Election ’08 Backgrounder


Financial Crisis | Iraq | Defense | Background & Character | Judges & Courts | Energy



Quick Facts:

  • Democrats created the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them.
  • In 2006, McCain sponsored a bill to fix the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Barney Frank and other Democrats successfully opposed it.
  • Obama was one of the highest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donations in Congress.

Related Editorials



Quick Facts:

  • When the U.S. was on the verge of losing in Iraq, McCain chose to stand and fight.  Obama chose retreat.
  • Even after the surge succeeded, Obama told ABC’s Terry Moran he would still oppose it if he had the chance to do it all over again.

Related Editorials



Quick Facts:

  • Obama has promised to significantly cut defense spending, including saying “I will slow our development of future combat systems.”
  • John McCain has vowed: “We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies.”

Related Editorials

Obama Video: Watch Now




Quick Facts:

  • Obama voted “present” 135 times as a state senator, and according to David Ignatius of the Washington Post, “gained a reputation for skipping tough votes.”
  • McCain has taken stances unpopular with his own party and/or the public on controversial issues, including immigration, campaign finance reform, judicial nominations, the Iraq War and more.

Related Editorials




Quick Facts:

  • In a 2001 interview, Obama said he regretted that the Supreme Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
  • In the same interview, Obama criticized the Supreme Court because it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”
  • Obama has focused on empathy, rather than legal reasoning and restraint, as his basis for appointing judges, saying, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy…to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”
  • McCain opposes judicial activism, saying, “my nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power.”

Related Editorials

Obama 2001 Interview: Listen Now



Quick Facts:

  • McCain has proposed building 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and is in favor of drilling in sectors of the Outer Continental Shelf.
  • Obama has refused to take a stand, saying only “we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix” and he will “look at” drilling offshore.

Related Editorials

McCain: The Energy Candidate

» McCain On Nukes: Yes We Can
» Breaking The Back Of High Oil


Posted in ABC, Abortion, Accountable America, ACLU, ACORN, Ahmadinejad, Al Gore, Alinsky, American Civil Liberties Union, American Fifth Column, American Friends of Peace Now, American values, anti-American, Anti-Semitic, anti-war movement, antisemitism, ANWR, ANWR oil, AP, AP/CNN, Associated Press, Atomic Islam, B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Barry Soetoro, Bill Ayers, Bill Clinton, Black Nationalism, border security, CBS, CBS evening news, CBS news, Charlie Rangel, CHAVEZ, Chavez-Castro, Christian Voices, christian vote, Cindy McCain, CNN muslim sympathizers, CNN pro islam, Congress, Credit Crunch, Democrat Communist Party, Democrat corruption, Democrat george soros, democrat half truth, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat polls, Democrat Presidential debate, democrat scandals, Democrat Shadow Government, democrat socialists, Democratic Corruption, Democratic majority, democratic morals, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats and drilling, Democrats and Earmarking, democrats and global Warming, democrats and illegal immigration, Democrats and Subprime mortgages, Democrats and talk radio, Earmarking, earmarks, Fairness Doctrine, Fannie Mae, Fatah, Freddie Mac, free speech, George Bush, George Soros, GOP, GOP leadership, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Hollywood liberals, Howard Dean, Hugo Chavez, human trafficking, Hussein Obama, Iran, Iran revolt, Iran threat, iraq, Iraq jihadists, Iraq Oil, Iraq surge, Iraq War, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islamic Fifth Column, Islamic immigration, Israel, Israel Defense Forces, Israeli Jets, Jeremiah Wright, Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Joe the Plumber, John Conyers, John Kerry, John McCain, John Murtha, Katie Couric, Keith Ellison, left-wing hatred for George W. Bush, left-wing ideologues, Leftist Claptrap, Liberal Churches, liberal jihad, liberal media, McCain, McCain Palin, Mexican migrants, Michelle Obama, middle east, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Nancy Pelosi, nation of islam, Nazi Pelosi, NY Times, Obama, Obama Jackboots, Obama Tax Plan, Sarah Palin. Leave a Comment »

Hillary and Bill Use Alinsky Tactics To Bring Down Obama

Hillary and Bill Use Alinsky Tactics To Bring Down Obama

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

Obama was up; now he’s down.  Even though Obama seems to be harnessing the South Carolina black vote that will give him that state’s delegates, he has been feeling the brunt of the Clintons’ mastery of the tactic of  polarization, taught decades ago to Hillary by Saul Alinsky.

