Review of The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values
by Sandra Alexander | View comments |
Print This Post
In order to disguise their communist sympathies, the ACLU draped all of their communications in red, white and blue, used a lot of flags, and mentioned the Constitution frequently.
by Alan Sears and Craig Osten
“Few Americans realize how radical the ACLU has become and the threat that it poses to liberty. This well researched and documented book pulls the veil away and exposes the ACLU’s true agenda.”
- Bill O’Reilly, Fox News Channel
“Perhaps no organization has done more to remove America from its Judeo-Christian moorings than the ACLU – whom I often call the ‘Anti-Christian Litigation Union.’
D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.
Founder and President of Coral Ridge Ministries, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
“Alliance Defense Fund is doing a wonderful work in defending religious liberty and preserving the rights of Christian people.”
James Dobson, Founder, Focus on the Family
In Sears and Osten’s expose of the true agenda of the ACLU, they begin by tracing the roots of the organization, documenting founder Roger Baldwin’s radical, anti-American views. From the start Baldwin and other ACLU board members showed clear Communist sympathies. When this was exposed, internal ACLU memos reveal that they would try and solve their image problem by draping all of their communications in red, white and blue. Baldwin wrote, “…..We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that stand for the spirit of our institutions.” (page 16)
When the ACLU speaks of spirit, it is definitely not referring to the Christian Spirit. Rather, “the ACLU and its allies have twisted the Constitution and its First Amendment – meant to be a shield for people of faith – into a sword to be used against them. … Thanks to the ACLU’s relentless attacks on religious expression, many courts, instead of allowing religion to flourish, help suppress and punish people and organizations of faith.” (page 28)
“Through the ACLU’s continued attacks on the sanctity of human life, all life has been cheapened, and the legal door has been opened to many aspects of social Darwinism, assisted suicide, cloning, and a general disregard for the welfare of our fellow human beings.” In addition, the ACLU’s advocacy has led to the “legal undermining of marriage and the family, including the weakening of parental authority. The ACLU has constantly sought to redefine the First Amendment’s protections of press and speech to include the “most foul and perverse hard core and child pornography imaginable. They have publicly cloaked their efforts to undermine any effort by the government to enforce obscenity laws, or by parents to protect their children from obscene materials, as combating ‘censorship.’” (page 28)
“The ACLU’s vision for America is radically different from that of most Americans – people who still believe man is subject to a higher law that comes from God and not to man’s latest or most ‘enlightened’ fad. The ACLU’s vision is of an America that looks like much of modern-day Europe – secularized, with little or no public vestige left of religious faith and the traditional family. The ACLU’s legal demands….have already and will further affect the futures of our children and grandchildren. …. When law, instead of God, is seen as the salvation of mankind, more and more restrictive laws are passed to ultimately limit freedom, rather than expand it.” (page 32)
The Sears/Osten book documents the ACLU’s relentless attacks on all that Americans have held dear: marriage, Mom and Dad, children, human life, religion, Christmas and even American Sovereignty. We are warned that “the ACLU and its allies, frustrated by their inability to advance their radical agenda more swiftly under the U.S. Constitution, now intend to convince the American judiciary to look to international law as a means to their ends.” (page 174) Sadly, we realize that they have had some success when we read the following statement by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:
“…..I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.” (page 177)
Not too many years ago Justice O’Connor’s remarks would have been considered treasonous. Now a majority of our Supreme Court Justices probably have the same mind set that Justice O’Connor does. They are ready to ignore our English common law tradition and belief in a higher law and inalienable rights endowed by the Creator and settle for other legal traditions that “share a belief that rights come from man or government.” (page 185)
In spite of the ominous nature of the Sears/Osten book, there is also much to bring hope. “Despite the ACLU’s decades-long war on the public expression of Christianity, millions of Americans still proudly proclaim the name of Jesus Christ. Despite the ACLU’s war on parental authority, millions of parents still do all they can to raise their children to honor and embrace the faith, morals, and values that made our nation strong. Despite the ACLU’s efforts to promote abortion, every year more and more Americans are professing to be pro-life. Despite the ACLU’s war on marriage and its attempted legal roadblocks to deny the will of the people, American voters are going to the polls and voting to affirm marriage as between one man and one woman.” (page 189)
Finally, organizations such as the Alliance Defense Fund are solidly in the forefront of the battle for the soul of America and in case after case they are succeeding in defeating the ACLU agenda. They urge Americans to take heart and fight back. The authors make this statement:
“With God’s grace, we are confident we can not only reclaim America’s judicial system and values from the ACLU and its Allies but also protect our nation from present legal attacks. We can return our country to the original vision of the liberty framed by the Founding Fathers and fought for by generations of Americans on battlefields from Yorktown to Gettysburg to Omaha Beach to the sands of the Middle East. It will take prayers, perseverance, and great financial resources to do so, but we will win.” (page 6)
Alan Sears is president, CEO, and General Counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization dedicated to defend and protect the right to hear and speak the Truth. Craig Osten is the Vice-President of Presidential Communications and Research for the Alliance Defense Fund. He has nearly twenty years of experience providing writing and research assistance to national religious organizations.Order the book from Amazon.
