ACLU info

ACLU info

Posted: September 16, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Kevin McCullough

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

My producer and I were talking the other day and we came up with a T-shirt slogan that we feel would sell big in pop culture today. It would read something like this: "Going to Hell as fast as I can ..."

What's bizarre is that they would sell big. Our culture is getting bolder about its moral wrongdoing and seems to have hardened its heart against any possibility of consequences from doing so. And this week, this diabolical, dagger, society that we live in has shown its colors blooming yet brighter.

By now, for example, we've all heard that a judge has outlawed the Pledge of Allegiance because it claims that as a nation we sit under God's authority. It's such an issue of pride for liberals to not admit that there is a God who is more powerful than they are.

This case will be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court (the cuckoo court) where the ruling will likely be upheld. This will throw about a fourth of the nation back under the ruling this same court released last year, and kids will again be banned from saying the Pledge as part of their school day. Hopefully, this will track the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court where some of this insanity will finally be put to an end.

On the same day, another federal judge, this time in Michigan, also decided to also strike down the ban on partial-birth abortion. This is a procedure that is never medically necessary – according to the American Medical Association – and is perhaps the most violent end to a human life known today. If you are not familiar with it, the quick version goes like this: Deliver the baby to within about two inches of actual separation from the mother, stab the baby's head at the base of the neck with a pair of surgical scissors, crush the brain of the child, suction out the brain and finally deliver the dead baby the rest of the way. Yes, a judge – a Clinton judge – decided that somehow that form of premeditated murder is constitutionally sanctioned.

And did I mention that the AMA has ruled that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect either the woman's life or health?

Well, not to be outdone by the federal judiciary, the House of Representatives then decided to pass a "hate crimes bill" that will eventually make it illegal for people of good conscience to have any verbal objections to two men engaging in indecent and medically dangerous sexual acts. The experts have not yet agreed to the extent that this will be prosecutable, but the implication of seeing what has happened in Canada is clear. Such legislation is truly designed to shut down the right of pastors to preach from their own pulpit what they hold as the sincere truth of sacred Scripture. But then again, liberals tend to despise all that God stuff anyway.

For the most part, our modern-day culture – led by the loud voices on the left – are standing on their philosophical mountain tops and shaking their fists into the face of the God who made them as vehemently as they can.

Which is what made the idea for the T-shirt such a hot-seller.

What awaits the reality on the other side of all this moral recklessness is a rude awakening. Unfortunately for many of the leaders on the American left, and those who follow them, barring repentance and an acknowledgement of the God who made them, it will be a day of reckoning that never ends.

But what's the big deal about eternal damnation when it makes such a catchy slogan?

Kicking God further
out the door

Posted: September 16, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By David Limbaugh

© 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton's decision that a California "school district's policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge violates the Establishment Clause," provides a timely illustration of judicial activism at work.

Just to be clear, I'm not here accusing Judge Karlton himself of activism. He determined that he is required by the previous holding of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Newdow case to enjoin the district from the practice.

He ruled that while the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit in Newdow, it did so on technical grounds ("standing") and its substantive holding (forbidding the teacher-led Pledge) still stands. I suspect it may later be determined that Judge Karlton is way off in his legal analysis, but if he is correct, then he was not engaging in judicial activism by following binding precedent (again, assuming it is binding) from a superior court.

This case, however, does highlight the judicial activism of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court in their Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court has primarily mucked up the law in this area (Establishment Clause). The 9th Circuit is even worse, but without the original activism of the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit would have had nothing to hang its hat on in the Newdow case.

If the Court had, through the years, construed the Establishment Clause in accordance with the original understanding of the Framers, these pledge cases – and similar cases – would never have gotten off the ground.

The Establishment Clause was designed to prohibit the Establishment of a national religion or a national church. It was not intended to erect a "wall of separation" between church and state, nor prohibit all endorsements of religion by the federal government. And it was emphatically not intended to force government to be neutral between theism and atheism.

One may believe, as a policy matter, that a government-supported school should not favor one religion over another or one Christian denomination over others. But policy preferences are a separate issue from what the Constitution requires or forbids.

Like it or not, the Constitution, rightly interpreted, allows the federal government (and the states) to "encourage" the Christian religion. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) wrote, "Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution ... the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship."