Obama is being forced into the position of being the black candidate. Successfully polarizing Obama, who has attempted to run as the anti-polarity uniter, a man in the middle, has not been a lazy-day walk in the park for the Clintons, and surely would not have been attempted if Obama hadn’t trounced them in Iowa. 
Alinsky’s 13th rule for radicals
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Saul Alinsky taught his eager disciples that the establishment despised conflict.  He blamed this perverse malady upon the dual forces of organized religion ( those turn-the-other-cheek folks) and the Madison Avenue advertising culture, which he said “emphasizes getting along with people and avoiding friction.”  Alinsky deemed avoidance of conflict as not only disgusting, but contrary to the betterment of a “free and open society.” 
The polarization of American politics that has occurred since the Clintons first forayed onto the national scene has been notable.  Stirring the pot of constant agitation has been the Clintons’ signature political accomplishment.
Alinsky knew that in order to force a transfer of power through the use of constantly agitated serial conflicts, there had to be a personal enemy to rally the troops round.  Hillary’s ill-conceived “vast right wing conspiracy” wasn’t nearly personal enough, which is why it significantly failed to keep America on the Clintons’ side.  
In the broad scope of socialist revolution, identifying one’s target for polarization can be a bit tricky, and may involve singling out the CEO of a multi-layered corporation or finding out which person in government holds the seat where the buck truly does stop, or in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, finding out just who was out to get our imperfect but lovable president. 
To Alinsky, in the march to nonviolent revolutionary power transfer, identifying one’s genuine enemy was entirely secondary to merely pinning the enemy tail on one donkey or another, just as long as it served to rally the Have Nots.  Targets needed to be specific, but they didn’t need to really be your enemy.  A target simply had to be seen as a vile enemy in the minds of one’s followers. 
Ken Starr understands the Clintons’ operational application of this principle, even if he has never read up on Alinksy. In a political campaign, however, less strategic guesswork is required.  The enemy is the one running against you, who might actually win, and thereby grab the power prize for himself.
The Clintons employed their now infamous brand of tag-team Alinsky polarization in Bill’s 1990 bid for re-election as Arkansas’ governor.  The race was pivotal to the Clintons’ presidential aspirations.  Without a sufficient state-government launching pad, his campaign for the 1992 nomination would not succeed.
It’s pretty hard to keep a secret in Arkansas and Bill Clinton’s opponent was making advertising mincemeat out of the boy governor’s planned presidential bid.  Many Arkansans wanted a governor; they didn’t want to provide office space for a presidential candidate.
When Bill’s opponent Tom McRae held a press conference in the state capitol daring Bill to come clean about his presidential designs and agree to an open debate, guess who showed up to crash the conference and attack McRae? Of course, it was Hillary.
And naturally, rather than deny the substance of Bill’s presidential aspirations, she instead loudly brought the press’ attention to an instance where her husband had been present and accounted for in Arkansas, but McRae had not.  “I mean, I think we oughta get the record straight…,” Hillary blasted.  And McRae stood before her stiff and speechless.
Barbara Olson summarized the tactic:
“The line of attack from this arch feminist (Hillary) was to make a blatant appeal to voters’ sexism.  If Tom McRae couldn’t stand up to the governor’s wife, he had to be a very weak man indeed.”  (Hell to Pay; p. 203)
And again, in 1992, when Bill’s campaign seemed in danger of derailment by the accusations of one Gennifer Flowers, it was Hillary who tag-teamed the press into submission, by first acknowledging that her husband had caused pain in the marriage, and then by shaming questioners with female pleas for privacy.
For 2008, the Clintons have simply exchanged positions.  They are, however, using the same tactical maneuvers that have kept them out of jail and in public office for 30 years.  
Alinsky’s 5th rule:  Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon
Last December, Bill Clinton appeared on the Charlie Rose Show in a long interview that finally got around to the Presidential election.  Bill Clinton had very complimentary things to say about all of his wife’s opponents, save one. 
On Barack Obama, he delivered one ridiculing statement after another, while playing the genteel, elder statesman.  Here’s a sampling:
“I think a president ought to have done something for other people and for his country when you pick a president.
“I get tickled watching him.”
“highly intelligent symbol of transformation”
“And we’re prepared to roll the dice.”
“It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.”  (Rules for Radicals; p. 128)
Personalizing Obama
While Bill handled the ridicule angle from his lofty position as a former president, Hillary dispatched lesser surrogates to begin thinly veiled personal attacks against her chief rival.  The pattern was set in the Muslim accusation and the drug-use reminder gambits. 
A campaign professional or volunteer made a charge against Obama, either before cameras or in an email.  Then, Hillary made a show of firing the person.
Both of these attacks was personal, aimed not at Obama’s stand on any issue, but on his character.
A perfect example of Alinsky personalize-your-target tactics. 
End Game: Racial Polarization
It is obvious now that the Clintons have seized upon race as Obama’s potentially lethal vulnerability.  They had probably hoped they would not have to use Obama’s race against him to create a white backlash of electoral victories, but that point is now moot.
By attacking Obama’s authenticity as a new icon for African-Americans, the Clintons understand full well, I believe, that the black community will rally to Obama, thereby demonstrating to the broader electorate that it’s been about race after all.
The first racial blow, of course, was Hillary’s.  She failed to adequately acknowledge MLK’s stature by stating that it took LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act into law.  This was confirmation that they would use any and every means necessary to achieve a second co-presidency.  Everyone who knows anything about Democratic Party politics of the last 40 years, knows that any slight whatsoever of MLK is tantamount to blasphemy.
Once Hillary secured her victory in New Hampshire by playing the sympathy card with female Democrat voters, she dispensed tag-team champ, Bill, to Nevada.  Behind the scenes, Hillary supporters filed suit to have the special casino caucus sites declared illegal.  When a reporter asked Bill Clinton if that might have the effect of disenfranchising culinary workers, the majority of whom are minorities, Bill verbally clobbered the guy, displaying his infamous temper.  The reporter backed off.
In Monday’s SC debate, Hillary invoked Obama’s work for a Chicago slumlord, referring to Anthony Rezko, who will stand trial in February in Chicago on several corruption charges.  Rezko is indeed a slumlord, and his is another tawdry tale emitting from that veritable cesspool of political corruption, Chicago.  Obama’s law firm did represent Rezko, Obama did know him and has received a great deal of campaign finance from him, which he claims to have returned. 
Her particular use of the word, “slumlord,” was a way of accusing Obama of betraying his own people.
Having instigated this quite uncivil conflict, Hillary has gone on to campaign in states with bigger-bang delegate counts, and left tag-team champ Bill behind in South Carolina to schmooze the black citizens, whom they have both done all they could to alienate.
Party elders seem so concerned over the possible fractures to their special-interest coalitions, that some are begging the Clintons – even in public – to clean up their act and cut it out with the low-body blows against Obama.
Here’s my advice to the Democrats:
If one doesn’t like the sight of blood, but wants to play politics with the Clintons, it might be best to invest in blindfolds.
Of all the amoral things the Clintons have done over the past 30 years, tag-teaming Obama on his race is the most dastardly, in my opinion. 
Not only to Obama, but to America. 
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@yahoo.com. 