Read more articles by Sandra Alexander
Yes yes yes, The ACLU agenda is blatant as it is treasonous. They seek to create a truly secular society bereft of individual rights or responsiblility. A Society sole dependent on the whims of the elitist few in a powerful central government. They are not just stuck in the 1960's or the the 1860's. They along with the democratic treasonous elitist party go way back to the 1760's. They are the loyalists (royalists) party. They are not Americans and will never accept the fact that we won the Revolutionary war and broke away from our colonial past that the ACLU and Democrats so long for.
Comment by Michael Holloway | March 21, 2006
I praise Alan Sears and the ADF for the work that they do…and I want to include the ACLJ, Liberty Counsel, FRC, and other such organizations that are constantly fighting back against the ACLU and their radical agenda to normalize the absurd and the vile in this country.
It is my firm belief that the radical redefinition of what is "normal" and "acceptable", cloaked as "tolerance", has caused conservatives and people of faith like myself to rise up in opposition to these forces of secularization like the ACLU. While it is prophesied that the world will come under the power of the Prince of Darkness, it is the responsibility, the duty, and the honor of faithful Americans to impress upon our children the values of our Creator.
The ACLU must be stopped as they attempt to devalue human life. The most sacred and safe place for a child should be their mother's womb, however, it is the one place where this young life faces the greatest risk of extermination. That the ACLU seeks to protect the "right" to abortion as a "health care issue" is reason enough to continue to press for their defunding, and ultimate extermination from our courtrooms.
It is my honor, as a Christian, to stand up for what is right. Thank you for this article!
Comment by Tyler Dawbin | March 21, 2006
Good review choice.
Comment by WBJones | March 21, 2006
I see that the only person currently resurrected is Joseph McCarthy. The usual suspects are behind this attack on reason, Dobson, Kennedy, et al. and all purveyors of socially acceptable superstitions. Ask Bill O'Reilly if phone sex is a "traditional" American value.
Comment by Rayilyn Brown | March 21, 2006
I was going to answer Rayilyn Brown, but I cannot discern for the life of me what she was attempting to say. Can someone interpret for me? What does she mean, "attack on reason?" Who is attacking reason? What does Bill O'Reilly have to do with anything, or Joseph McCarthy?
It would be helpful if the website could provided us with a "liberal-speak" translator, because these people truly make no sense. Or at the very least, could Ms. Brown at least address some point made in the article or the comments?
Comment by Rich S | March 21, 2006
Rich, I can guess at the McCarthy reference. I believe that Ms. Brown is insinuating that we are looking at another red scare from the McCarthy era and that the authors are using scare tactics by invoking references to that time. What she fails to realize is that when we got access to Soviet documents it was found that McCarthy was more right than wrong.
The comments about 'reason' I guess to be regarding the myth that religion and reason are an either/or. If you are a person of reason, you can't possibly believe in God. If you are a religious person, you deny reason. Think Ayn Rand and it should become clearer. An argument that is false because it is based on an incorrect belief that religious people deny reason.
As to the O'Reilly comment, I would guess that that is an attempt to say "You holier than thou types are no better than anyone else". Of course, since we don't say that we're better than anyone else, this is a false argument too.
Do I pass the liberal-speak translation test?
