it what it is — “The Arab War Against Israel” — are we not demonstrating to the world our unconscionable lack of moral fiber? Did we refer to that WWII horror show in the Pacific as some morally-neuter “Japanese/American Conflict”? Hell no.

If I get stopped by a cop for driving without a license, will he let me go if I explain that what I’m doing isn’t really illegal, that I’m really just an undocumented driver? We have become so accustomed to navigating through the perils of this world using these subtle subterfuges and lies we no longer even notice them.

On September 11, 2001 we were attacked by nineteen Muslim terrorists. They left final testaments clearly explaining their motivations for committing this horrendous crime against humanity. They wanted to kill the Infidels. And they killed 2,987 innocent people that day — and we have still not managed to conjure up the political will to profile Muslim men at our airports.

Does anyone still believe that this is truly an expression of Political Correctness, our good-hearted and sincere efforts to avoid offending anyone of a different faith or race? Or is this just one more instance of a government and an industry caving in to fear. The fear of being sued by CAIR or their faithful ally, the ACLU.

While Islamic leaders worldwide exhort their eager followers to kill the Infidel, and describe this monumental struggle with unabashed clarity as a War of Islam against the West, of Muslims against Infidels, our own president very carefully describes this same militant religion as a “religion of Peace”. We console ourselves with the comforting illusion that what we are really up against in this so-called War on Terror is just a small fanatical minority who have hijacked a “peaceful religion”. We ignore all information to the contrary, no matter what its source, no matter how valid. Islam has declared War on the West but, none the less, we must be very careful not to offend any Muslims. They might think we’re racists. CAIR might sue us. Jimmy Carter might get upset.

Somehow, my friends, before it really is too late, we have to come out from behind our warm and fuzzy euphemisms and have the courage to confront this world that‘s really there, not the one we wished was there. We can no longer blame our dishonorable inaction on Political Correctness. For, when all is said and done, our so-called PC culture is nothing but another form of cowardice. And this cowardice is not only never going to allow us to solve any of our problems, it’s going to get us killed.

Philadelphia and ACLU Gang Up on the Boy Scouts

Every so often you hear of something so egregious you want to put away the pen and take up arms. For years the ACLU has been harassing and trying to destroy the Boy Scouts even in the face of a Supreme Court decision declaring that the Scouts have a constitutional right to choose adult leaders using any standards they wish. Homosexuals have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but every parent with a brain knows better than to put a son in close quarters with a known homosexual man.

Please note that Philadelphia is back-dooring a violation of the constitutional rights of the Scouts and also violating an agreement on a building built by the Boy Scouts themselves. We have liberalism and the ACLU to thank for this situation which threatens an organization that has saved thousands of boys over the years.

Boy Scouts Sue Philly over Impending Eviction
Pete Winn, (CNSNews.com) May 31, 2009
The Boy Scouts in Philadelphia have filed suit against the City of Brotherly Love to keep the city from evicting the Scouts from a building they have occupied for the last 80 years.

Members of the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council say the city raised the rent on the building from $1 a year to $200,000 a year because of the Scouts' membership policies - policies that require scoutmasters to be heterosexuals and require scouts to pledge to "do their duty to God and country."

"We believe the city is trying to punish us for exercising our First Amendment rights," said Mark Chilutti, vice chairman of the Cradle of Liberty Council, which filed its lawsuit on May 23.

The suit alleges that the city of Philadelphia lets more than 1,000 nonprofit groups meet on city property for little to no rent, including a Baptist church, a Roman Catholic church and the Philly chapter of the Colonial Dames of America.

Ironically, Chilutti said the Scouts actually built the building they are in, and gave it to the city in return for the right to lease it for $1 per year.
"In 1928, we were given the land by the city, and the council raised money to build the building," he told Cybercast News Service . "We believed we had it in perpetuity for as long as we continued to house Boy Scout-related programming."

The Scouts spend about $60,000 a year to maintain the building and periodically renovate it.

"After the initial gift of the land, the city has not put one penny into that building," Chilutti said. "The Scouts have maintained it on an annual basis. We have constantly done renovations - in 1994, we put over $1.5 million in it. We've put a lot of money into it, and we're proud of the building."

"We haven't really changed anything in the 80 years that we've been in that building. It's the city that has changed position," he said.

The Philadelphia City Council voted 16-1 in May 2007 to break its agreement with the Scouts, accusing them of "discriminating" against homosexuals who want to be scoutmasters.

The city did not return calls from Cybercast News Service requesting an interview, but City Solicitor Shelley Smith told the Associated Press that the Scouts are "free to exercise their First Amendment rights."

"What they're not free to do is get a benefit from the city while violating our policy," she said.

Peter Ferrara, general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, said he thinks the Boy Scouts are being penalized for holding traditional beliefs.

"A state or local government cannot penalize an organization or a citizen for exercising constitutional rights," Ferrara told Cybercast News Service . "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Scouts have a constitutional right to choose their adult leaders and not to hire adult leaders they don't want to, and the city cannot penalize them for those values."

Chilutti, meanwhile, said the higher rent would force them to cut programs, and is equivalent to the cost of sending about 800 needy children to summer camp, a point not lost on conservatives like Ferrara.

