Tag Archives: ACLU

Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment

One Man’s Thoughts Has Moved To

http://www.patriotthoughts.com

You can read this article at:

http://www.patriotthoughts.com/2010/07/14/why-liberals-should-love-the-second-amendment/

Thank You, Vytautas

Divorce Agreement

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950′s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce…. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.  We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.  You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.  We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this?  If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

P. S. S.  And you won’t have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

The ACLU Goes Shooting!

As one of the few ACLU affiliates to affirmatively support the Second Amendment, all of us at the ACLU of Nevada have respect for responsible gun owners, and we often work with gun rights advocates on issues of common concern.

Just the other week, our good friend Robert Johnson from Gun Owners of Nevada invited us to try our hand at shooting. Staff Attorney Maggie McLetchie and I made the trip out to Boulder City and, I’ll be honest, as two people who had never used a gun before, we didn’t know what to expect. I was hoping that I’d at least hit the target!

After a comprehensive lesson on firearm types and safety protocols, we were each set up with a .22 caliber gun.  Maggie was up first:

Her first shot was nearly dead center! The guns we used were relatively quiet and did not kick back into your shoulder as we expected they would. After Maggie’s round was done, it was my turn. I was nervous, but I tried to focus on the target and remember Robert’s tips about breathing and properly holding the gun.

Success! My shots were quite close together for a beginner, and as the lesson progressed I became more comfortable holding the gun and reloading the ammunition. For both of us, apprehension quickly turned into excitement about learning a new skill.

We hope to go out again soon with Robert to practice some more and further improve our marksmanship. Given that summer is fast approaching and it gets pretty darn hot out in the desert, I suspect it will need to be an early-morning excursion.

As someone who had never touched a gun before this experience, I highly recommend familiarizing yourself with them under the tutelage of an experienced teacher. As Americans we have the right to bear arms, but we also have a duty to exercise that right responsibly.

The best part? Maggie and I have found a new hobby!

http://www.aclunv.org/blog/aclu_goes_shooting

Nevada ACLU Supports An Individual’s Right To Bear Arms

One Man’s Thoughts Has Moved To

http://www.patriotthoughts.com

You can read this article at:

http://www.patriotthoughts.com/2010/05/04/nevada-aclu-supports-an-individual%E2%80%99s-right-to-bear-arms-2/

Thank You, Vytautas

Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons Mandates Real ID

Nevadans who breathed a sigh of relief when last year’s Nevada Legislature killed a bill to implement the federal REAL ID program in the state can start worrying again—the Gibbons administration has implemented it anyway.

The director of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) said the regulations give the state the ability to move forward with the REAL ID program, even though state legislators don’t want the state to do so.

REAL ID, a 2005 federal mandate, imposes authentication and issuance standards on state driver licenses and identification cards in order for them to be used for federal “official purposes,” however that is defined by homeland security officials. Essentially, it creates a national ID card, though design features may differ from state to state. It has raised concerns about both privacy and overreaching federal mandates.

But the federal law has faced stiff opposition in state legislatures—including Nevada’s—and the Obama administration and Congress have been drifting toward softening its provisions or junking it altogether.

REAL ID has also faced harsh criticism from advocates of personal privacy, particularly conservatives. Liberals have been more divided.

The federal Homeland Security Department has pretty much suspended REAL ID with extensions of time for the states until Congress can clarify its desires.

Gov. Jim Gibbons said he would implement the REAL ID law by executive regulation. As a member of the U.S. House, Gibbons voted for REAL ID both when it was a stand-alone bill, which failed to pass, and when it was tucked into a troop funding bill, which passed.

In Nevada, privacy advocates—particularly the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, which was instrumental in defeating the 2009 legislative implementation of REAL ID—feel betrayed. “I think that’s bad faith,” said Rebecca Gasca of ACLU of Nevada, referring not to individuals but to the fact that opponents played by the rules and defeated the legislation, only to see the program implemented anyway. “I mean, if they didn’t actually need the legislature, then why was it considered by the legislature? The DMV tried, multiple times, to have the legislature consider pieces of [REAL ID] legislation. That was open, it was transparent, and it was soundly rejected.”

In December, ACLU sent a letter to the governor reading, “Nevadans do not support REAL ID and their elected legislators have refused to adopt it. Here in Nevada, the 2007 Legislature passed a near-unanimous joint resolution, AJR6, urging Congress to repeal REAL ID.” Roberts responded, “AJR6 was passed when the law was passed prior to the final rules being released in January of 2008. The decision was based on many assumptions and unknowns regarding the final rule.”

“Information will still be contained on the back of the card and is scannable. There are no prohibitions on how and who can scan that.”

