AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU)

http://www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org Date: 11/18/2006 12:35:49 AM
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU)
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY
10004
Phone :212-549-2500
URL :http://www.aclu.org/

  • Opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government
  • Key member of the open borders lobby

Established in 1920 by Roger Baldwin (who candidly stated that “Communism [was] the goal” toward which his efforts were directed), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) characterizes itself as America’s “guardian of liberty,” working to “defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” “We work,” says the ACLU, “also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.”

The ACLU handles more than 6,000 court cases annually from its offices in almost every U.S. state. As of September 2006, the organization claimed to have “more than 500,000 members and supporters.” During the twenty months following September 11, 2001, its membership rolls swelled by some 55,000 — largely as a result of its allegations that the Bush administration was trampling on the civil liberties of Americans during the post-9/11 era.

Since 9/11, the ACLU, along with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, has led a coalition of civil liberties groups urging city councils across the United States to pass resolutions creating “Civil Liberties Safe Zones”; that is, to be non-compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act. The ACLU also endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was introduced by leftist Democrats in Congress to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the September 11th terrorist attacks.

When the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Justice Department instituted a program requiring males visiting the U.S. from Arab and Muslim nations to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the ACLU organized protests against what it called this “discriminatory” policy. It similarly protested an FBI anti-terrorism initiative to count and document all of America’s mosques, wherein extremist calls for violent jihad were not uncommon.

On the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, when FBI and Homeland Security agents were tracking down illegal Iraqi immigrants considered to be dangerous, the ACLU set up a telephone hotline and conducted “Know Your Rights” training sessions giving illegals free advice on how to avoid deportation.

In a 2002 federal lawsuit naming Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta as a defendant, the ACLU challenged a new Aviation Transportation Security Act policy prohibiting non-citizens from working as airport security screeners.  In conjunction with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the ACLU has lobbied against any policy that would authorize security personnel at airports and border checkpoints to scrutinize travelers from terrorism-sponsoring nations any more closely than other travelers. Depicting racial and ethnic profiling as “shameful and unlawful,” the ACLU has represented Muslim and Middle Eastern plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits against numerous airlines.

The ACLU opposes the Computer-Assisted Passenger Profiling System (CAPPS) used by airlines to check for various passenger characteristics that have historically been correlated with terrorist activities. In late 1997, when the CAPPS system was first set to be put in place, the ACLU set up a special online complaint form to collect information on incidents of discrimination and mistreatment by airport security personnel. As Gregory Nojeim explained, his organization was “concerned that the CAPPS system will have an unequal impact on some passengers, resulting in their being selected for treatment as potential terrorists based on their race, religion or national origin.”The ACLU has sued over the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program in Detroit, New York, Oregon, and San Francisco.

The Texas chapter of the ACLU was a signatory to a February 20, 2002 document, composed by the radical group Refuse & Resist, condemning the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations. The document read, in part, “[T]hey [the U.S. government] are coming for the Arab, Muslim and South Asian immigrants. … The recent ‘disappearances,’ indefinite detention, the round-ups, … the denial of any due process … have chilling similarities to a police state.”

In 2003 the ACLU held rallies on behalf of an Intel software engineer in Oregon named Maher Mofeid Hawash, who U.S. officials were keeping in custody on suspicion that he had given material support to Taliban and al Qaeda forces fighting American troops in Afghanistan. (In February 2004, Hawash was convicted of the aforementioned crimes and was sentenced to seven years in prison.)

The ACLU passionately defended Sami Al-Arian, the former North American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). In an effort to thwart the U.S. government’s investigation of Al-Arian’s role in funding PIJ suicide bombings in Israel, the ACLU said that the search warrants authorizing an FBI raid of his home and offices were overly broad, and that the items seized as evidence should therefore be returned to him.

The ACLU also came to the defense of radical attorney Lynne Stewart, who in February 2005 was convicted on charges that she had illegally “facilitated and concealed communications” between her client, the incarcerated “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, and members of his Egyptian terrorist organization, the Islamic Group, which has ties to al Qaeda. On February 17, 2005, just after Stewart had been sentenced for her crimes, the ACLU of Massachusetts declared her prosecution “a chilling testament to what is being done to individual rights and to the rule of law itself in the name of ‘fighting terrorism.’”

In August 2005, the publication G2 Bulletin reported that ACLU lawyers had been present during interrogations of captured al Qaeda and Taliban enemy combatants who were being detained in Guantanamo Bay; in the majority of cases, these attorneys advised the inmates that they were under no obligation to answer military interrogators’ questions.

According to columnist Debbie Schlussel, ACLU attorney Noel Saleh “openly stated at a town hall meeting with federal officials that he has financially contributed to Hezbollah.” Moreover, writes Schlussel, “He [Saleh] has represented a number of Islamic terrorists, including Ibrahim Parlak and ‘former’ PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine] terrorist Imad Hamad.”The ACLU’s affiliations with terrorists are not restricted solely to foreigners. For instance, the organization named unrepentant New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board. Dohrn, along with her husband Bill Ayers, was a 1960s anti-American militant and a leader of Weatherman – described by Ayers as “an American Red Army.”