"Philadelphia has the highest murder rate in the country, one of the highest rates of violent crime. They have enormous trouble with violent youth gangs, teen-age pregnancy, teen-age drug use and dropping out of high school," Ferrara said. "What the city ought to be doing is supporting the Boy Scouts, as much as possible, to teach youth sound moral values, and to counter these terrible trends that are plaguing the city."

The Scouts, meanwhile, say that if they must vacate, the city should at least provide compensation, not charge high rent.

"The city has tried to use the term 'fair market rent' but it's really punitive rent -- $61 per square foot for a building that is in Center City Philadelphia," Chilutti said. "That's unheard of, that's ridiculous. It's more like Trump Tower in Manhattan rates."

Lets Have More Muslim-Only Public Schools

Another area of American society where a double standard is being applied by liberal journalists and activists is in the matter of religion and the requirement that there be no government support of it. If a public school student dares to utter a Christian prayer or put up a poster mentioning Christianity, the ACLU will sue the school principal and the city involved. If public school property were mistakenly to be used to host a Christian-oriented event, there would be outrage and more lawsuits. As we also know, if the ACLU were to carry such a case to a successful conclusion in a federal court, the ACLU’s legal costs would be paid for with taxpayer money – making the filing of such cases a profitable enterprise for the ACLU.

Now, I do not agree with the current, liberal-driven, popular definition of “separation of church and state”. The establishment clause in our Constitution pretty clearly refers to government support of a “particular” religion; it has nothing to do with stamping out of all public buildings all mention of God, Yahweh or Allah. We all know that our Founding Fathers believed that God belonged in public life. Regardless of how you interpret the Constitution, however, what is happening in a taxpayer supported, public Muslim school in Minnesota is clearly contrary to any interpretation. Where is the outrage? Where are the liberals? Why has the ACLU taken no action? This is a consequence of the poison of multiculturalism. This is another chapter in the Balkanization of America that modern liberalism is driving - with little understanding of its long-range consequences.

Wall of silence broken at state's Muslim public school
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune
April 9, 2008

Recently, I wrote about Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights. Charter schools are public schools and by law must not endorse or promote religion.

Evidence suggests, however, that TIZA is an Islamic school, funded by Minnesota taxpayers.

TIZA has many characteristics that suggest a religious school. It shares the headquarters building of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, whose mission is "establishing Islam in Minnesota." The building also houses a mosque. TIZA's executive director, Asad Zaman, is a Muslim imam, or religious leader, and its sponsor is an organization called Islamic Relief.

Students pray daily, the cafeteria serves halal food - permissible under Islamic law -- and "Islamic Studies" is offered at the end of the school day.

Zaman maintains that TIZA is not a religious school. He declined, however, to allow me to visit the school to see for myself, "due to the hectic schedule for statewide testing." But after I e-mailed him that the Minnesota Department of Education had told me that testing would not begin for several weeks, Zaman did not respond -- even to urgent calls and e-mails seeking comment before my first column on TIZA.

Now, however, an eyewitness has stepped forward. Amanda Getz of Bloomington is a substitute teacher. She worked as a substitute in two fifth-grade classrooms at TIZA on Friday, March 14. Her experience suggests that school-sponsored religious activity plays an integral role at TIZA.

Arriving on a Friday, the Muslim holy day, she says she was told that the day's schedule included a "school assembly" in the gym after lunch.

Before the assembly, she says she was told, her duties would include taking her fifth-grade students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform "their ritual washing."

Afterward, Getz said, "teachers led the kids into the gym, where a man dressed in white with a white cap, who had been at the school all day," was preparing to lead prayer. Beside him, another man "was prostrating himself in prayer on a carpet as the students entered."

"The prayer I saw was not voluntary," Getz said. "The kids were corralled by adults and required to go to the assembly where prayer occurred."

Islamic Studies was also incorporated into the school day. "When I arrived, I was told 'after school we have Islamic Studies,' and I might have to stay for hall duty," Getz said. "The teachers had written assignments on the blackboard for classes like math and social studies. Islamic Studies was the last one -- the board said the kids were studying the Qu'ran. The students were told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. That gave me the impression that Islamic Studies was a subject like any other."

After school, Getz's fifth-graders stayed in their classroom and the man in white who had led prayer in the gym came in to teach Islamic Studies. TIZA has in effect extended the school day -- buses leave only after Islamic Studies is over. Getz did not see evidence of other extra-curricular activity, except for a group of small children playing outside. Significantly, 77 percent of TIZA parents say that their "main reason for choosing TIZA ... was because of after-school programs conducted by various non-profit organizations at the end of the school period in the school building," according to a TIZA report. TIZA may be the only school in Minnesota with this distinction.

Why does the Minnesota Department of Education allow this sort of religious activity at a public school? According to Zaman, the department inspects TIZA regularly -- and has done so "numerous times" -- to ensure that it is not a religious school.

But the department's records document only three site visits to TIZA in five years -- two in 2003-04 and one in 2007, according to Assistant Commissioner Morgan Brown. None of the visits focused specifically on religious practices.