Dear Iranians: Have the Courage to Say No to Islam From Amil Imani


Dear Iranians: Have the Courage to Say No to Islam  
Monday, 21 January 2008
Nearly 1400 years ago, a group of nomads from across the scorching Arabian Desert conquered Iran (Persia), the greatest empire known to the history of mankind. With that, they injected their Islamic virus into the veins of their victim: the Iranian people.Isn’t it time for all Iranians, in a show of solidarity, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the civilized free people of the world to defeat this virulent disease of Islam?

In most other lands conquered by Islam, the conquered peoples have lost their identity and heritage and embraced the ways of their new rulers, under an “Arab” identity. Conversely, in Iran a band of indigenous victims, “infected” by Islam, has mindlessly turned on their Iranian countrymen and tried to rob them of their remaining ancient heritage. It is exactly this savage minority that has established an oppressive tyrannical rule and wields power against the Iranian people. Yet even under the rule of Islamofascism, the overwhelming majority of Iranians of various ethnicities and religions remain faithful to their ancient creed – a creed that was given to the world by Zoroaster.

The twenty-first century presents great challenges and opportunities that demand new ways of thinking and behaving. The doctrine of Islam may have been appropriate for the desert dwellers of Arabia some 1400 years ago, for the very people stigmatized in Islamic literature as “Jahil” (ignoramus). But it is dysfunctional today, to say the least. As a matter of fact, Islam went astray from the very beginning and inflicted a great deal of suffering on both its followers as well as those who resisted its advance.