In the vanguard of the open borders lobby, the ACLU advocates the dissolution of America’s borders and the removal of all restrictions on immigration into the United States. Its Immigration Task Force is currently working on: expanding anti-discrimination laws to require employers to hire illegal aliens; weakening sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens; barring the INS from conducting inspections without a search warrant; requiring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to provide free legal counsel to illegal aliens; and ensuring illegal aliens’ eligibility for welfare benefits. The ACLU has opposed all Justice Department proposals to fingerprint and track immigrants and foreign visitors to the United States, claiming that such measures “treat immigrant populations as a separate and quasi-criminal element of society.” The organization also opposes a Justice Department initiative that would give local and state police the power to enforce immigration laws.

Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser attributes the concerns that many Americans have about illegal immigration to a “wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.” Steven Shapiro of the New York Civil Liberties Union and Wade Henderson of the ACLU’s Washington, DC office claim that the desire to regulate immigration can be traced directly to “hostility motivated by nativism, racism, and red scare.”

“Church and state” issues have been a recurring theme on the ACLU docket over the years. Each spring as high-school graduation approaches, the organization distributes a letter to public schools warning them that no one is permitted pray or make public remarks referring to their faith at graduation ceremonies. Moreover, it calls on public schools to censure any speech that might be viewed as having a religious tone.

In 2006 the ACLU demanded that the town of St. Bernard, Louisiana, adjacent to New Orleans, not be allowed to erect a gold and silver cross as part of its memorial to the victims of Hurricane Katrina — even though the memorial was financed by private funds and is located on private land. That same year, the ACLU sued the school board of Harrison County, West Virginia over a portrait of Jesus that had hung outside a principal’s office for nearly 40 years.

In April 1997 the ACLU of Illinois filed a federal lawsuit challenging the City of Chicago’s operation of scout troops affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) — on grounds that the BSA had traditionally required its members to profess their belief in God, and had barred homosexual men from being scout leaders.

Consistent with its belief that the U.S. is a nation infested with racism and injustice, the ACLU of Southern California endorsed an October 22, 2002 National Day of Protest exhorting Americans to rise up and “Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation.” The document announcing this event stated: “Since September 11, 2001, the authorities have rapidly imposed a resoundingly repressive atmosphere. … All over the U.S. people are being killed by law enforcement officers at an escalating rate. … Hard-won civil liberties and protections have been stripped away as part of the government’s ‘war on terrorism.’” Moreover, this document explicitly defended Lynne Stewart, Jose Padilla (who was indicted on terrorism-related offenses), the cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and the convicted double murderer Leonard Peltier. The ACLU depicts all four of these individuals as persecuted political prisoners of a repressive American government.

“Freedom of speech” cases rank among the ACLU’s highest priorities. For example, the organization asserts that the First Amendment “protects” child pornography, and that there should be no governmental restriction on its distribution, reproduction, sale, or use. In August 2006 the ACLU objected to new Los Angeles City Council rules of decorum banning the use of slurs and profanity; the organization deemed such standards a violation of First Amendment rights. On the same grounds, the ACLU opposes laws prohibiting the disruption of military funerals by radical antiwar demonstrators, and has fought such restrictions in Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio and elsewhere.

Among the American Civil Liberties Union’s additional issues of concern are the following:

  • The ACLU seeks to prohibit security personnel at National Football League games from searching fans for weapons before they enter the stadiums. It similarly aims to prevent New York City subway police officers from searching passengers they deem suspicious. (By contrast, the ACLU adamantly reserves the right to have its own security guards search the possessions of anyone entering its New York City headquarters building.)
  • The ACLU was an Organizer of the April 25, 2004 “March for Women’s Lives” a Washington, DC rally that drew more than a million demonstrators advocating the right to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
  • In recent years, the ACLU has waged an advertising campaign and filed numerous lawsuits aimed at overturning felon-disenfranchisement laws (which bar convicted felons from voting in political elections) in Florida, California, Georgia, and other states.
  • The ACLU sued the state of Florida for having banned publicly funded universities from using state money to finance trips to countries designated as sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
  • In July 2006, the ACLU asked officials in a Detroit suburb to reject a proposal that would require businesses with foreign-language signs to add English translations – characterizing the proposal as “unconstitutional, anti-immigrant and unnecessary.”
  • The ACLU’s policy guide states that all civil and criminal laws prohibiting bigamy and polygamy should be repealed.
  • In June 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the City of Indianapolis because of a newly passed local ordinance that would fine convicted child molesters, predators, and rapists $600 if they were found within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, swimming pools, recreation centers, or sports fields when children were present.

The ACLU has received funding from the Open Society Institute, the Arca Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation, the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Columbia Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the JEHT Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Lear Family Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago.

Ford Foundation — Extremely liberal and leftist — read the lists of liberal groups they support — links dont work but you can copy and paste into google for a very scary search

  • Assets: $10,685,961,044 (2004)

  • Grants Awarded: $522,872,210 (2004)

The Ford Foundation was originally funded by Ford Motor Company stock from the estates of Henry and (his son) Edsel Ford in 1936. While there are hundreds of exceptionally wealthy foundations that finance leftist groups and causes, Ford leads the way in this regard. Its level of grant awarding is approximately fifteen times the amount of the three largest conservative foundations combined.