The department is set up to operate on a "complaint basis," and "since 2004, we haven't gotten a single complaint about TIZA," Brown said. In 2004, he sent two letters to the school inquiring about religious activity reported by visiting department staffers and in a news article. Brown was satisfied with Zaman's assurance that prayer is "voluntary" and "student-led," he said. The department did not attempt to confirm this independently, and did not ask how 5- to 11-year-olds could be initiating prayer. (At the time, TIZA was a K-5 school.)

Zaman agreed to respond by e-mail to concerns raised about the school's practices. Student "prayer is not mandated by TIZA," he wrote, and so is legal. On Friday afternoons, "students are released ... to either join a parent-led service or for study hall." Islamic Studies is provided by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, and other "nonsectarian" after-school options are available, he added.

Yet prayer at TIZA does not appear to be spontaneously initiated by students, but rather scheduled, organized and promoted by school authorities.

Request for volunteers
Until recently, TIZA's website included a request for volunteers to help with "Friday prayers." In an e-mail, Zaman explained this as an attempt to ensure that "no TIZA staff members were involved in organizing the Friday prayers."

But an end run of this kind cannot remove the fact of school sponsorship of prayer services, which take place in the school building during school hours. Zaman does not deny that "some" Muslim teachers "probably" attend. According to federal guidelines on prayer in schools, teachers at a public school cannot participate in prayer with students.

In addition, schools cannot favor one religion by offering services for only its adherents, or promote after-school religious instruction for only one group. The ACLU of Minnesota has launched an investigation of TIZA, and the Minnesota Department of Education has also begun a review.

TIZA's operation as a public, taxpayer-funded school is troubling on several fronts. TIZA is skirting the law by operating what is essentially an Islamic school at taxpayer expense. The Department of Education has failed to provide the oversight necessary to catch these illegalities, and appears to lack the tools to do so. In addition, there's a double standard at work here -- if TIZA were a Christian school, it would likely be gone in a heartbeat.

TIZA is now being held up as a national model for a new kind of charter school. If it passes legal muster, Minnesota taxpayers may soon find themselves footing the bill for a separate system of education for Muslims.

Philly Punishes Scouts Over 'Gay' Issue

Philly Punishes Scouts Over 'Gay' Issue
Raises rent for building use by $199,999 a year

October 20, 2007, WorldNetDaily.com (Excerpt)

“Prompted by opposition to the Boy Scouts' rule disqualifying homosexuals as troop leaders, Philadelphia has forced the city's local chapter to pay fair-market rent of $200,000 a year for its city-owned headquarters.

As WND reported in June, Philadelphia's city council voted to renege on a 1928 ordinance allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council to have its headquarters in a building on a parcel of public land "in perpetuity" for $1 a year.

The city argues it can't rent public property for a nominal sum to any group that discriminates.

City officials in San Francisco and Boston have made similar decisions displacing the Scouts because of the group's behavior code.

Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix announced this week the Cradle of Liberty Council must pay the $200,000 rent if it wants to remain in the building after May 31.”

Would someone please explain to me exactly who would be in favor of a homosexual male in the role of a Boy Scout leader? I do not understand why the ACLU is out to destroy such a wonderful organization as the Boy Scouts, I certainly would never have allowed my boys to be in Scouting if homosexuals were known to be in its leadership.

My Answer on the ACLU and Child Molestation

Recently I wrote in a general piece on the deterioration of American society that one problem was the position and actions of the ACLU, which, I said, defends child molesters and child pornography.

Some people seemed surprised by this reference and statement, not believing that the ACLU would countenance child molestation and pornography, and think that I am mistaken.

I was a resident of Massachusetts in 1997 when a 10 year old child, James Curley, was sexually abused and then horribly murdered by two men. When they were apprehended, it was found that these men had followed instructions published by the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in how to seduce a child, and how to hide the evidence of the crime. NAMBLA was then sued for damages by James Curley’s parents. We were all stunned when the ACLU jumped in and defended the right of NAMBLA to publish such dangerous and vicious rubbish.

Also, note this information from the Stop the ACLU website:
“In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.”

The case is…: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747

The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit.”

“The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be ” a gross violation of privacy.”

From the Catholicleague.org:

“As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers’ ages was impermissible.”

I Fear We Are Losing

Why is it that I often write about such subjects as Darwinism, liberalism, and the ACLU? It is because American society is engaged in a war between those who believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong – and those who hold more traditional views. Those who believe there is no such thing as right and wrong (whom Bill O’Reilly calls Secular-Progressives or SP’s) believe that the only thing that matters is what feels good, and that their behavior is nobody else’s business.

Although many people do not make the connection, this attitude and the behavior it promotes can be traced to Darwinian theory that we are all just accidental products of random happenings – in a straight line down to the dialectical materialism of Marx, Engels and Lenin – down to the communist and Nazi writings and exploits of Stalin, Mao and Hitler – and down to the ACLU and to modern liberalism.

This is not to say that liberals are always bad or wrong or that conservatives are always good and correct, but the obvious disintegration of American society that we see before our eyes (from a traditional standpoint) is going to continue its downward spiral unless those of us who care about such matters (mostly older people) make the connections and fight harder to reverse this trend. The freedom, the security and the prosperity of our grandchildren ultimately depend on having and enforcing standards.