All pre-Islamic achievements that may strengthen the attraction on the part of the Iranian populace are de-emphasized and sometimes even falsely attributed to Islam, to prevent the average Iranian and the world at large from finding out the historical truths about the destruction and retardation Islam has brought to the region. Islam continues to take credit for the arts and sciences produced by the peoples it has conquered — and they were mostly Iranians, Egyptians, Syrians, Mesopotamians, and Babylonians.

Keep in mind that Islamists go by their 1400-year-old charter of Allah –the Qur’an– the same charter that they held in one hand while slashing the throats of millions of innocent Iranians and yelling joyously “Allah is the greatest” the whole time.

Dear Iranians, I am compelled to write this today and the words just stream through me without any outline or preconceptions. I am talking about this today, partly because it is timely, partly because it is good to know what Islam has done to our precious culture. Some things did not have to turn out as they did. Truth and provocative ideas ought to be welcomed by all of us. “A Slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts” said Euripides. Yet provocative ideas by themselves may not be enough. Actions are needed to correct the past mistakes and that starts with you.

Dear Iranians, as long as you remain a “Muslim” (as you are by default and not by choice), you will remain enslaved by a violent foreign creed and culture. You are unable to think for yourselves and break free.  As long as you remain Muslim, you cannot possibly be called an Iranian. Being Iranian is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence, your language, your dialect, or even your genetic makeup or race. The barbaric Islamist mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians by any definition, except by virtue of an identity card. They are Islamofascists who have betrayed their magnificent heritage and have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive and demeaning ideology, Islam.

The detoxification of Islam must start with you. It is you who should pick up the flag of freedom and march in the streets and defend your ancestors who were brutally murdered by the hands of the Arab invaders and forced you to become like them.

Remember, life is precious. It is to be protected, nurtured and celebrated. Humankind is moving, perhaps at a glacier pace, toward reconciliation, ever-expanding inclusiveness without any group or ideology imposing itself on others. Any attempt against this trend of unity in diversity is doomed to failure, as exemplified by the demise of fascism and communism. The charter of Islam, the Quran, for the most part, preaches discrimination, death and imposition of its dogma on everyone. Islam, just like fascism and communism, is a dysfunctional ideology that needs to be abandoned.

Humanity has matured considerably since the time of Muhammad. In order to continue its forward march, mankind must follow a roadmap appropriate for its age and state of development. It is foolish to insist that a book, which demands terrorism and was written over 1400 years ago, must serve as the one and only guide for humanity.

Let us remember that the Arabs who sallied out of the deserts of Arabia did not fan out to the outside world with the Quran in one hand and flowers in the other, preaching love and peace from street corner to street corner, aiming to capture the hearts and minds of the people. Islam was forced on every culture it encountered at the point of the sword. The kinder, gentler alternative was death or imposition of the backbreaking “jizyah” (poll tax) levied on those who were spared the sword and allowed to retain their religious beliefs as “infidels”. In spite of paying the heavy jizyah, non-Muslims were consistently treated, at best, as second-class citizens in their own homelands all across the Middle East.

Iran is our beloved motherland. She deserves love and respect from all her children. Iran is not a land of the evil, even though presently it is in its yoke. Persians often take great umbrage at being confused with Arabs. Authors like Robert Kaplan and V. S. Naipaul have documented the Persian antipathy toward the Arabs, all the while espousing the Arab religion enthusiastically.

Dear Iranians, you have a dilemma. You require reconciliation with the self. You are either the children of Cyrus the Great, who was the founding father of Iran and symbolized justice and respect for diversity, or you can claim to be the descendent of a man who was not an exemplary prophet. In other words, you are either a “Seyyed” (itself a laughable farce), which is another word for an Arab “lord”, or you are a magnificent Iranian who believes in the lofty tenets of Good Words, Good Thoughts and Good Deeds. You cannot be both. It is time to reconcile. The choice is yours.

My aspiration for my motherland is to see it freed from the evil that has been visited upon it ever since our people bought into a most depraved version of Islam. Whether people become Baha’is or Zoroastrians or Christians, it should be a free choice by each person. Even if a person insists on remaining Muslim, that is his or her prerogative. Yet, imposing the suffocating intolerant Islam on an entire nation is something that neither I, nor any freethinking person can accept. Our beloved Iran deserves to be a country where, once again, we take pride in being its children instead of the present when we often do all we can to conceal our nation of birth when visiting abroad.