Henry Ford II was the son of Edsel and grandson of Henry Ford, and the head of the Ford Motor Company in the postwar era. When he resigned from the Ford Foundation’s board of trustees in 1977, he made a statement expressing his profound disgust with the Foundation’s drift to the political left. “In effect,” he wrote in his resignation letter, “the Foundation is a creature of capitalism, a statement that, I’m sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the Foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the beneficiaries of the Foundation’s grant programs.” He lamented that Ford was rejecting the very economic system whose abundance made its existence, as well as that of all other philanthropic foundations, possible. Since that time, Ford grants have been directed even more generously towards the anti-capitalist, anti-business enterprises of the political left.

The Ford Foundation derives its income solely from investments in international securities and does not accept contributions from any other source. As of September 2004, the Foundation had assets valued at more than $10 billion and a grant budget of over $500 million per year. An examination of the list of Ford Foundation grant recipients reveals a great deal about the Foundation’s values and objectives.

Soon after the 9/11 attacks, for example, the Ford Foundation gave $150,000 to the pro-Castro Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) – a grant formally designated “for racial justice litigation, advocacy, and educational outreach activities related to the detention and racial profiling of Arab Americans and Muslims following the World Trade Center attack.” In March 2002, CCR president Michael Ratner placed the blame for anti-American terrorism squarely on the shoulders of the United States. “If the U.S. government truly wants its people to be safer and wants terrorist threats to diminish,” he said, “it must make fundamental changes in its foreign policies . . . particularly its unqualified support for Israel, and its embargo of Iraq, its bombing of Afghanistan, and its actions in Saudi Arabia. [These] continue to anger people throughout the region, and to fertilize the ground where terrorists of the future will take root.”

Such sentiments are consistent with those of Ford Foundation President Susan Berresford, who, in the wake of 9/11, exhorted Americans to “explore the issues behind the headlines and broaden [their] understanding about the countries from which the attacks came.” Characterizing the deadly hijackings as a wake-up call designed to make Americans see the responsibility they themselves bore for the horrors of that day, Berresford said, “For many living and working near ground zero, the 9/11 attacks had the same effect as any terrible shock. They forced us to think more deeply about what we do, how we live our lives, and whether we can do better.” Given its ideological compatibility with the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Ford Foundation also gave CCR $250,000 in 2000, and another $75,000 in 2004.In 2002 the Ford Foundation gave a $100,000 grant to the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) “as core support for activities to ensure the human rights of non-citizens detained in the United States in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.” The NLG, which originated as a Soviet front group, stands in the vanguard of the Open Borders movement and is one of the chief organizations championing the rights of Taliban soldiers held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Also in 2002, Ford gave a $300,000 grant to Fenton Communications “to promote informed voices in response to the September 11th attacks, with an emphasis on the protection of civil liberties and prevention of discrimination.” These “informed voices” belonged to members of the leftist anti-war group September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, whose coordinator, David Fenton (the head of Fenton Communications and a longtime backer of anti-American causes), handled its media campaign. With the help of Ford’s philanthropy, this group has taken its message across the United States and around the world; it is a message that blames American policies for having spawned Islamist terrorism and hostilities in Iraq. Peaceful Tomorrows representatives have spoken at universities, participated in major antiwar marches, and taken to the airwaves to make their case against the Bush administration.Another noteworthy hallmark of the Ford Foundation’s grant philosophy is its pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel bent. For instance, Ford was a major funder of the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa. The conference, which concluded just two days before the 9/11 attacks, and which the United States boycotted in protest, was largely a forum for anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric, verbal and physical harassment of Jewish delegates, tirades against the United States and Israel, and declarations equating Zionism with racism.Ford has also funded the Palestinian Committee for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment, which maintains that Israel is a “racist, apartheid state.” Other recent Ford grants include: $350,000 (from 2001-2003) to the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, which disrupts Israeli Defense Force (IDF) anti-terror activities and is associated with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a radical anti-American and anti-Israel group that similarly disrupts IDF missions and gives material support to Palestinian suicide bombers; $135,000 (in 2001-2002) to the Health, Development, Information and Policy Institute, which advocates the boycotting of Israeli goods; $200,000 (in 2001) to Ittijah, a Haifa-based NGO which, at the aforementioned Durban Conference, played a prominent role in denouncing “Israeli-state racism towards Palestinian citizens” and “the apartheid [which] the State [of Israel] practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip”; $50,000 (in 2000) to LAW, a Jerusalem-based NGO that depicts Israel as an oppressive nation that inflicts human rights violations, “apartheid,” “war crimes,” and “crimes against humanity” on its Palestinian minority; $550,000 (from 2000-2002) to MIFTAH, a Jerusalem-based NGO whose priorities are to undermine Israel and defend the Palestinian Authority; $680,000 (in 2001-2002) to the New Israel Fund, a Washington-based group that funds numerous organizations which regularly make anti-Semitic comments and false, highly politicized charges against Israel; and $700,000 (from 2000-2002) to the Palestinian Non-Governmental Organization Network (PNGO), consisting of more than 90 Palestinian NGOs. It should be noted that shortly after 9/11, President Bush signed an order prohibiting tax-exempt American organizations (such as the Ford Foundation) from providing any further funding to Palestinian NGOs – because of their suspected links to terrorist groups.A 1968 Ford Foundation “seed grant” created the radical Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), now the most influential Hispanic advocacy group in the United States. During the past three and half decades, Ford has given more than $25 million to this organization; nearly half of this amount ($11,285,000) was given between 2000 and 2004. MALDEF is a major player in the open borders movement, which seeks to liquefy American borders and grant amnesty and full civil rights to all illegal immigrants already in the U.S.The Ford Foundation has been a longtime, loyal supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as evidenced by its $7 million grant to the ACLU in 1999. “The ACLU has no better partner and friend than the Ford Foundation,” said the ACLU’s then-executive director Ira Glasser. “It is fitting that the largest single gift . . . ever to the ACLU, should come from Ford.”