We know enough of our own history that life was often brutal on the American frontier and in the factories and mill towns of an earlier America, and that lawlessness and reckless behavior was the norm. But always, in the towns and cities of this great country the educated class gained ascendancy and put in place laws and standards of conduct based on common Christian and Jewish teachings that had stood the test of time. Many evil things happened, often by those hypocrites who went to church on Sunday and cheated and stole during the rest of the week, but there was a sense of shared values that were widely recognized and accepted. This is no longer true.

Today the educated class of America consists predominately of modern liberals, who are very much in the majority in our universities, our entertainment industry, our media, and possibly in our courtrooms, and they not only teach our young people that it is cool to despise our culture and our history, and that our country is not worth defending, but also that standards based on traditional values are stupid.

Since Darwinism was the most recent beginning of pure materialism, and the ACLU is today’s dominant enforcer of “anything goes in the name of free speech”, it is these twin evils that must be attacked again and again. Let us be clear. There is nothing wrong with teaching evolution in our schools; if anything, modern science has proven Darwin correct with respect to common ancestry and minor evolutionary change, but modern science has also proven that Darwin was wrong to contend that man developed accidentally from a long series of random mutations. That has been shown to be impossible.

There are many good-hearted people who believe that the ACLU is so important in upholding the freedoms that Americans hold dear that they will overlook it and continue their support even when the ACLU takes up a cause that is unfathomable to decent people. This must change. They must begin to stand back and look at American society and what it has become. Is it right to support the right of child molesters to abuse children? Is it right to destroy the Boy Scouts? Is it right to oppose teachers and administrators who try to stop school-children from wearing t-shirts with obscenities on them? Is it right to promote rap-music filled with obscenities and urging violence against police and women? Is it right that our movies and television programs are filled with pornography, extreme violence and the constant message to young women that shacking up with a man they just met in a bar is something all good little girls do today? What are we thinking?

The other thing conservatives must rally to do is to unite and support conservative candidates for political office. Yes, I know we are disgusted by the corruption, ineffectiveness and hypocrisy some of our conservatives have given us for our trouble, but the Leahy’s, the Kennedy’s, the Durbin’s, the Pelosi’s, the Clinton’s, the Kucinich’s and other liberal Democrats are the vanguard of the secular-progressive movement, and they must be defeated with whatever weapons we have at our disposal.

I want to remind Republicans, whose chances for success in 2008 have already been completely discounted by the mainstream press, what the picture was as recently as 2004. Below is a map of the counties in the USA. The red counties were Republican majorities, while the blue counties were Democrat majorities in 2004.

In Support of a Website that Serves America

Cross-posted from this great website:

“Stop The ACLU was started on February 9th, 2004. We started with high hopes, and we realized we were facing a goliath. There were many reasons why we thought the ACLU needed to be countered, and they are numerous. We wanted to provide a way to inform the public of the ACLU’s agenda, as the MSM sugar coated it. We wanted to be a central database for people to gather, exchange ideas, and get actively involved in real ways of stopping them. It is a monumental task, exhausting, time consuming, and often frustrating. But it is a fight worth fighting.

We would be nothing without our supporters. To all of you, we appreciate the continued support. We have called you to action and you have answered.

There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. For this blogburst I decided to list my top ten list.

10. The [2] ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly…

“My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

9. [3] The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
ACLU POLICY The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.[4] ACLU Policy #47

#8. [5] Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. They oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.

#7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, [6] it’s the ACLU’s top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the [7] ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If it’s abortion or [8] euthanasia, as long as it’s pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU’s pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

#6. [9] The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minutemen, a group who are simply exercising their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have [10] helped illegals cross the border.

#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “separation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for themselves by being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical.
[11] They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against [12] Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent [13] as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its [14] baby Jesus, [15] ten commandments, [16] or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.

#4. [17] The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the [18] bird flu to [19] bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are [20] against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that [21] they don’t practice the principles they preach.
Take a walk into the NYCLU’s Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you’ll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

#3. [22] The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. [23] They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They [24] defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They [25] have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their [26] refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it�s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.

The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.
The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.

#2. The ACLU supports [27] child porn distribution and [28] child molesters like NAMBLA.
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.

There is no doubt the [29] The ACLU are perverting the Constitution.
#1. [30] The ACLU fulfills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one?”

Note: this last refers to the incredible and unfortunate fact that when the ACLU sues a community for allowing prayers or displays, it collects huge attorneys’ fees from the federal government.

Second Recent Case of ACLU Perversion

Last month I wrote about former ACLU official, Charles Rust-Tierney, who is slated to go on trial shortly for possession of lurid child pornography.

“Prosecutors say Charles Rust-Tierney, a former president of the Virginia ACLU, was leading a "double life,'' coaching Little League baseball by day and using a computer in his 10-year-old son's bedroom to view child pornography at night.”

Today a second similar case has appeared in which an ACLU lawyer has been disbarred for the same acts that got former Representative Mark Foley out of Congress. The question arises, “What is the real motivation for the ACLU’s frequent, and usually successful, attempts to thwart those who wish to protect children from access to pornography over the internet, either directly, or at a public library’s computers?”. Not only are these attempts wrong-headed, even if motivated by free speech concerns, but the possibility arises that the true motivation of many ACLU personnel is to debase children for their own perverted ends.