Those of you who are still entrapped in the cult of Muhammad of the 7th century are victims of the Islamic virus that has destroyed in you the traditional respect for diversity.  Iran is now a nation whose residents are most rapidly abandoning Islam as they learn the truth about it. It is the fundamental ancient Iranian belief in the validity and value of diversity that has held the nation together over the millennia.

Islam, with its barbaric exclusionary and primitive Bedouin Arab dogma, overtook Iran and brutally strove to replace the traditional lofty Iranian belief in human rights and diversity. Regrettably, the forced subjugation of the Iranians succeeded to some degree in transmitting the Islamic psychosocial virus to many Iranians—the virus that transforms the person into a bigot who sees only his way and his belief as the right way and the only right mandate. Any and all people who do not see things “his” way are wrong and must be reformed by whatever means, including eradication, if the bigot sees fit.

The diverse people who give Iran its enduring strength include Persians, Azaris, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmen, and more. One and all have their allegiance to Iran as an idea and a nation and they all have shaped Iran into a unified nation. Iranians are the spiritual children of Cyrus the Great and adherents to his Charter—the first Charter of Human Rights—that clearly proclaims the equal rights and worth of the beliefs and practices of all peoples.

Iranians are ashamed by the appearance of Ahmadinejad, “the Monkey”, on the international scene and his declared intent to wipe the Jewish homeland from the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is not an Iranian. Just look at the numerous photos showing him proudly donning the Arab headscarf around his neck—a Palestinian headscarf that presently stands as a symbol of the Arabo-Islamic genocidal hate campaign against the “non-believers” of all stripes. One quick look at his willingness to give away territorial and political rights of Iran is another testament to his “un-Iranian” nature.

This shameless Ahmadinejad and his cronies, the criminal mullahs, are personifications and agents of Ahriman “evil”. Nothing whatsoever is beyond their evil intentions. Keeping themselves in power by devastating our land, heritage and people is a small price that they are more than happy to pay. Shame, eternal shame on them. Iran shall rise again. It shall rise from its ashes. I am certain of that.

We do recognize that the dysfunctional Islamic “software” is deeply engrained in the minds of its victims who opt to remain in mental bondage rather than purge their minds of the Islamic “blueprint of destruction” and join the rest of the human family with a new emancipating program for life—that of liberty and progress. However, you must avoid any and all Islamic propaganda and join the forces of liberty and gain your freedom from this dark and alien cult of death. For 1300 years, the Islamists have forced you to choose and celebrate death over life, to cry instead laugh and to mourn instead of dance. The crown jewel of Islam simply does not fit the Persians. It never has and it never will.

Keep in mind that Islam hates the power of the individual. Islam hates the achievements of women. Islam hates progress. Islam hates the religious freedom of others. Islam hates the pre-Islamic heritage of Iran and other nations. Islam hates the light of truth. Islam is against free will and hates democracy, liberty and justice for all. Islam simply loves to crush and eat you alive. That is what Islam does and that is what Islam is. Are you going to worship that? Just Say no, because you are not a robot, you are a human being.

Now, “praise be to the core of goodness” that binds all of us together as devoted lovers of our ancient heritage of respect and diversity. Our motherland is bleeding under the dark cloaks of the oppressive mullahs. Yet, our people shall overcome the poison that courses in their veins and will choose to turn away from the doctrine of death and destruction to, hopefully, pursue life and construction. All of you hold the key and promise for our homeland’s revival and its complete freedom from the centuries old yoke of the barbaric rule of Islam and its “Sharia”.

The light of freedom must be preserved for humanity. To save the motherland, all Iranians must unite and JUST SAY NO to Islam and SAY YES to liberty.

The Destruction of the United States. http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/


Retired Pastor — 77 year old narrow-minded Conservative Christian.

Posted in Uncategorized at 1:54 pm by expreacherman

A few weeks before the last election I wrote a post “Vote Like Your Life Depends on It.” (HERE)

Some were critical of my alarmist attitude.

Now, with a liberal House and Senate, helped along by “moderates” and “Conservatives,” our freedoms and faith are under constant attack.

There is no national leadership willing to take the risks to counter the loss of our liberty and, maybe sooner than later, the loss of our blessed country.

Please read all of this shocking but logical and well documented article by J. R. Nyquist,  “The Destruction of the United States.”