The Ford Foundation is a member organization of both the Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG) and the the International Human Rights Funders Group (IHRFG); the latter is a network of more than six-dozen grantmakers dedicated to funding leftwing groups and causes. (For a complete list of IHRFG grantmakers, click here.)Committed philosophically to the principles of racial, ethnic, sexual orientation and gender-based preferences, the Ford Foundation candidly celebrated its role in helping win the 1993 Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action, which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s race-based admissions system. “These landmark decisions,” said the Ford website, “reaffirm the Ford Foundation’s values of social justice and bolster continuing work for racial, sexual and economic equality.”The Ford Foundation’s values and ideals are reflected unmistakably in its funding priorities. These ideals include the emasculation of homeland security and anti-terrorism measures; the dissolution of American borders; the promotion of mass, unchecked immigration to the United States; the redistribution of wealth; the blaming of America for virtually every conceivable international dispute; the false depiction of Israel as an oppressor state that routinely victimizes its Palestinian minority; the weakening of American military capabilities; and a devotion to the principle of preferences based on race, ethnicity, gender, and a host of other demographic attributes. By using its enormous wealth to fund organizations that promote these ideals, the Ford Foundation plays a major role in shaping American culture and public policy.A further sampling of the leftwing groups and programs funded by the Ford Foundation includes: the Tides Foundation; the Tides CenterPeople for the American Way (PFAW); the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense & Education Fund (NAACP-LDEF); the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); the American Friends Service Committee; the National Council of La Raza; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF); the United States Student Association; the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR); the National Lawyers Guild (NLG); Fenton Communications; the United Nations World Conference Against Racism; the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights; LAW; Ittijah; MIFTAH; the New Israel Fund; the Alliance for Justice; the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund; the National Organization for Women; Save The Children Fund; the Union of Concerned Scientists; the Union for Palestinian Medical Relief Committee; the Rainforest Action NetworkPublic Citizen; the Earth Action Network; the Environmental Working Group; the Environmental Defense Fund; the Earth Island Institute; Friends of the EarthHuman Rights Watch; Human Rights First; the Cornell University Peace Studies Program; the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; the Institute for Public Accuracy; the Migration Policy Institute; the Brookings Institution; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the International Federation of Human Rights; the National Immigration Forum; Physicians for Human Rights; Physicians for Social Responsibility; the William J. Brennan Center for Justice; the Center for Community Change; the Neighborhood Funders Group; the Council on Foundations; the International Crisis Group; the World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation; the National Wildlife Federation; the Urban Institute; the Trust for Public Land; the Political Research Associates; Oxfam International; the Pacifica Foundation; the National Womens Law Center; National Public Radio (NPR); the National Immigration Law Center; the American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education; the National Alliance for Choice in Giving; the Feminist Majority Foundation; the Immigrant Workers Citizenship Project; Democracy Now Productions; the Center for Women’s Policy Studies; the USAction Education Fund; the Rockefeller Family Fund; the Proteus Fund; the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP); the Ploughshares Fund; Oxfam America; the Palestinian American Research Center; the Institute for Social Justice; EcoTrust; the Worldwatch Institute; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; the Womens Institute for Leadership Development (WILD) for Human Rights; the Drug Policy Alliance; the Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO); the Constitutional Rights Foundation; the Democracy Matters Institute; the Womens Action for New Directions (WAND) Education Fund; the World Resources Institute; the Women of Color Resource Center; the Center for Reproductive Rights; the Women’s Foundation; the Woodstock Institute; the World Conference on Religion and Peace; the World Order Models Project; the United Nations; Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN); Planned Parenthood; Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health; the New America Foundation; the Native American Rights Fund; National Partnership for Women and Families; National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice; the Center for the Advancement of Women; the National Council of Negro Women; the International Forum on Globalization; the National Center for Lesbian Rights; the National Center for Human Rights Education; the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center; the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force; the National Center for Fair and Open Testing; the Mississippi Workers Center for Human Rights; the Center for Voting and Democracy; American Council for Voluntary International Action; Global Rights; the Global Peace Congress; the Fund for Peace; the Environmental Health Coalition; the Environmental Law Institute; the Environmental Grantmakers Association; Earth House; EarthRights International; Earth Day Network; the Center for Public Policy Priorities; the Center for Public Integrity; the Center for Law and Social Policy; the Carter Center; the Border Network for Human Rights; the the International Peace Academy; the Aspen Institute; the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission; the Western Prison Project; We the People Media; Harvard University (black studies); Wayne State University (ethnic, black and poverty studies); University of Wisconsin (black and poverty studies); Clark Atlanta University (Environmental Justice Resource Center); the University of Virginia (black studies); the University of Texas (for the [Mexican] Border Philanthropy Project); the University of Southern California (Center for Urban Education); the University of North Carolina (black studies); the University of Notre Dame (Hispanic studies); the University of Minnesota (Institute of Race and Poverty); the University of Michigan (for the Environmental Justice Initiative); the University of Massachusetts (for the Center for Inclusive Teaching); the University of Maryland-College Park (for the Consortium for Gender Race and Ethnicity, African-American Studies Program and Women’s Studies Program); Barnard College (black and ethnic studies); the University of Kansas (School of Social Welfare); the University of Illinois at Chicago (for integrating diversity into its research, teaching and living environment); Cornell University (Africana studies); Tufts University (peace studies – Humanitarian and War Project); Temple University (labor and poverty studies); Swarthmore College (Islamic studies); Spelman College (Women’s Research and Resource Center); Smith College (for feminist studies); San Francisco State University (National Sexuality Resource Center); City University of New York (Hispanic, black, women’s and queer studies); Princeton University (diversity studies); Pace University (black and women’s studies); Arizona State University (to study affirmative action and diversity in wake of Grutter v. Bollinger); Ohio State University (to study affirmative action and diversity in wake of Grutter v. Bollinger); Oberlin College (Islamic studies); Brown University (Teaching and Research on Women-women’s studies; War and Peace Project); Northwestern University (Institute for Policy Research – urban studies); New York University (for civil rights advocacy, black and women’s studies); Duke University (Center for Study of Muslim Networks); Hamilton College (multicultural studies); Boston University (Islamic studies; peace and security studies; Johns Hopkins University (for the Institute for Policy Studies); Emory University (Islamic and black studies); Colorado State University (environmental advocacy); Columbia University (to study Brown v. Board of Ed.; black studies); Center for International Conflict Resolution; War and Peace Studies; Human Rights Justice Project; the United Nations Foundation; the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Educational Fund; Refugees International; the Rebecca Project for Human Rights; the Rainforest Alliance; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Public Agenda Foundation; Progressive, Inc.; the Progressive Jewish Alliance; the Poverty and Race Research Action Council; the Population Council; the Organization for a New Equality; the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers; the Nine to Five Working Women Education Fund; the Institute for Womens Policy Research; the Immigration and Refugee Services of America; the Humanitarian Project (social justice); the Human Family Educational and Cultural Institute; Friends of the Khalidi Library (Islamic Law); Freedom Inc.; Free Press; the Center for Economic and Social Rights; the Center for Economic and Policy Research; the Center for Defense Information; the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society; Arts of Peace; the Arms Control Association; the Tamer Institute for Community Education for Palestinians Living in the West Bank; the Arab Image Foundation in Lebanon; the Arab Studies Society; the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizen’s Rights; and the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (MALDEF)