Comment by Ron S. | March 21, 2006
Ms. Brown obviously reads little background before writing a scathing review of this review! Had she done just a little research, she would have learned that Sears, in fact, DID do research - and did it well! The threat to our society is very real! And anyone who cannot see that must be blind!
ACLU simply was one of the earliest to attack Christians with such impunity! And their attacks have been merciless and endless! If we had more judges faithful to the Constitution, they (ACLU) would never have won the number of cases they have! The whole moreal fabric of this nation is torn and shredded. Our children are losing their rightful innocence younger and younger - and this is due, in large part, to the overblown influence of the ACLU!
Noone who can read can deny Baldwin's Communist ties and his vow to destroy America's democracy! Americans MUST wake up =- for the threat is even greater now - for we now have enemies among us who CLAIM to be "tolerant" - but, oddly enough, are not tolerant at all when one speaks even the truth against THEM!
Comment by Litl Bits | March 21, 2006
I have always found it alarming who the ACLU refuses to represent. They refuse to commit to causes backed by conservatives on any grounds. When has the ACLU represented proclaimed Christians who have been slighted for religious beliefs? The answer is only when they can make Christianity look evil. They are more than willing to defend the KKK right to march on city hall, but against a church group from performing a play in a public park. One represents evil cloaked in a twisted message of biblical rhetoric. The ACLU loves that. The other represents wholesome values and traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, the ACLU would never allow that in a public place.
Comment by Honker | March 22, 2006
Ron S,
Thanks, you do past the liberal-speak translator proficiency test. I confer on you the credential of leftist-buster cum laude.
I had forgotten that leftists enter the fray with a bunch of pre-conceived notions of what conservatives are and what they believe. They so completely buy in to the stereotype that they cannot have a reasoned discourse.
Ignorance is a terrible thing.
Comment by Rich S | March 22, 2006
Ron S,
Thanks, you do pass the liberal-speak translator proficiency test. I confer on you the credential of leftist-buster cum laude.
I had forgotten that leftists enter the fray with a bunch of pre-conceived notions of what conservatives are and what they believe. They so completely buy in to the stereotype that they cannot have a reasoned discourse.
Ignorance is a terrible thing.
Comment by Rich S | March 22, 2006
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Feb-05-Sat-2005/news/25808494.html
"A UNLV professor under fire for comments he made about homosexuals during a class lecture last year demanded Friday that the university stop threatening to punish him. … The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, on Hoppe's behalf, sent a letter to UNLV officials alleging that the university violated Hoppe's free speech rights and his right to academic freedom."
Comment by HMan23 | March 22, 2006
I seem to also recall the ACLU filing an amicus brief on Rush Limabugh's behalf concerning his drug charges.
I guess it's like everyone hating lawyers until they need one themselves.
Comment by HMan23 | March 22, 2006
HMan23 is right. The ACLU will occassionally step up on behalf of a conservative, but only if it furthers their leftist aims. It is a pretty rare event, so the person who posted item 8 is not too far off.
As far as lawyers go, well, they do an awful lot to influence the legal environment so as to increase the need for lawyers. Every time I've needed a lawyer, it was because other lawyers had done other stuff to create my need.
If we had more judges who were not into social engineering experiments, they would not entertain these asinine legal assertions that pass for law. We wouldn't have so many lawyer problems, or for that matter, lawyer jokes. It'd be a noble profession once again.
Comment by Rich S | March 22, 2006
Regarding #8, I would like an example of "proclaimed Christians who have been slighted for religious beliefs."
Comment by HMan23 | March 22, 2006
Hman,
Lets analyze a recent one that will have you (lib) and me (con) facing off against a company we usually would take an opposite side with. The evil empire, WAL-MART.
Wal-mart, as of last December 25th, refused to allow the word Christmas in the stores, check-out people were not allowed to say "Merry Christmas", employees were not allowed to openly wear crosses or other signs of religious beliefs. This last part was where the ACLU showed the double standard. They have protected religious freedoms of Muslims and Jews to wear "religious attire" while at work. I am torn on the outcomes of such a law, because I believe business should have a right to decide what employees say and wear when representing said business, but that is not the point. The point is the ACLU defended the sign of David and the turbin, but felt the cross was appropriate to ban.