Local lawyer disbarred for kid-sex online chats
Monday, April 16, 2007
By MICHAELANGELO CONTE
JERSEY JOURNAL (Excerpt)

“Chatting online about sex with someone he believed was a 12-year-old boy has earned a Jersey City lawyer permanent disbarment in New Jersey, officials said.

The disbarment is the result of a guilty plea by Steven C. Cunningham to one count of attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child, an act that "reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer," according to the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.

On three separate occasions between September and October 2004, Cunningham chatted online via his home computer in Jersey City with a person he believed to be a 12-year-old boy, officials said. In reality, it was an undercover Passaic County investigator.

During the sessions, Cunningham "described, in lurid detail, certain sexual acts that he hoped to perform on the boy," court papers said.

"He also described sex acts that he hoped to teach the boy to perform on him, inviting the child to 'get together in New York,'" according to the documents.

Cunningham pleaded guilty to the charges Dec. 13, 2005, and was sentenced to parole supervision for the rest of his life, court papers say.”

More on the Accused Child Pornographer, Former ACLU Official

Charles Rust-Tierney, former top official with the ACLU, may possibly be found innocent of the heinous crime of child pornography, but the expressions of neighbors and friends, given the evidence, also shows something unsettling about America today. We are so afraid to make judgments about how sick people live their lives, it is no wonder that our celebrities are the likes of Britney Spears. We are so ready to excuse almost any behavior, that our neighborhoods are full of registered (and also unknown sexual predators). You might want to try this: go to http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/ or to any one of several similar sites, and see how many sex offenders live right around the corner from you.

Charles Rust-Tierney is accused of being heavily involved in child pornography while he was using his ACLU credentials to try to get libraries to make pornography available on library computers. Just as I am writing this, news is coming over the television about the murder of another young child by a child molester in Georgia; the perversion of child pornography is a symptom of a child molester in fact or in gestation.

Conflicting Views of Alleged 'Double Life'
Friends Urge Release on Bond of Va. Man Held in Child Pornography Case
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Friday, March 9, 2007;

Prosecutors say Charles Rust-Tierney, a former president of the Virginia ACLU, was leading a "double life,'' coaching Little League baseball by day and using a computer in his 10-year-old son's bedroom to view child pornography at night.

Yet more than two dozen people -- including numerous fellow lawyers and his former wife -- packed a courtroom in U.S. District Court in Alexandria last week to testify that Rust-Tierney should be released from jail. And yesterday, his attorneys filed letters of support with the court from more than 30 people, including parents of children Rust-Tierney has coached.

"Chuck is the kindest, most gentle human being you could imagine,'' one supporter, Alexandria lawyer Phil Hirschkop, said in an interview. "I have no problem with him being with my children or grandchildren, whatever he's charged with.''

U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa C. Buchanan was not swayed, saying the images found on Rust-Tierney's computer were "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she has seen in 10 years on the bench. Defense attorneys Peter D. Greenspun and Jonathan Shapiro appealed her detention order and will try again today to win their client's release on bond.

Emotions are running high over the case of the youth sports coach and former president of Arlington Little League. Rust-Tierney, 51, who is a public defender in the District, is charged with receipt and possession of child pornography. Prosecutors say he downloaded images that included the sexual torture of children, set to a song by the band Nine Inch Nails.

The case has attracted national attention, with some critics and bloggers accusing the media of downplaying the story because of Rust-Tierney's ACLU connection. He was president of the board of directors of the ACLU's Virginia affiliate from 1993 to 2005. A source close to the ACLU, who declined to be identified because of the case's sensitivity, said Rust-Tierney helped set policy and decide which lawsuits to bring but was not involved in running the organization. He resigned from the ACLU's board the day he was arrested.
Nine years ago, Rust-Tierney addressed the Loudoun County library board in support of an ACLU lawsuit challenging the use of filters on computers at the public library to prevent adults from viewing sexually explicit material on the Internet. A federal judge overturned the policy, ruling that it violated constitutional rights of free speech.

"Recognizing that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library, the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet," Rust-Tierney said in his brief remarks.
Since his arrest, Arlington police have been contacting parents with children coached by Rust-Tierney in the past year to look for any "inappropriate contact,'' said John Lisle, a police spokesman. No improprieties have been found, he said.

Ellen Witherow, a spokeswoman for Arlington Little League, said that the organization is "highly concerned" about Rust-Tierney's arrest and that he had passed a background check. She said Rust-Tierney ended his involvement with the league last year.

Law enforcement officials said Rust-Tierney had coached baseball, soccer and football since about 2003, usually his son's teams.
After graduating from George Washington University Law School, Rust-Tierney worked at an Alexandria civil rights law firm before joining the D.C. Public Defender Service in 1990. Since then, he has worked exclusively with mentally ill clients.
Peter Krauthamer, the office's deputy director, said that he "believes in the presumption of innocence" and that Rust-Tierney will be allowed to resume work if he is released but will be downgraded to paralegal status. If he remains in jail, he will be suspended without pay.

The supporters who attended the recent bond hearing included Rust-Tierney's next-door neighbor. "To us, he was just our good neighbor Chuck," Mike Brandt, whose wife went to court, said in an interview.