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (MALDEF)
604 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA
90014 
Phone :213-629-2512
URL :http://www.maldef.org/

  • The most influential Hispanic advocacy group in the United States
  • A creation of the Ford Foundation, from which is has received more than $25 million
  • Advocates open borders, free college tuition for illegal immigrants, lowered educational standards to accommodate Hispanics, and voting rights for criminals

Founded in 1968 with a $2.2 million “seed grant” from the Ford Foundation, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) describes itself as “the leading nonprofit Latino litigation, advocacy and educational outreach institution in the United States.” MALDEF’s mission is twofold: to “safeguard the civil rights of Latinos” and to “expand the opportunities for Latinos” in American society. MALDEF defines the category of Latinos to encompass both American citizens and illegal aliens. Consequently, the organization supports policies that run counter to American laws, especially American immigration laws.

In the course of its history, MALDEF has undertaken numerous legal campaigns to abet the cause of illegal immigration. In the 1980s, the organization threw its legal clout behind the claims of illegal immigrants in Texas, who demanded a right to a free education in the state at the taxpayers’ expense. In a successful lawsuit, MALDEF argued that denying the plaintiffs this “right” was unconstitutional. MALDEF has also brought suit against public colleges and universities, charging that they deny admission to illegal immigrants due to their “perceived immigration status.” (The schools have denied the allegation.) In a corollary campaign, MALDEF has sued to compel universities to charge low, in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants. MALDEF also holds that failing to provide bilingual ballots for Hispanic voters is discriminatory, and equates English-language ballots with the racism-inspired literacy tests once used to disenfranchise black voters in the American South.

In 1994, MALDEF condemned Operation Gatekeeper, a U.S. government program intended to restore integrity to a portion of the California-Mexico border, across which many thousands of illegal aliens streamed each year. Condemning this program for callously “diverting” illegal border-crossers “from California to the harsh and dangerous Arizona desert,” MALDEF charged that Americans opposing unrestricted immigration were motivated largely by “racism and xenophobia.” 

MALDEF has repeatedly placed its support for illegal immigration above American national security. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the organization spearheaded a protest campaign against Operation Tarmac, a federal crackdown on airport workers with immigration violations. According to MALDEF, such law-enforcement efforts amounted to “actions that harm the civil rights of Latinos rather than protect them.”

MALDEF was a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress to oppose Patriot Act II on grounds that it contained “a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers … that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights.” In addition, MALDEF has endorsed the goals of the California-based Coalition for Civil Liberties, which tries to influence city councils nationwide to pass resolutions of noncompliance with the provisions of the Patriot Act. In 2004, MALDEF emerged as a leading champion of the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which, under the rubric of promoting “our nation’s safety,” sought to impede the ability of federal authorities as well as state and local law agencies to enforce immigration laws.