Comment by Honker | March 23, 2006
To Hman,
Concerning your Rush analysis, it holds no water. The cause, not the person, is what the ACLU represents. I am sure the ACLU members hate the KKK as well, but it furthers the cause of the ACLU to represent them. I do not know enough about the Rush case to state a cause, but repesenting a conservative and representing a conservative cause are two very different things. The ACLU may have no underlying cause behind defending Rush, I simply do not know. I do not believe the ACLU would readily take on a case a self-proclaimed liberal was involved in if it would benefit a conservative cause. (Lets say Ted Danson wanted some father custody rights for example). Point being, the names on a lawsuit or irrelevant compared to the outcome and further results of said lawsuit.
Comment by Honker | March 23, 2006
Hman23, that's too easy. Here we go:
"No, we don't force women into burkas, we don't stone adulterers, we don't beat non-bearded men on the street. But we do permit our "mullahs" to set the social agenda and restrict our political freedoms. We've even given tacit approval of their torture policy as official state practice, and to the shredding of our Constitutional rights.
"Our would-be Talaban are the Ashcrofts, Gonzaleses, Rumsfelds, Cheneys, Bushes, Roves, et al. — along with their fundamentalist backers, the Robertsons and Dobsons and Falwells and Bauers — and the fawning HardRight pundits in the media who have become prostituted by their proximity to power." - Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor, "The Crisis Papers."
"Fundamentalists like (Pat) Robertson are rather contradictory. These "pro-life" Christians bomb abortion clinics. These "compassionate" Christians blockade Terri Schiavo's hospice, preventing a grieving woman from wishing her dying grandfather farewell. These "loving" Christians hate certain Americans for simply being born a certain way. And many of the things the Robertsons of the world say are far more radical than anything you'll hear them critique those "freedom-hating terrorists" for." Joe Hughes, "Hughesforamerica"
To see what's new and dangerous about Bush's approach to religion, you have to look beyond the president's copious prayers and exhortations, which are legally meaningless. Clinton also showed immense political sympathy for religion, but he didn't nominate a slate of right-wing judges who could give the law a decidedly majoritarian, pro-Christian bent. And Bush has gone further than that. From school-prayer guidelines issued by the Department of Education to faith-based initiatives to directives from virtually every federal agency, there's hardly a place where Bush hasn't increased both the presence and the potency of religion in American government. In the process, the Bush administration lavishly caters to the very religious-right groups that gave us the dubious Christian-nation concept …
To see what's new and dangerous about Bush's approach to religion, you have to look beyond the president's copious prayers and exhortations, which are legally meaningless. Clinton also showed immense political sympathy for religion, but he didn't nominate a slate of right-wing judges who could give the law a decidedly majoritarian, pro-Christian bent. And Bush has gone further than that. From school-prayer guidelines issued by the Department of Education to faith-based initiatives to directives from virtually every federal agency, there's hardly a place where Bush hasn't increased both the presence and the potency of religion in American government. In the process, the Bush administration lavishly caters to the very religious-right groups that gave us the dubious Christian-nation concept …
To see what's new and dangerous about Bush's approach to religion, you have to look beyond the president's copious prayers and exhortations, which are legally meaningless. Clinton also showed immense political sympathy for religion, but he didn't nominate a slate of right-wing judges who could give the law a decidedly majoritarian, pro-Christian bent. And Bush has gone further than that. From school-prayer guidelines issued by the Department of Education to faith-based initiatives to directives from virtually every federal agency, there's hardly a place where Bush hasn't increased both the presence and the potency of religion in American government. In the process, the Bush administration lavishly caters to the very religious-right groups that gave us the dubious Christian-nation concept …
"To see what's new and dangerous about Bush's approach to religion, you have to look beyond the president's copious prayers and exhortations, which are legally meaningless. Clinton also showed immense political sympathy for religion, but he didn't nominate a slate of right-wing judges who could give the law a decidedly majoritarian, pro-Christian bent. And Bush has gone further than that. From school-prayer guidelines issued by the Department of Education to faith-based initiatives to directives from virtually every federal agency, there's hardly a place where Bush hasn't increased both the presence and the potency of religion in American government. In the process, the Bush administration lavishly caters to the very religious-right groups that gave us the dubious Christian-nation concept … " The American Prospect
Why don't you google "Christian Taliban" and see the thousands of hits, then come back and tell us all that people aren't criticized for their Christian beliefs.