From the beginning of our constitutional history, the government has honored the God of the Bible, from congressional chaplains, to national days of prayer, to opening prayers in the Supreme Court, to Congress's authorization in 1800 – when the seat of government moved to Washington, D.C. – for the Capitol building also to serve as a church building.

The Establishment Clause, like the Free Exercise Clause, was supposed to guarantee, not restrict religious freedom. But the Supreme Court, in its activist distortions, has largely turned the clause into a weapon against religious liberties, and lower courts have followed suit, and worse.

In the Pledge cases, the argument is that when a public school teacher leads the students in reciting the Pledge, which includes the words "under God," the government is endorsing (establishing) religion. And, to the objection that students may choose not to participate, the anti-Pledgers say, "Students are virtually coerced by peer pressure to participate. They will feel offended or uncomfortable if they don't."

The Supreme Court, if it hears this case, may hold that the thrust of the Pledge is patriotic and secular, and that "under God," is therefore incidental and not the establishment of religion. But the Court should never have to base its decision on such nuance in this area.

The Establishment Clause was never intended to apply to such removed, indirect nods toward religion. And it does not guarantee our right not to be offended or made to feel uncomfortable.

But more importantly, it was not intended to be used as a sword against the free exercise of religion. By going out of its way to find Establishment Clause violations on such tenuous grounds, the Court deprives students who want to recite the Pledge of their free exercise rights. In this way, the religion clauses are turned on their heads to achieve a result entirely opposite from that intended by the Framers.

If the Pledge's opponents ultimately prevail, the government will not be adopting a neutral stance toward religion, but one that prefers atheism – kicking God further out the door.

Beware of those who speciously champion the mythical separation of church and state in the name of religious liberty. All too often the result of their advocacy is the suppression, not the expansion of religious liberties.

HOT SPECIAL OFFER!

Christians persecuted? In America? Open your eyes ... it's happening right now! Best-selling author and attorney David Limbaugh exposes how liberals selectively mistreat Christians in the mainstream media, Hollywood, our schools and universities, and more.

If you'd rather order by phone, call WND's toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).

The ACLU's war on parents

Posted: September 15, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Alan Sears

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

It's tough to be a parent.

In fact, raising your child these days to develop into a healthy, happy, responsible adult has never been harder. Violence and sex saturates television and movies, popular music is filled with profanity and rage – even video games often focus on the darkest edges of human behavior.

It is bad enough that the culture seems at war with parents. But more disturbing are the actions of courts to damage the link between parent and child. And no group has done more to inflict damage on parental rights though the courts than the American Civil Liberties Union working with its zealous allies.

The ACLU defines itself as the "nation's guardian of liberty" dedicated to preserve the individual rights and liberties of all Americans. But in reality, this leftist legal organization has devoted itself to destroying the rights of parents to raise children in the manner they deem appropriate.

This is not some sort of unfounded "right wing" allegation. Sadly, there are many examples that illustrate the ACLU's desire for the state to supersede the parent in raising children.

In December, the ACLU praised a Washington State Supreme Court ruling that prevents parents from listening to their minor children's telephone conversations. The high court determined that a mother violated the state's Privacy Act when she monitored a discussion between her 14-year-old daughter and her daughter's boyfriend. The content of this conversation helped convict the boyfriend of a violent crime.

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case against the mother and in favor of overturning the conviction. Douglas Klunder of the ACLU explained the group's position stating, "I don't think the state should be in the position of encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop on their children."

Attorney Randall Gaylord, the prosecutor on the parent's side, was rightfully incredulous. "I'm concerned that a 14-year-old's right to privacy now trumps the parent's right to be a parent," he said.

The ACLU is also undermining parents' right to teach their children traditional moral and religious beliefs. One of the latest battlegrounds in the organization's war against parents is Boyd County, Ky.

The fight began when the local school district settled an ACLU lawsuit over the right of a student group, the Gay-Straight Alliance, to meet on campus. Part of the agreement mandated that all students, staff and teachers view a one-sided, hour-long video promoting "tolerance" of homosexual behavior.

Understandably, many parents objected to the content, resulting in the desire of about a third of the students to opt-out of the program. Angry at this exercise of basic parental rights, the ACLU threatened new legal action if every student didn't view the propaganda.

"Parents don't get to say I don't want you to teach evolution or this, that, or whatever else," said James Esseks, litigation director for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "If parents don't like it, they can home school, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school."