Here are a few devastating excerpts:

“No country is immortal. No nation is invincible. To make the point less delicately, America will one day cease to exist. And it may be useful, especially given the multiple crises now developing, to contemplate the mortality of the world’s most powerful country. What would the world be like without the United States?”

“It is not nice to say that major powers like China or Russia seek the destruction of the United States. It is not nice to say that Russia and China are governed by thugs. But anyone who studies the foreign policies, chicanery, secret maneuvers and war preparations of Beijing and Moscow cannot honestly conclude otherwise.”

…. “We already know from defector testimony that Russia’s war plan incorporates the use of false flag terrorist diversionary operations in the early stages of the next world war. GRU defector Viktor Suvorov explained long ago that such operations were referred to as “gray terror.” The fact that Ayman al-Zawahri was named as a longtime agent of the KGB is the icing on the nuclear cake (as it were). The fact that Alexander Litvinenko – the man who fingered Zawahri – was recently poisoned by polonium-210, underscores the hardscrabble reality of the nuclear terror game. The United States government and President Bush aren’t looking at the problem squarely. They are looking away from the main threat, toward a tertiary threat. This is a fatal error, because the war we are in isn’t simply a war against Muslim extremists. It is a much broader, more deceptive conflict.

“The United States has never been nearer to destruction.”

Last November our country voted for a group of politicians who are dedicated to a weakened country with detent and dialog with those who have vowed to destroy America and Israel. America has no national leadership who recognizes the multiple threats against our country. our faith, our liberties, our families and our very lives. Our freedoms are at risk and very few understand or care. America voted — but look what we got.

Now, more than ever America needs Jesus Christ and Christians who are not afraid to share Him with others. We need national leaders who will not disparage Christians and Jews but with moral courage and principles, stand up for and defend our country and the Nation of Israel regardless of the cost.

Find out how to KNOW for sure you are going to Heaven

Rumsfeld faces personal suit by detainees

Rumsfeld faces personal suit by detainees

Former prisoners accuse him of torture techniques in Iraq, Afghanistan

By Joel Seidman


NBC News

Updated: 9:59 p.m. ET Dec 7, 2006

function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById(“udtD”); if(pdt != ” && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((”.toLowerCase()==’false’)?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp(‘633011435690770000’);

On Friday, the U.S. District Court in Washington will be the scene of a parting shot at outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Former detainees represented by human rights groups accuse him — along with a top general of the Iraq war, a former commander of the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and a commander of U.S. military intelligence and police forces — with “derelictions of duty and command” and promoting the practice of inflicting “physical and psychological injuries” on civilians held by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The case of Ali v. Rumsfeld, to be heard before Chief Judge Thomas Hogan, pits lawyers from two human rights organizations representing nine former detainees at Abu Ghraib and the Bagram military base in Afghanistan, with attorneys representing Rumsfeld, Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski and Col. Thomas Pappas.

The case is an attempt to have U.S. officials held accountable for alleged abuse of Iraqi and Afghan civilians who were never held as enemy combatants or charged with any crime.

The former detainees accuse Rumsfeld and others of being personally responsible for approving torture techniques and violating the U.S. Constitution. Rumsfeld argues that they are all immune from liability.

Rumsfeld, to be replaced later this month by Robert Gates, who was confirmed by the Senate this week, argues “that alien military detainees held outside the United States are not generally entitled to constitutional protections.”

Rumsfeld’s lawyers claim qualified immunity
His lawyers contend that under the qualified immunity doctrine, “federal officials are immune from suit” unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right. They say that aliens held in a military detention facility in the field of battle abroad simply do not have established constitutional rights during their alleged detention and abuse.

The former detainees who filed the lawsuit say they were all eventually released from detention and never charged with any crime or wrongdoing.

The detainees — five were held at Abu Ghraib and four at Bagram — accuse Rumsfeld and the others of subjecting them to “torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, confinement in a wooden box, forcible sleep and sensory deprivation, mock executions, death threats, and restraint in contorted and excruciating positions,” according to court documents.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First argue that Rumsfeld “authorized an abandonment of our nation’s inviolable and deep-rooted prohibition against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees in U.S. military custody.” They say these acts precipitated “further violations of law and directly led to the abuse of Plaintiffs and other detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Pattern of rights abuse alleged
The human rights attorneys will also argue Friday that high-ranking commanders “permitted and implemented” an unlawful policy, pattern or practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees.