Comment by Rich S | March 23, 2006
Sorry about the repetition, it was unintentional. If I could see the entire thing I'm typing, that would help, but the format goes off the page.
Comment by Rich S | March 23, 2006
Rich S.:
So that is your point? Opinion pieces from writers make up the persecution of Christians? Writers criticize organized Christianity? How about any laws or government actions? That is primarily what the ACLU deals with.
I hardly find it profound that the ACLU does not take up "conservative" causes - given that conservative ideology is often the force against protecting individual liberties.
Please give me an example of a conservative cause that you feel the ACLU should take up. I can only think of one issue - the ACLU's stance on protecting 2nd Amendment rights. The ACLU does not view that amendment as broad as many conservatives do, so I can see where many conservatives WOULD take issue.
Comment by HMan23 | March 23, 2006
Honker - if you are correct that the ACLU fought for other groups regarding what they wore to Wall-Mart, but not Christians - I agree with you. Regarding the rules a private business can impose on its emplyees is probably an issue we would actually agree on to an extent. In terms of clothing, I generally have no problem with a private business says you can and cannot wear. Maybe somebody who is affected by such rules could makje an argument, but that doesn't seem to rise to the level of discrimination that would have me concerned. That said, Wall-Mart should, in my opinion, let people wear religious clothes (crosses, Yamulkas, turbins, whatever) so long as it is not generally considered obscene or disruptive in some way.
I probably also agree with you that in this case, a private business should have the right to dictate certain policies. To that end, I have no problem with a rule to not say "Merry Christmas." I suspect that was a business decision to not single out any one religion while dealing with customers - and not one meant to persecute Christians. I suspect that Wall-Mart would have similar rules against saying "Happy Chanukah" or "Happy Ramadan" or any greeting tied to a particular religion.
Comment by HMan23 | March 23, 2006
Hman23,
You asked me for examples of proclaimed Christians being slighted for their beliefs. I gave you what you aked for, and you move the target.
Ok, are there laws and court decisions that are anti-Christianity? The answer is such an obvious "yes" that I wonder if you have been in a coma the last 30 years.
1) City officials in St. Paul, Minnesota removed a toy Easter Bunny from the offices of the city council after the city's human rights director said non-Christians might be offended by the display, reports the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Also removed were Easter eggs and a sign saying "Happy Easter."
2) high school senior in the Chicago area complained to district officials because religious people were allowed to speak at a school-wide assembly, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
George Soto says his school, Lane Technical High School, allowed representatives from the Seven Project, a ministry of the Assemblies of God, to hold two "character education" assemblies on school premises. He called lawyers for the school board to express his concerns about the separation of church and state over the issue.
3) Parents of students at a middle school in California are angry because members of the Gideons group were giving away Bibles on public property outside the Nellie N. Coffman Middle School in Cathedral City, reports KESQ TV.
The families think that, by giving away the books anywhere near the school, the Gideons are shoving religion down their kids' throats.
4) Third-graders in Madison, Wisc. won't be allowed to ring bells to raise money for the Salvation Army as they have in the past because one parent complained about the kids helping a religious-based charity, according to The Capital Times.
5) Family members of fallen highway patrol officers and their supporters are rallying in Utah to fend off a lawsuit from atheists claiming that crosses erected on public highways in honor of those officers are unconstitutional, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
6) The Associated Press, in an analysis of Lewis' Christianity, points out that Americans United for Separation of Church and State criticized Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for offending the Constitution by choosing The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for his state's annual student reading campaign.
7) A group of Utah atheists is says it is suing to block the state from erecting crosses in honor of highway patrol officers who have died in the line of duty, reports ABC 4.
8) San Fran's resident Michael Newdow has a new target in his campaign to remove all vestiges of the almighty from public view — the phrase "In God we Trust" on American coins and currency, reports Fox News.
9) A resident assistant in a dormitory at the University of Wisconsin in Eau Claire has been told that he cannot hold informal Bible study sessions in the dorm because it would amount to an illegal endorsement of religion by a state employee, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
10) Five Georgia residents and the ACLU have sued the government of Cobb County for using the word ‘Jesus’ in pre-meeting convocations, reports the Atlanta Constitution, alleging that the prayers are overtly Christian and offensive.