MALDEF favors the issuance of drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. While acknowledging that this confers de facto citizenship and rewards lawbreaking, the organization nonetheless maintains that the measure is necessary to prevent “discrimination” against immigrants. In MALDEF’s view, biases against minority immigrants pervade virtually every aspect of American life, as expressed in MALDEF’s denunciation of the “customary practice of workplace discrimination” against Latinos.

Trumpeting the value of immigrants who currently reside in the U.S. in violation of immigration law, MALDEF states that America’s “failed immigration policy … has resulted in a complete lack of legal recognition of millions of immigrants who are the backbone of the U.S. economy … doing the jobs that U.S. citizens and residents do not want.” On the basis of these purported contributions to American society, MALDEF has exhorted Congress “to consider legalization” for all “undocumented persons living and working here in the U.S.” 

Education is another focus of MALDEF‘s activism. The organization has repeatedly filed lawsuits aimed at forcing states to mandate bilingual education in public schools, and has sought to suppress successful ballot initiatives — such as California Proposition 227 and Arizona’s Proposition 203 — to ban bilingual education. After California voters passed Proposition 227 in 1998, MALDEF, along with the ACLU, filed for a temporary restraining order to keep the state’s largest school district from implementing the will of the voters. MALDEF has also waged a prolonged legal battle to lower educational standards to accommodate Latinos. The organization’s campaign against the use of standardized tests to evaluate students is of a piece with this effort. In the late 1990s, MALDEF filed a class-action suit against the state of Texas to prevent the state’s schools from conditioning a high-school diploma on a student’s ability to pass a basic academic achievement test, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. Attorneys for MALDEF argued, unsuccessfully, that because some students, including a quarter of Hispanic students, failed the test, it was “unfair to all students,” and to “minority students” in particular.

A staunch defender of affirmative action programs, MALDEF has sought, by means of lawsuits and legislative proposals, to stop universities from using standardized test scores in the admissions process. In 2004, MALDEF filed suit against California State University, claiming that the school “misuses standardized test scores” and thereby creates a system that is “dysfunctional and unfair” to minority students. In support of this accusation, MALDEF adduced the fact that the university “attaches great weight to an applicant’s SAT or ACT score.”  

Although MADLEF professes a commitment to expanding opportunities for Latinos, that commitment has observably wavered whenever the individuals in question have deviated, even if only hypothetically, from the organization’s uncompromising support for unrestricted immigration. Thus, in 2001 and in subsequent years, MALDEF declared against the nomination of Miguel Estrada, a Honduran immigrant, to the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Among its objections, MALDEF cited the possibility that Estrada could fail to “protect the labor and employment rights” of “undocumented workers.” In January 2005, MALDEF opposed the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales to the post of U.S. Attorney General. The organization praised Gonzales’s personal history — he is of Mexican ancestry — as “compelling,” but expressed concern that he might allow states to enforce immigration laws.

As part of its advocacy campaigns, MALDEF has repeatedly portrayed its political opponents as racists who hold Latinos in low esteem. In the organization’s view, supporters of making English the official language of the United States are “motivated by racism and anti-immigrant sentiments,” while advocates of sanctions for employers reliant on illegal labor seek to discriminate against “brown-skinned people.” Similarly, opposition to the distribution of drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants is rooted in “fear and prejudice.”

Significantly, however, MALDEF has its own connections to racist sentiments and groups. MALDEF’s Founder, Mario Obledo, said in 1998: “California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave. They should go back to Europe.” Additionally, MALDEF has long partnered with Latino organizations like the National Council of La Raza (“the Race”), which openly seek to advance what they perceive to be their interests as a distinctive racial group. Composed of a 35-member board of directors and a staff of 75 employees (including 22 attorneys), MALDEF is not a membership organization. Thus its funding derives primarily from a few corporations and large foundations, most notably the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation. It has also received generous funding from the Ahmanson Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Verizon Foundation.

Olmert presents plan to Bush: trade West Bank for 15 years of peace — Bad move you can’t make treasties with Islam

Olmert presents plan to Bush: trade West Bank for 15 years of peace

Breathtaking short-sightedness. What happens at the end of the 10- to 15-year hudna? The Muslims will fight again to destroy all of Israel, and will be that much stronger because of this. Don’t Olmert and Bush realize that? No, because they know nothing about the jihad ideology or Islamic law, and are sure that Islam is a religion of peace.

“Israel secretly studies ‘bold’ peace bid: Would surrender large tracts of West Bank,” by Mitch Potter in the Toronto Star, with thanks to Carl:

JERUSALEM—Bedevilled by the continuing scourge of homemade Qassam rocket attacks, Israeli officials are believed to be exploring a new diplomatic overture that calls for the surrender of large swathes of the West Bank to a new Palestinian leadership in exchange for a decade-long ceasefire.The plan, still in the formative stages, was outlined yesterday in the Hebrew daily Ma’ariv as a “bold and original” initiative that would enable the creation of a provisional Palestinian state as a first step toward normalization with Palestinians and the wider Arab world.

Israeli President Ehud Olmert secretly presented the concept to President George W. Bush during a meeting at the White House Monday, the Ma’ariv report said, citing unnamed political sources in Washington and Jerusalem.

Palestinian and Israeli officials refused comment on the initiative, which Ma’ariv described as “consensual realignment” — a term that implies Israel now is willing to involve Palestinians in a negotiated withdrawal from parts of the West Bank, where more than 250,000 Jewish settlers live on land conquered by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War.