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward McAndrew told the judge that Rust-Tierney "has been leading a double life. He's deceived a lot of people, including the people who are closest to him in his life.''

Rust-Tierney's former wife, Diann, testified that she was surprised by the allegations and that he is an "excellent parent" to the couple's 10- and 18-year-old sons. Asked by prosecutors whether she has reservations about trusting him with the children, she said, "Absolutely not."

If Rust-Tierney is innocent, I hope he has a fair trial and is exonerated. Given the state of justice in this country involving high-profile cases, that would be a small miracle.

One Loss, One Win for the America We Remember

The ACLU supported the attempt by the City of Oakland to extend rights to homosexual groups that it refused to extend to a pro-family group – and was upheld by the infamous and zany 9th District Court:

World Net Daily

” A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that municipalemployers have the right to censor the words “natural family,” “marriage” and “family values” because that is hate speech and could scare workers….

However, as the Pro-Family Law Center noted, the court “completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland’s Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful.

When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech.”

****************
We have come to expect these kinds of rulings by the 9th District; what we have not come to expect is this ruling in D.C. that overturned the city of Washington’s longtime ban on guns. Now that law-abiding citizens in D.C. will be able to exercise their rights, we expect the murder rate to drop precipitously – and perhaps the crime rate will drop to the low levels where ‘right to carry’ laws have been enacted.

BREAKING NEWS — Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate individuals’ Second Amendment rights: You can access today’s lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.

According to the majority opinion, “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, “Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.” stoptheaclu.com

Only ABC Reports ACLU-connected Porno Bust

The O’Reilly Factor last night led off with the fact that only ABC, of all major news organizations, reported the arrest for child pornography of a former, and prominent, ACLU official. The Washington Post, O’Reilly said, had mentioned the story in its second section. O’Reilly’s point was that the mainstream press hypes stories that embarrass conservatives, while burying similar stories about liberals.

Here is the story:
“Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography”
Complaint Alleges Virginia Man Accessed, Downloaded Graphic Child Pornography
By JACK DATE, ABC News

Feb. 23, 2007— - Federal agents arrested Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, Friday in Arlington for allegedly possessing child pornography.

According to a criminal complaint obtained by ABC News, Rust-Tierney allegedly used his e-mail address and credit card to subscribe to and access a child pornography website.

The complaint states that federal investigations into child pornography websites revealed that "Charles Rust-Tierney has subscribed to multiple child pornography website over a period of years."

As recently as last October, the complaint alleges, "Rust-Tierney purchased access to a group of hardcore commercial child pornography websites."

Complaint Alleges Access to Graphic Material
Rust-Tierney admitted to investigators that he had downloaded videos and images from child pornography websites onto CD-ROMs, according to the complaint.

The videos described in the complaint depict graphic forcible intercourse with prepubescent females. One if the girls is described in court documents as being "seen and heard crying", another is described as being "bound by rope."

The investigation is being conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and the Arlington County Police as part of the Northern Virginia and District of Columbia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

Rust-Tierney made an initial appearance in a federal court in Alexandria, VA, Friday. He is being detained pending a preliminary hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 28.

Youth Coach, Argued Against Restricting Public Internet
Rust Tierney coaches various youth sports teams in and around Arlington, Virginia, according to court documents.

In the past, Rust-Tierney had argued against restricting Internet access in public libraries in Virginia, writing, "Recognizing that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library, the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet."

Calls to Rust-Tierney's home were not answered and calls to the ACLU of Virginia were not immediately returned.

Court Rules Against ACLU, Protestors in Military Funeral Lawsuit

Court Order Cites Judicial Watch’s Amicus Brief
Jan 30, 2007

(Washington, DC) "Judicial Watch, the public interest group that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law, announced today that a U.S. District Court in Missouri denied a request by the American Civil Liberties Union lawyers made on behalf of a member of the Westboro Baptist Church to prevent the state from enforcing its statute limiting protests “in or about” the location of funeral services (Shirley L. Phelps-Roper v. Jeremiah W. Nixon, et al., No. 06-cv-4156-FJG). The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law on behalf of protesters who disrupted military funerals by picketing and conducting other protest activities.

The court order, issued by federal Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., essentially adopts Judicial Watch’s argument that Missouri’s “funeral protection law” is well-grounded in Eighth Circuit judicial precedent and is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, Judge Gaitan specifically cites Judicial Watch’s amicus brief concerning the right of family members and friends of those killed in battle to mourn their loss. The judge writes: “…amicus Judicial Watch notes that Missouri also has an interest in protecting funeral attendees’ First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.” Judge Gaitan ruled that the ACLU’s client failed to demonstrate a “likelihood of success on the merits” of her arguments. Her request for a preliminary injunction was, therefore, denied.