The suit seeks compensatory damages and a judicial declaration that the legal rights of the prisoners were violated under the Constitution, the Geneva accords and other international law.

Although allegations in the suit are the equivalent of war crimes, it is a civil case, not a criminal one. Only the U.S. government is empowered to prosecute war crimes in criminal court or before a military court.


http://www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org Date: 11/18/2006 12:35:49 AM
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY
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.

The ACLU Shadow

The ACLU Shadow
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 7, 2006

The  has established a Human Rights Program which, in its own words, “works to ensure that the U.S. government complies with universal human rights principles in addition to the
U.S. Constitution.
On November 1, 2006, this ACLU Human Rights Program filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asking it to “find the
United States in violation of its universal human rights obligations by failing to protect millions of undocumented workers from exploitation and discrimination in the workplace
.”  This action is only the latest in the ACLU’s self-proclaimed strategy to use the United Nations and other global governance forums to “complement existing ACLU advocacy on national security, immigrants’ rights, women’s rights and racial justice.”

Apparently, the ACLU’s leaders do not believe that our Founding Fathers really intended the Constitution that they wrote for us to be “the supreme Law of the Land”, even though that is exactly what the Constitution says that it is.[1]   The U.S. Supreme Court has unfortunately given the ACLU some ammunition in recent decisions that have utilized so-called international norms as a basis for their interpretations of Constitutional provisions.  In June 2006, the Court inexplicably applied the benefits of civilian protection under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to suspected terrorists, including al-Qaeda, when it invalidated the special military tribunals set up by the Bush Administration to try enemy combatants held at

Bay (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (No 05-184 June 29, 2006). 


The ACLU and other U.S.-based human rights organizations have taken the Supreme Court’s willingness to incorporate some international law into its Constitutional decisions as a license to look for any opportunity to apply so-called international human rights standards against whatever they – in their infinite wisdom – perceive to be violations of social, economic, civil or political rights in the
United States.


On June 20, 2006, the ACLU Human Rights Program submitted a 116 page “shadow report” to the United Nations Human Rights Committee that was investigating the human rights record of the
United States.  The ACLU shadow report, entitled “Dimming the Beacon of Freedom: U.S. Violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, was a wholesale indictment of the United States’ human rights record in the broad areas of national security, immigrants’ rights, racial justice, women’s rights and religious freedom.   It sought to hold the
U.S. government accountable for what the ACLU alleged to be flagrant and repeated violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which they equate to an international “Bill of Rights.”


The ACLU’s purpose was to get the United Nations’ human rights “experts” on the Committee to declare that our duly elected government officials are violating some vaguely worded “international norms” in dealing with immigration, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, juvenile justice, the death penalty, prison conditions within the United States, the treatment of enemy combatant detainees, electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists’ communications and so on.  As the ACLU’s Associate Legal Director, Ann Beeson, had once put it, “We are appealing to the international arbiters to hold the
U.S. accountable to basic human rights standards.”  (emphasis added)  With such a declaration from a recognized international body in hand, the ACLU litigators believe that they will be in a better position to seek judicial relief for their clients from sympathetic judges.


Barely paying any attention to what the
U.S. government had to say and without a shred of independently conducted research, the UN Human Rights Committee basically adopted the ACLU’s accusations as fact.


There are even a couple of instances where it lifted material right out of the ACLU’s shadow report without any critical analysis at all.  For example, the phrase “militarization of the southwest border” in the UN Human Rights Committee report is a close paraphrase of “militarization of the border” appearing on p. 60 of the ACLU shadow report.  The UN body’s reference to five million citizens who they claim are barred from voting due to felony convictions is amazingly close to the “5.3 million” number appearing on p. 96 of the ACLU’s shadow report. 


The ACLU then added insult to injury when its spokeswoman turned around and threw the parroted findings of the UN Human Rights Committee “experts” back at the U.S government, as if it were the work of an independent credible fact-finding body:


United States should be ashamed of its dismal human rights record.
America must act now to remedy these ongoing human rights abuses…”

The ACLU Human Rights Program has kept after the U.S., while remaining silent about the world’s most flagrant human rights abusers like Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia – the latter three acting like the foxes guarding the henhouse as members of the new UN Human Rights Council that oversees the UN’s human rights activities.  The ACLU’s defense is that they are trying to restore
America’s position as a “beacon of freedom throughout the world” so that it can lead by example.  But blinded by its disdain of traditional American values and impatient with working through our democratic institutions, the ACLU would rather appeal to a global body that includes authoritarian regimes.  On their very best day, these hypocritical judges of our human rights record would not come anywhere close to the
United States on its very worst day in terms of freedom, humaneness, and inclusiveness.  Yet the ACLU has encouraged them to rule against us on a whole range of human rights issues and thereby has handed our enemies fodder for their malicious propaganda.