But Ghassan Khatib, a senior Palestinian political figure, told the Toronto Star that diplomats working beneath the radar have begun “an exchange of views about the potential of moving forward on the basis of a long-term ceasefire of 10 or even 15 years.”

Leaders of the militant Hamas movement have for many years spoken of such a long-term hudna, or ceasefire, but only on the condition of a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 armistice lines — terms deemed unacceptable to the Israeli leadership.

But as domestic and international pressure mounts for a renewal of regional diplomacy, Israeli officials now are re-examining whether a ceasefire can be struck on the basis of the more limited West Bank withdrawal the Olmert government was elected to enact.

“The big difference now is that Hamas is in power. And some of the Israeli officials who are examining this idea are realizing that what the Hamas offers in terms for a 10- or 15-year ceasefire is really not very different from what the (internationally brokered peace plan) Roadmap describes in its interim phase — it is just another name for a Palestinian state with provisional borders,” said Khatib, who served under the previous Palestinian Authority government as labour minister.

“There is an exchange of views happening because some people believe there is potential here.”

Wal-Mart promoting book that calls God ‘fat black dyke’ Sexually explicit ‘how-to’ manual sold as ‘stuff youth need to know’ — While Wal-Mart calls it “a great mix of real-life examples and life-saving info,” it includes sections called, “My First Time F—ing a Girl” and other obscenities. It has information on “safe” sex devices and assures its audience that condoms are 100 percent effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, even though the World Health Organization, a longtime condom supporter, admits they fail one out of five times

 You might want to contact Wal-Mart http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=221 

Wal-Mart promoting book that calls God ‘fat black dyke’
Sexually explicit ‘how-to’ manual sold as ‘stuff youth need to know’ 

By Bob Unruh
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52999

A book that family organizations in Canada had warned about just weeks ago has found its way into the Wal-Mart stock list, and while it calls God a “fat black dyke” and provides how-to information for same-sex experimentation, the store says it’s the “stuff youth need to know.”

It’s called “The Little Black Book for Girlz: A Book on Healthy Sexuality” and it is produced by St. Stephens’ Community House in Toronto, an organization that has fled its Christian foundation.

While Wal-Mart calls it “a great mix of real-life examples and life-saving info,” it includes sections called, “My First Time F—ing a Girl” and other obscenities. It has information on “safe” sex devices and assures its audience that condoms are 100 percent effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, even though the World Health Organization, a longtime condom supporter, admits they fail one out of five times.

The alarm about the book initially was raised by Joseph Ben-Ami, the executive director of the Institute for Canadian Values, who told WND this fall that Canadian officials were considering using the book in public schools.

“We have to find a way to stop this from happening,” Ben-Ami told WND at the time. “People don’t know this is happening.”

The graphic manual promotes lesbianism to young girls, gives explicit instructions for engaging in oral or anal sexual acts and instructs girls that only 10 percent of the population is heterosexual.

A report from LifeSiteNews.com said the book also recommends sewing latex squares into their underwear “for added fun.”

The current online catalog for Wal-Mart lists the book price at $11.58, and it says the manual is “not just a book about sex, but a look at girl culture by teenagers. No stuffy school textbook. No nosy adults. … ”

“It’s all stuff that youth need to know…The Little Black Book for Girlz is an important, take-anywhere empowerment guide. Girls shouldn’t leave their teen years without it.”

When WND reported on the issue in September, the text was available online at St. Stephen’s House but it was removed shortly after the WND report surfaced.

Ben-Ami called it, “a thinly veiled propaganda piece that undermines healthy parent-child relationships, substitutes voodoo myths for actual science, and provides advice that, if followed, will certainly result in real and serious harm to those who follow it.”

It tells girls that most parents are homophobes. “So are children until they get minds of other own,” it said.

St. Stephen’s declined several opportunities to respond to questions about the book. But it was started by the Anglican Diocese in 1962 and “was” a Christian-based organization until 1974. It now gets government money, almost $8 million this year.

If “you need someone to represent God The Holiness, then for me, it’s a fat black dyke” the book tells readers.

“What this statement has to do with healthy emotional and sexual development is beyond us,” Ben-Ami said.

His concern is that Canadian authorities now are reviewing the guide for its possible uses. In Canada, which legalized same-sex marriage about a year ago, school curricula that refers to a man-and-woman as a couple has to be dropped.

“‘The Little Black Book’ is one of the most obscene and irresponsible ‘educational’ books we have come across,” said the Canadian family institute. “Canadians from all walks of life need to take action now to ensure that children are not exposed to its harmful influence.”

Reminding readers that it’s intended for fairly young girls, the online version honored the 40th anniversary of the Barbie doll with a list of recommendations for the occasion.

Those include “Shave her head and give her a nose ring,” “Have Barbie marry another Barbie,” “Have her take part in an orgy,” and “Give her leather bondage gear, a whip and chains.”

It also lists “Fun alternatives to intercourse: Petting, Cyber sex, phone sex, kissing, making out, blowjob” and others.

It also offers tips about having sex that “help you make the jump and land with a smile.”

Wal-Mart, which confirmed to WND just this fall that it had joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, also has contributed $60,000 to the activist group called Out & Equal.

But it also is facing protests because of its suddenly pro-homosexual advocacy.