“We’re pleased the court seems to recognize the right of funeral attendees to mourn those who died defending our country without being disrupted by protesters,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Unlike the ACLU, most Americans believe that mourners should be able to engage in quiet and reflective prayer at funerals. As the court noted, ‘…picketing soldiers’ funerals and belittling the sacrifices made by soldiers are intolerable actions…’”

Missouri lawmakers were spurred into action after protesters began picketing outside the August 2005 military funeral of Army Spec. Edward L. Myers in St. Joseph, Missouri. The law reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in picketing or other protest activities in front of or about any church, cemetery, or funeral establishment ... within one hour prior to the commencement of any funeral, and until one hour following cessation of any funeral…” The Missouri “funeral protection law,” therefore, does not ban picketing altogether, and does not make any reference to the content of the speech it seeks to regulate. As Judicial Watch argues in its brief, this is a “narrowly tailored law” that merely regulates the time and place of protests.” Judicial Watch

Here in Florida we were visited by members of this church or by demonstrators with similar warped views who raised anti-gay signs at the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq. This is another case where the action of the ACLU is unfathomable. They (the ACLU) defend child-molester killers in Massachusetts (the Curley case-NAMBLA connection); they have attempted to destroy the Boy Scouts in many locations; and here they defend funeral disrupters. I don’t understand how anyone can continue to defend or to contribute to this organization. The ACLU (which does have Communist roots) has morphed from being a selective defender of our civil rights to an abuser of our community rights and responsibilities.

Judicial Watch is a nonpartisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life.

Why Are We Concerned About Rep. Keith Ellison?

Newly elected Representative Keith Ellison is being watched closely, not for his Muslim religion, but for the combination of his religion with activities that might indicate a certain sympathy for various forms of jihad, from imposing the Sharia to terrorism. When enough Canadian-Muslims got themselves into positions of leadership to try to push through the adoption of Sharia law, a province in Canada narrowly escaped coming under its rule. Sharia law, of course, is Muslim religious law, with harsh justice that is administered by imams and not by our civil courts. We Americans have some difficult and hard choices to make: we wish to protect the civil rights of all Americans regardless of their religion, but common sense tells us that if enough Muslims gain political office, our country may be doomed to constantly fighting off attempts to impose Sharia and to a weakening of our resolve against Islamic terrorists.

Christopher Hitchens in Slate reports: (Excerpt)

“It was quite witty of Rep Keith Ellison, D-Minn., to short-circuit the hostility of those who criticized him for taking his oath on the Quran and to ask the Library of Congress for the loan of Thomas Jefferson's copy of that holy book. But the irony of this, which certainly made his stupid Christian fundamentalist critics look even stupider, ought to be partly at his own expense as well.

In the first place, concern over Ellison's political and religious background has little to do with his formal adherence to Islam. In his student days and subsequently, he was a supporter of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, a racist and crackpot cult organization that is in schism with the Muslim faith and even with the Sunni orthodoxy now preached by the son of the NOI's popularizer Elijah Muhammad.

Farrakhan's sect explicitly describes a large part of the human species—the so-called white part—as an invention of the devil and has issued tirades against the Jews that exceed what even the most fanatical Islamists have said. Farrakhan himself has boasted of the "punishment" meted out to Malcolm X by armed gangsters of the NOI (see the brilliant documentary Brother Minister: The Assassination of Malcolm X, which catches him in the act of doing this). If Ellison now wants to use his faith to justify an appeal to pluralism and inclusiveness and diversity, he needs to repudiate the Nation of Islam, and in much more unambivalent terms than any I have yet heard from him….” Christopher Hitchens

********************************

And from PowerLine
September 30, 2006
Keith Ellison for dummies

After he unexpectedly won the endorsement of the DFL nominating convention for Minnesota's Fifth District congressional seat on May 6, Keith Ellison faced a serious problem. The problem was how to deal with his well-known involvement with the Nation of Islam. Had Ellison not managed to dispose of the problem, his candidacy would likely have been irreparably weakened in the competitive DFL primary field.

Ellison chose to deal with the problem by writing an audacious letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council on May 28. In the letter, Ellison staked his campaign on three assertions: That his involvement with the Nation of Islam was limited to a period of 18 months around the time of the Million Man March in 1995, that he was unaware of the Nation of Islam's anti-Semitism and that he terminated his involvement with the Nation of Islam when he became aware of it.

Instead of undertaking any investigation of these assertions, the Minneapolis Star Tribune has simply reported the assertions and repeated them as facts ever since. Yet each of these assertions is demonstrably false. Their falsehood is easily established by newspaper accounts documenting Ellison's activities, speeches and beliefs over the relevant period of time.

Moreover, Ellison's long commitment to and advocacy of the Nation of Islam is reflected in the various aliases he used over a period of ten years: Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammad. The Star Tribune has not only failed to connect these aliases to Ellison's involvement with the Nation of Islam, it has erroneously reported that Ellison used these aliases during his student days at the University of Minnesota Law School.

Ellison's involvement with the Nation of Islam includes his support of "the truth" of Joanne Jackson's condemnation of Jews in 1997 as "the most racist white people." In his May 28 letter to the JCRC, Ellison went out of his way to state that, unlike others, he did not come to the defense of the statement that created the controversy that engulfed Joanne Jackson. Rather, according to Ellison, he only called for dialogue. This too is demonstrably false.

Ellison's involvement with the Nation of Islam is not the most offensive of his public associations and commitments. That distinction must belong to Ellison's work with Minneapolis gang leader and murderer Sharif Willis following the 1992 murder of Minneapolis Police Officer Jerry Haaf.