According to DMV, the regulations adopted by Nevada put it in basic compliance with 18 standards mandated by the Homeland Security Department. Those standards include requirements that the state keep photos of all drivers in its files rather than just using them for licenses; documentation by all drivers of their date of birth, social security number, residential address, and lawful status; background checks on DMV workers who have access to drivers’ information; and “integrated security features” in licenses. Many drivers, particularly older drivers, no longer have such documents—and having shown those documents to the DMV in the past will not help them in the future. They’ll have to present them again.

Gibbons used emergency regulations, in spite of the lack of an emergency. Such regulations remain in force for 120 days, after which legislators will probably void them. The problem is the DMV will likely have REAL ID already in place by the time the legislators can act—and the legislators will then be put in the position of undoing a program that is already in effect.

The Lawyers’ Party

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer and so is his wife Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate.) Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office thirty-one years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democratic Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history like Gingrich.

The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And so we have seen the procession of official enemies in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party grow. Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all consuming. Some Americans become “adverse parties” of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class action suit. We are citizens of a republic which promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws, we are contorted by judicial decisions, we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to use, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America. Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_lawyers_party.html

Airport Rules Changed After Ron Paul’s Aide Is Detained

An angry aide to Rep. Ron Paul, an iPhone and $4,700 in cash have forced the Transportation Security Administration to quietly issue two new rules telling its airport screeners they can only conduct searches related to airplane safety.

In response, the American Civil Liberties Union is dropping its lawsuit on behalf of Steve Bierfeldt, the man who was detained in March and who recorded the confrontation on his iPhone as TSA and local police officers spent half an hour demanding answers as to why he was carrying the money through Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security” and that large amounts of cash don’t qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety.

“We had been hearing of so many reports of TSA screeners engaging in wide-ranging fishing expeditions for illegal activities,” said Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, pointing to reports of officers scanning pill-bottle labels to see whether the passenger was the person who obtained the prescription as one example.

He said screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.

TSA has repeatedly bumped heads against civil libertarians, who argue officers overstep their authority.

The directive tells screeners that “traveling with large amounts of currency is not illegal,” and that to the extent bulk quantities of cash warrant searching, it is only to further security objectives, the ACLU said.

The ACLU sued in June on behalf of Mr. Bierfeldt, who was detained after he sent a metal box with $4,700 in cash and checks through an X-ray machine at the airport.

He had the cash as part of his duties as director of development for the Campaign for Liberty, the offshoot group that Mr. Paul, Texas Republican, created from his presidential bid.

Mr. Bierfeldt recorded audio of the confrontation on his iPhone, including threats, insults and repeated questions about where he obtained the money.

“Are you from this planet?” one officer told him, while another accused him of acting like a child for asking what part of the law forced him to answer their questions about the money.

Some civil liberties activists speculate that TSA wants passengers to be uncertain about its procedures because it gives more power to the authorities in an encounter.

Stop & Frisk Policies Alarm Civil Libertarians

A teenager trying to get into his apartment after school is confronted by police. A man leaving his workplace chooses a different route back home to avoid officers who roam a particular street.

These and hundreds of thousands of other Americans in big cities have been stopped on the street by police using a law-enforcement practice called stop-and-frisk that alarms civil libertarians.

Police in major U.S. cities stop and question more than a million people each year — a sharply higher number than just a few years ago. Many are frisked, and nearly all are innocent of any crime, according to figures gathered by The Associated Press.

And the numbers are rising at the same time crime rates are dropping.

Ronnie Carr’s experience was typical: He was fumbling with his apartment door after school in Brooklyn when plainclothes officers flashed their badges.

“What are you doing here?” one asked, as they rifled through his backpack and then his pockets. The teenager stood there, quiet and nervous, and waited.

Carr said the officers told him they stopped him because he looked suspicious peeking in the windows. He explained that he had lost his keys. Twenty minutes later, the officers left. Carr was not arrested or cited with any offense.

“I felt bad, like I did something wrong,” he said.

Civil liberties groups say the practice fails to deter crime. Police departments maintain it is a necessary tool that turns up illegal weapons and drugs and prevents more serious crime.

The New York Police Department is among the most vocal defenders of the practice. Commissioner Raymond Kelly said recently that officers may stop as many as 600,000 people this year. About 10 percent are arrested.

The practice is perfectly legal. A 1968 Supreme Court decision established the benchmark of “reasonable suspicion” — a standard that is lower than the “probable cause” needed to justify an arrest.

Last year, New York police stopped 531,159 people, more than five times the number in 2002. Fifty-one percent of those stopped were black, 32 percent Hispanic and 11 percent white.

Not all stops are the same. Some people are just stopped and questioned. Others have their bag or backpack searched. And sometimes police conduct a full pat-down.

David Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on street stops, said few searches yield weapons or drugs. And the more people are searched, the more innocent people are hassled.

“The hit rate goes down because you’re being less selective about how you’re doing this. That has a cost. It’s not free,” Harris said.

In Los Angeles, where Bratton recently stepped down as police commissioner, pedestrian stops have doubled in the past six years to 244,038 in 2008. The number of people stopped in cars is higher.