Mr. Esseks doesn't seem to get it. Public schools should be just that: open to the public. That means open to everyone. Is the public school system merely for students who aren't Christian and who can afford to go to private schools? Indoctrination in the homosexual agenda is not the same as reading, writing, and arithmetic, and most Americans know that. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund are currently battling on behalf of the parents to ensure that their constitutional rights and those of their children are not violated by this so-called "diversity training."

Even on decisions of life and death, the ACLU wants to cut parents out of the picture. The group is strongly opposed to any type of law mandating parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion. In their fact sheet on the issue, the ACLU seems scandalized that parents might have a role to play in this most major of decisions: "These bills would give parents such absolute control over their children's lives that, in some instances, the minors' own constitutional rights would be threatened and their health and well-being endangered."

Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, elaborated on the group's position: "When the state forces parents to be involved, the consequences are often catastrophic."

Parents, Mr. Simon, are not the problem.

In an age where leaders everywhere are crying out for parental involvement in the lives of their children, the ACLU stands out-of-touch – proud to be an obstacle pursuing its own agenda without regard for any of the consequences.

Sadly, the ACLU has proven time and time again their ill intent toward American parents. Despite their claims of standing up for the individual, this arrogant band of leftists is attacking a most basic human right: that of nurturing and protecting one's child in an often-dangerous world.

Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, America's largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding and litigation. He is co-author with Craig Osten of the new book "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values."

The ACLU Exposed

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly

The ACLU exposed: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

Last night, we reported that the Supreme Court of Oregon had ruled 5 to 1 that live sex shows are permitted in that state under the freedom of expression banner. The ACLU and The Oregonian newspaper both filed briefs in favor of that ruling. But why would the ACLU do that? What's in it for them?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states and local communities have the right to limit expression. This is the U.S. Supreme court, in a time, place, and manner, application of standards. That is, you can't have sex on your front lawn, even if it's a personal expression on private property. The Supreme Court realizes the Constitution requires boundaries for what Americans do. If you don't have boundaries, you have chaos. Thus, community standards and public safety trump personal expression.

But the ACLU doesn't believe that. The organization has moved so far left, that now anything goes.

• Item: The ACLU is defending the North American Man Boy Love Association, saying that although the organization champions the criminal rape of children, it has a right to do that under free expression.

• Item: The ACLU endorses virtual child pornography and has defended the right of people to obtain real child porn.

• Item: the ACLU opposed the Minutemen protests at the border, obviously, a legitimate form of expression.

So it seems the ACLU cherry picks its cases. The Minutemen certainly have a right to protest the porous border situation, but the ACLU opposes that expression. — Off the chart hypocritical.

So let's apply the no spin concept to this. The ACLU simply wants a different country, a nation where conduct it approves of, public sexual displays, child molestation literature is allowed. But the ACLU wants to inhibit conduct it disagrees with, like protesting the border and celebrating the birth of Jesus. That's what's going on.

Now my next comments are directed at our liberal viewers. How can you support a group as nakedly, pardon the pun, radical as the ACLU? This isn't about freedom. This is about imposing a radical secular progressive agenda on a country that has traditionally voted on public policy issues. If the live sex act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it'd be voted down big. Remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage.

So once again, the ACLU is using an activist court to undermine what the folks want. This isn't democracy. This is judicial fascism.

It's also a joke. The founding fathers didn't write the First Amendment with live sex shows in mind, OK? Everybody understand that? You can easily pervert the Constitution by saying every kind of expression is protected, but again, that would lead to chaos and conflict.

"Talking Points" believes the 400,000 members of the ACLU should wake up and smell the totalitarianism. This organization is bent on undermining freedom, not fighting for it. And everybody should understand that.

And that's "The Memo."

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

Patricia Hearst, who was kidnapped in 1974 by domestic terrorists and then helped them in a Stockholm Syndrome situation now says Americans need to get tougher when facing the terror war.

Ms. Hearst says, "I was kidnapped by terrorists, but get real. There's so much weeping and wailing and memorializing, my feeling is it'd be a lot healthier if people didn't externalize so much and kind of bucked up a little bit."

Apparently, Ms. Hearst feels we are too afraid of the terrorists and you can make the call on whether that is ridiculous.

By the way, we did promote a story this evening on those abused kids in Ohio, but we need to do a bit more investigation, so we postponed it. It would be ridiculous to put a story on the air that was not ready.

—You can catch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the FOX News Channel. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com