Ellison's February 2000 speech on behalf of domestic terrorist Kathleen Soliah/Sara Jane Olson picked up this reprehensible aspect of Ellison's career and united it with his missionary work on behalf of the Nation of Islam. In that speech Ellison called for the release of Soliah/Olson and spoke favorably of cop killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur. The Star Tribune has never gotten around to reporting what Ellison said on that occasion either.

The new issue of the Weekly Standard carries my article summarizing the most notable aspects of Keith Ellison's public career: "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman." As Power Line readers might guess, my preferred title for the article was "Who is Keith Ellison?" Thanks to Standard online editor Jonathan Last for making it accessible this morning and to Standard managing editor Claudia Anderson for her work on the piece.

Given the Star Tribune's disinclination to examine Ellison's public record, or to get straight what little it has let come to the surface, we thought we might set out a Keith Ellison timeline and post copies of some key articles as a companion to the Standard piece:

1987--Ellison enrolls in University of Minnesota Law School

1989--Ellison publishes the first of two articles in the University of Minnesota Daily under the alias "Keith Hakim." In the first such article, Ellison speaks up for the Nation of Islam.

1990--Ellison participates in the sponsorship of the anti-Semitic speech by Kwame Ture given at the University of Minnesota Law School ("Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?"). Ellison rejects the appeal of Jewish law students to withdraw sponsorship of the lecture. Ellison graduates from University of Minnesota Law School.

1992--Ellison appears as speaker at demonstration against Minneapolis police with Vice Lords leader Sharif Willis following the murder of Officer Haaf by four Vice Lords gangsters in September.

1993--Ellison leads demonstration chanting "We don't get no justice, you don't get no peace" in support of Vice Lords defendant on trial for the murder of Officer Haaf. Ellison attends Gang Summit in Kansas City with Willis.

1995--Ellison supports Million Man March, appears at organizing rally with former Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Muhammed at University of Minnesota. Ellison acts as local Nation of Islam leader in march at office of U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis protesting indictment of Qubilah Shabazz for conspiring to murder Louis Farrakhan. Ellison charges FBI with conspiring to murder Farrakhan. Ellison writes article under alias "Keith X Ellison" attacking Star Tribune for criticizing Louis Farrakhan.

1997--Ellison appears under alias "Keith Ellison-Muhammad" at Minnesota Initiative Against Racism hearing in support of Joanne Jackson. Ellison defends "the truth" of Jackson's statement that "Jews are the most racist white people."

1998--Ellison first runs for DFL endorsement for state representative. Ellison identifies himself as member of Nation of Islam in Insight News article on his candidacy. Ellison runs for endorsement under alias "Keith Ellison-Muhammad."

2000--Ellison gives speech supporting Kathleen Soliah/Sara Jane Olson at National Lawyers Guild fundraiser. Demands Soliah/Olson's release. Asks audience to recall time when "Qubilah Shabazz was prosecuted in retribution against Minister Farrakhan." Speaks favorably of cop killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur.

May 2006--Ellison writes letter to JCRC asserting involvement with Nation of Islam limited to 18 months supporting Million Man March.

August 2006--Ellison appears at unpublicizied fundraiser with CAIR executive director and Hamas supporter Nihad Awad among featured guests.

What are we to make of this? Take a look at Ellison’s May 28 letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council; it has served as the keystone of his campaign. That letter to the contrary notwithstanding, the documents posted above nevertheless by themselves establish that 1) Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam exceeded any 18-month period, 2) Ellison's involvement with the Nation of Islam extended far beyond the promotion of the Million Man March, and 3) that Ellison himself, far from being ignorant of the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism, actively supported it.

The steadfast refusal of the local Minnesota media to examine Ellison’s public record in the course of his congressional campaign represents a striking case of nonfeasance, incompetence and willfully averted eyes that is a story unto itself.

********************************

AND IS THIS THE BEGINNING OF SHARIA IN THE USA?

N.C. lawsuit seeking use of Quran for courtroom oaths gets green light
Gary D. Robertson / Associated Press
January 16, 2007

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A lawsuit filed by the ACLU and a Muslim woman seeking the use of the Quran or other non-Christian texts in addition to the Bible for courtroom oaths should be allowed to go forward, the state Court of Appeals ruled today.

A trial court dismissed the lawsuit in December 2005, saying there was no controversy that warranted litigation. The three-judge appeals panel disagreed, but did not comment on the merits of the case.

The lawsuit, filed in July 2005, claims the state law that says witnesses must take an oath on the Bible is unconstitutional because it favors Christianity over other religions. State law allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath either by laying a hand over a "Holy Scripture," or by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book.

Plaintiff Sydiah Mateen claims she had a request to place her hand on the Quran denied in 2003. Several Jewish members of the North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union also have said they would prefer to swear upon the Old Testament, one of the religious texts of their faith, Chief Judge John Martin wrote in the appeal panel's unanimous decision.

"The government cannot favor one set of religious values over another and must allow all individuals of faith to be sworn in on the holy text that is in accordance with their faith," said Jennifer Rudinger, director of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The issue surfaced after Muslims from the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center in Greensboro tried to donate copies of the Quran to Guilford County's two courthouses. Two Guilford judges declined to accept the texts, saying an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath under state law.

The Attorney General's Office is reviewing the ruling but hasn't decided whether to appeal, spokeswoman Noelle Talley said.