For example, within a week of the ACLU’s submission of its shadow report, Iran’s news agency was bragging how the United Nations was planning to act against the
United States:

Minister of Justice Jamal Karimi-Rad said on Monday that the Human Rights Council launched in Geneva last week to replace UN human rights commission empowered the member states to take action with the UN about human rights violations in the
United States… He said that the Human Rights Council was a very good venue for explaining Iranian achievements in the field of restoring human and legal rights of Iranian nation.
(Islamic Republic News Agency, June 26, 2006)

In September 2006, the ACLU Human Rights Program filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asking for a ruling that
New Jersey was violating “universal human rights principles” by denying convicted felons the right to vote.  The ACLU had already litigated the issue in the
New Jersey courts and lost.   So again they are reaching for extra-judicial relief outside our country’s democratic institutions and laws, hoping that they can obtain a favorable ruling that they then can return with to our federal courts for a more sympathetic hearing.


In its November 2006 petition that it filed on alleged human rights abuses by the
United States against “undocumented” immigrant workers (i.e., illegal aliens) with the same Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the ACLU Human Rights Program is seeking to obtain their ruling that the withholding from illegal aliens of legislatively prescribed benefits intended for legally employed persons such as workers’ compensation constitutes a violation of some vague “universal human right” belonging to the illegal aliens.  If successful, no doubt the ACLU will then try to convince some gullible federal judge to incorporate such a ruling in his or her “interpretation” of our Constitution and override the public policy decisions of our democratically elected federal and state representatives. 


The ACLU has long been famous for advocating extremist positions under the guise of protecting Constitutional rights.  It is an organization made up of idiot-savants who use their knowledge of Constitutional law, for example, to protect every imagined right of terrorist suspects without a thought of the right of innocent people to be protected by their government against mass slaughter.  According to the ACLU, a suspected foreign terrorist detainee should have the right to all the due process protections afforded in a regular criminal trial, and suspected foreign terrorists should be granted the right to privacy of their communications with their co-conspirators located in the United States whether or not they may be in the midst of planning to attack our country.   In the ACLU’s fevered imagination, these supposed rights would trump the Constitutional obligation of the
United States government to protect the people against “Invasion”.


On the domestic front, the ACLU has fought for the decriminalization of drugs such as heroin and cocaine, while fighting against laws to protect children from sex offenders.   The ACLU is all for free speech and rights of association unless it happens to be speech or association that, in their view, violates the “human rights” of some offended minority.   They oppose government-sponsored displays of Judeo-Christian religious symbols on public property and the teaching of the Ten Commandments in our public schools, but support the display and teaching of the UN-sponsored nature-worshipping Earth Charter – described by its creators as the new Ten Commandments – in public places including our public schools.  The ACLU is apparently quite selective in its reading of the Constitution when it comes to asking our courts to determine who is and who is not entitled to exercise the right of free speech and freedom of religious expression in the public square. 

With its Human Rights Program, the American Civil Liberties Union is now going even one step further.  It is asking non-American institutions to tell us how to conduct our own affairs under international human rights norms that are supposed to supplement the Constitution.  Every domestic policy issue becomes fair game for the “international arbiters” selected by the ACLU to apply international “norms” instead of our own duly enacted laws.  The ACLU is no longer willing to rely on the strength of
America’s own democratic institutions to resolve our problems ourselves within the proven framework of our own Constitution.  They want to outsource that task to global governance institutions that are hostile to the national sovereignty and democratic values of our country.  In short, the ACLU’s idiot savants have become the useful idiots for those enemies of the
United States whose aim is to manipulate the truth and undermine our unique Constitutional system of self-government.

[1] U.S. Constitution, Article VI (In its decision Reid v. Covert, the Supreme Court has concluded that it would make no sense for a treaty, once in effect as a result of the exercise of the President’s and the Senate’s Constitutional powers, to become the instrument for usurping the legal authority of the Constitution that established those powers in the first place.)


U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9; Article 4, Section 4.


Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.