Our Enemies’ Glee

Our Enemies’ Glee
By Amir Taheri
New York Post | November 17, 2006

Radical elements across the Middle East see last Tuesday’s defeat of President Bush’s Republican Party as their victory. Calling the election “the beginning of the end for Bush,” Ayatollah Imami Kashani told a Friday congregation in Tehran that the Americans were learning the same lesson that last summer’s war in Lebanon taught the Israelis.

Tehran decision-makers believe that the Democrats’ victory will lift the pressure off the Islamic Republic with regard to its nuclear program. “It is possible that the United States will behave in a wiser manner and will not pit itself against Iran,” says Ali Larijani, Tehran’s chief negotiator on the nuclear issue.

His view is echoed by academics with ties to “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei. “The Democrats will do their best to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue through negotiations, rather than resorting to threats,” says Yadallah Islami, who teaches politics at Tehran University. “Bush will be forced to behave the way all U.S. presidents have behaved since Richard Nixon – that is to say, get out of wars that the American people do not want to fight.”

Nasser Hadian, another academic with ties to Khamenei, goes further. “With the return of a more realistic view of the world, the United States will acknowledge the leading role that the Islamic Republic must play,” he says. “There is no reason for our government to make any concessions on the nuclear issue.”

Arab radical circles are even more hopeful that Bush’s defeat will mark the start of an historic U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East. They draw parallels between the American election and Spain’s 2004 vote, days after the Madrid terrorist attacks, which led to an unexpected change of government.

The radicals expect U.S. policies to change on three issues:

Iraq: The assumption is that America will cut and run.

Salafist groups linked to al Qaeda believe that this will mean a stampede of those Iraqis who worked with the Americans. Iraq’s Shiite leaders would flee to Iran, where most had been in exile before Saddam Hussein’s fall. Kurdish political and business elites will flee to the three provinces they have held since 1991. This would enable the Salafists, in alliance with the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s Presidential Guards, to enter Baghdad and seize power.

Absent in that calculation is the role Iran might play: Will the mullahs sit back as Salafists and Saddamites lay the foundations of a new Arab regime that would turn against Shiite-dominated Iran?

Radical Shiites have their own vision of Iraq after the Americans have fled. They believe that, backed by Iran, they’ll be able to move into the four Arab Sunni provinces that have been restive since 2004 – and crush the Saddamites and al Qaeda. This ignores the certainty that any Iranian intervention in Iraq will provoke a massive Arab reaction – with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even Syria (now an Iranian ally) forced to back Sunni Arabs in Iraq.

In other words, any hasty American withdrawal from Iraq could lead to either a long and bloody civil war or an even longer and bloodier regional conflict.

Iran: Radical circles are unanimous in their belief that Iran can now proceed with its nuclear program without fear of U.S. and allied retaliation. They expect Democrats to revert to Clinton-era policy and seek a “Grand Bargain” with the Islamic Republic – acknowledging Iran as the major regional power and recognizing its right to the full cycle of nuclear technology.

This perception has boosted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s cause in next month’s crucial elections. Ahmadinejad argues that Bush’s defeat vindicates his own policy of “standing firm against the Great Satan he hopes to see his faction win control of the Assembly of Experts – a body that can elect and dismiss the “Supreme Guide.” Ahmadinejad would thus control all levers of power in Tehran.

Yet the expected U.S. retreat on Iran may not materialize – or, if it does, produce the results Tehran desires. Why should Democrats be less worried about a rogue state armed with nuclear weapons than the vilified “neocons”?

Iran’s entry into the nuclear club, even if not opposed by Washington, would provoke opposition in the region. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies – all would be forced to seek nuclear weapons. And the ensuing arms race would be a heavy burden on the Islamic Republic’s ailing economy.

Israel: Radical Islamists in both Iran and the Arab countries believe that the Democrats’ victory indicates “growing American lassitude.” They believe that, once it becomes clear that Americans don’t want to fight for the Middle East, many in Israel would emigrate to America and Europe to escape the constant daily pressure from Islamist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

In visits to more than a dozen countries in the past few months, Ahmadinejad has been vigorously promoting his “one state” formula for Israel-Palestine. He claims to have won the support of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Sudan’s Gen. Hassan al-Bashir, and believes that, once it becomes clear that America wouldn’t fight a war in support of Israel, most Arab states would rally along.

His “one state” plan turns on a referendum in which Palestinians, including those outside the region, will vote along with those Israelis who have chosen to stay to create a single state in which Jews and Arabs live together.

This euphoria, too, may prove problematic. There is evidence that a majority of Palestinians wish to have a state of their own as quickly as possible, and see outsiders’ quest for a single state as a chimera. Nor is there any reason why many Israelis would choose to flee, as Ahmadinejad expects, rather than stay to defend their country.

Also, most Arab states remain committed to the Bush “road map,” a fact underlined last week by Saudi Arabia’s call for a new peace conference based on the two-state formula.

The mullahs and al Qaeda may soon find out that their celebration of “the end of Bush” was premature. Some Democrats may have promised cut-and-run. But, once in power, the party as a whole may realize (to its horror) that, this time, those from whom Americans run away will come after them.

One more fact for the mullahs and al Qaeda to take into account: Their nemesis, the reviled Bush, is around for another two years, and unlikely to dance to their tune, even if the new Congress demanded it. And two years is a long time in politics.

Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com

The Will to Win