11) The ACLU is objecting to plans by Harris County officials in Texas to name a new park after the late John Paul II, according to the Houston Chronicle, claiming that to do so would be insensitive to other faiths.
12) According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, scouting councils across the nation are said to be scrambling to find new sponsors for thousands of Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs whose charters are held by taxpayer-funded institutions, including public schools, following a challenge from the ACLU that such public sponsorship is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
Do I really need to go on, or are you going to move the target again? And by the way, why don't you document how "conservative ideology is often the force against protecting individual liberties," which I consider to be a perposterous assertion.
Comment by Rich S | March 23, 2006
Rich S: "slighted" vs. "persecuted." I apologize if I interchanged those terms. I did not intend to move the target, but I thought it was implicit that we were all talking about conduct that moved beyond people merely being slighted.
As for the examples you cite, I hardly find that those laws inhibit a person's ability to practice Christianity in any way. Obviously, we have disagreements on the reach of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, so I doubt it would advance the point any to get into those.
As for conservatives being opposed to protecting individual liberties, I guess it depends on which side you find youself on, and what philosophy you follow in reading the Constitution. Look at any court decision grappling with a question of the scope of individual liberties. Unless the liberty is in the text, conservatives will fight finding that said "right "exists. Reproductive rights is obviously an example. Conservatives do not feel that the Constituion provides such a right, but liberals do and feel that freedom of choice is an individual liberty. Thus, conservative ideology is the force in opposition.
Comment by HMan23 | March 23, 2006
Rich S.: Given that you probably do not think freedom of choice IS a constitutional right, I could see where you think it preposterous for me to make that statement.
Comment by HMan23 | March 23, 2006
… given that conservative ideology is often the force against protecting individual liberties.
It was conservative ideology that gave rise to this nation, our constitution, and the laws that arose out of it.
The fact is, Christians are often the ones to protect individual freedoms…unless those freedoms result in a grand distortion of the norm, a la "abortion on demand" and "homosexual marriage."
In these cases, Christians defend the sacred over personal liberty.
Comment by Tyler Dawbin | March 23, 2006
HMan23,
The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" There are 4 elements here.
1) Congress: This amendment is about Congress. It is not about the Boy Scouts, it is not about what a teacher might say in a classroom.
2) Shall make no law: Congress is being forbidden to make laws about religion. Congress is to remain silent on matters of faith as it applies to citizens.
3) Establishment of a religion: Congress is forbidden to establish a religion
4) Prohibiting the free exercise thereof: Congress also is forbidden to make laws prohibiting the free (unencumbered, unregulated, unimperiled) exercise of religion.
Does it seem to you that the "establishment clause" you refer to is an unconstitutional interpretation of the clear language of the first amendment?
Regarding constitutional rights, a right definitionally can only exist if it does not impede other rights. If someone exercises a right, it cannot cost someone else money, liberty, or property. That's why there is no right to health care. The exercising of such a right requires someone else to pay for it. There is no right to abortion, because it costs someone else their life, and often, someone else is required to pay for it.
If the second amendment were treated the same way as leftists interpret these so-called rights, then everyone who wanted a gun would get one for free from the government. Free speech would require a free auditorium filled with people.
Rights are unalienable (cannot be separated from individual human existence). Rights are bestowed by our Creator, they are not given by government. Government only recognizes these pre-existent rights and "secures" them (that is, makes them safe).
Given this framework, conservatives are the champions of individual rights, and leftists only seem to want want to limit them, deny them, or explain them away.
Comment by Rich S | March 23, 2006
Please go to liberty for another case concerning a kindergarten student who was chastised for drawing a picture of Jesus alongside other images . This case doesn't especially mention the ACLU but is another example of what happens when a Christian student tries to exercise his/her freedom of expression in a secular school setting. This is a case which might possibly end up on the US Supreme Court docket so it is important I think.
Comment by Steve Edward | March 25, 2006
I like to think of myself as a smart girl, but there are a ton who are smarter than me. At least I’m not like Dubbya who has called himself “the Decider”. HAHA - That’s so funny!
Comment by Jordan Capri | May 3, 2006