About 15 percent of the stops resulted in arrests in 2002, compared with about 30 percent in 2008, according to an analysis of the data by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

Chicago police refused to release numbers to the AP. Boston police say they do not keep the records. The New Orleans department is not required to keep statistics on pedestrian stops.

Civil liberties groups complain because New York police keep a database of everyone stopped — innocent or not. That makes them targets for future investigations, said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

Los Angeles was forced by federal mandate to release data on street stops — including the race of those stopped — starting in 2000 after a series of scandals. The city government promised to adopt scores of reform measures under federal court supervision.

The LAPD was released from the federal decree in July, but a report last year by the ACLU in Southern California showed that blacks were still nearly three times more likely to be stopped by police than whites.

Some people who are stopped file lawsuits against the city and speak out publicly. Most just accept it.

In Harlem, George Lucas changed his route home from work to avoid a stretch of Seventh Avenue, because he kept being stopped by the police.

It’s so common in some areas that community groups have begun offering classes on how to behave when stopped.

Obama’s Nomination Of Chai Feldblum To The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Obama has nominated far-left homosexual rights advocate Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – a move that makes Congress’ new push to pass the anti-faith ENDA bill even more dangerous to the rights of Christians.

Consider this…

Not only is Feldblum a former legal counsel for the ACLU and the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign, she is a CO-AUTHOR of the ENDA bill that she could soon be enforcing!

And what is Feldblum’s agenda?

Incredibly, Feldblum says that when there is a conflict between religious freedom and homosexual rights, “…society should come down on the side of protecting identity liberty of LGBT people” (LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered).

In this view, YOUR religious beliefs will take second place to someone else’s desire for aberrant sexual activities or gender changes!

She opposed a case in which a Christian couple who owned a bed and breakfast in Vermont and who refused to participate in a same-sex union ceremony in their own home.

Feldblum stated: “Thus, for all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe an inevitable choice between liberties must come into play. In making that choice, I believe society should come down on the side of protecting identity liberty of LGBT people.” Unbelievable!

In Feldblum’s desired workplace, Bob the receptionist can wear a dress and lipstick to work and designate his restroom of choice, yet the owner of the business – even a Christian business owner – will not be able to say a thing about it!

If this latest Obama nominee has her way, even the Boy Scouts would not be able to protect its young members from contact with openly homosexual leaders…

Feldblum is on record as saying that the Boy Scouts should not have won their case at the United States Supreme Court that affirmed their right to free association.

Feldblum and ENDA will put every employee, business owners and even churches and non-profit ministries on the wrong side of the law

The nomination of Chai Feldblum makes the ENDA battle in Congress even more critical. If she is confirmed and ENDA is passed, we should brace ourselves for the most radical, anti-faith interpretation of this bill that is even possible.

Obama’s nomination of Chai Feldblum is no accident. This is all part of a strategic plan to advance a radical, anti-faith, anti-marriage agenda.

Only the Left would even attempt to pass such a radical law and then give the architect of that law enforcement powers!

We have exposed their strategy. Now, we must stand.

Obama Could Use Pandemic To Declare Martial Law

Georgia Congressman Paul Broun warned attendees of a town hall event August 11, 2009 that the Obama administration was planning to use a pandemic or a natural disaster to implement martial law in the United States.

Speaking at the North Georgia Technical College auditorium, Broun said that the “socialistic elite,” as well as Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were planning to exploit a crisis to create a favorable climate for their stalling political agenda.

“They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over,” he said. “We’ve seen that historically.”

Broun’s warning arrives on the back of a letter sent by The National Governors Association to the Pentagon last week, which condemns the military’s plans to usurp domestic control of National Guard and federal forces deployed in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

In December 2008 it was announced that at least 20,000 more active duty soldiers will be placed inside the United States under Northcom to “help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe.”

“Domestic emergency deployment may be “just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority,” or even an increase in domestic surveillance, warned Anna Christensen of the ACLU’s National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of “a creeping militarization” of homeland security.”

The contention that the troops will merely help “recovery efforts” after a major catastrophe is contradicted by the fact that Northcom itself, in a September 8 Army Times article, said the first wave of the deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling “civil unrest and crowd control”.

Congressman Broun has been a thorn in the side of Obama’s agenda since day one, voting against the “cap and trade” bill and slamming the entire concept of man-made global warming as a “hoax”.

He also spoke out against Obama’s plan to create a “national civilian security force,” warning that the program sounded like a 21st century Gestapo and that it was part of a move towards a Marxist dictatorship.

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

Broun also cited the threat to the second amendment posed by the Obama administration and anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder.

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential of going down that road.”

In July 2008 on the campaign trail, Obama called for a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded,” as the U.S. military as this video shows.

http://www.infowars.com/congressman-obama-could-use-pandemic-to-declare-martial-law/