ACLU Attacks God and Children, Again

by Mark Baisley

Last Tuesday, June 21, 2011, the ACLU filed its latest lawsuit against an American school district for violating their “separation between church and state” mantra. The specific offense is allowing parents to spend vouchers for their children at schools that have a religious foundation.

The famous words, “wall of separation between church and state” came from a letter of assurance from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. That same letter from Jefferson also includes the sentiments, “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man.”

And yet, there is no insistence by the courts nor the ACLU that public schools recognize the Father and Creator of man.

Thomas Jefferson was not a fan of having a Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

Yet his unofficial words that were never debated, voted on, nor ratified have become the phrase used to hammer school districts who would dare allow voluntary attendance to schools that acknowledge an intelligent design behind the science that they teach.

Read More...

Stand Up For Freedom - Ezra Taft Benson

Terrorists Should Have More Rights than Tea Partiers?

by Leon H. Wolf

Some people are beyond parody. Back in 2007, Frank Lautenberg voted to expand the right of habeas corpus to foreign citizens detained overseas in the war on terror. In other words, if you are a terrorist, Frank Lautenberg thinks you are not getting all the Constitutional rights you deserve and he is going to do everything he can to make sure you get them. However, if you are a United States citizen who has not committed any crime whatsoever, apart from opposing taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, Frank Lautenberg believes you deserve no Constitutional rights at all. At a Planned Parenthood rally in Englewood, NJ, Lautenberg, addressing the counterprotestors who were protesting continued government funding of Planned Parenthood, said:



In case you have difficulty making it out, Lautenberg can be heard to say, “These people don’t deserve the freedoms in the Constitution.” In this context, “These people” apparently means the vast majority of Americans who don’t support taxpayer funding of abortion, or at the very least all TEA Party people who feel that way. When an audience member incredulously asks whether Lautenberg really said that, he added ”but we’ll give it to them anyway.” How maganimous.

FL Court Rules Sharia Law Trumps US Law

by Brigitte Gabriel

In Tampa, Florida, a dispute arose over who controls the funds a mosque received in 2008 from an eminent domain proceeding.

Former trustees of the mosque are claiming in court they have the right to the funds. Current mosque leaders are disputing that claim.

The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly.

The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.

Here's the kicker:

The judge recently ruled "This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law," (sharia law), "pursuant to the Qur'an."

You can read the judge's ruling here.

Now it's not unusual for a dispute to arise within a religious institution and for a court to order a mediation or arbitration, in order to resolve this without the court having to render its own judgment.

But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge!

Read More...

Click here for your free copy of Sharia Law For The Non Muslim...

Obama: Not Natural Born

Have any of the Democrats read the Constitution?

“The pursuit of happiness” is in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, not the Constitution

Cross on public land in San Diego is unconstitutional

by Tony Perry and Nardine Saad

The 43-foot cross atop public land on Mt. Soledad in San Diego is an unconstitutional "government endorsement of religion," a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, the latest twist in a two-decade legal struggle.

But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did not order the cross removed, as the Jewish War Veterans and other litigants, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, had hoped.

Instead, a three-judge panel sent the case back to a federal trial judge for "further proceedings" on the issue of whether the cross can be modified to "pass constitutional muster" as a war memorial, wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown.

The property surrounding the cross has been controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense since 2006, a move that supporters of the cross on the City Council and U.S. House of Representatives thought would protect it from a court ruling that a cross on public property is improper.

The cross was first erected in 1913, but the version there now was erected in 1954. In recent years, hundreds of small plaques have been placed on walls at the base of the cross in honor of military veterans of all faiths. But McKeown said that did not change the fact that the cross is primarily a Christian symbol.

Read More...

The Constitution Did Not Condone Slavery

by Ken Blackwell

The idea that our Constitution “condoned” slavery and was therefore an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence is a stock liberal claim. It is false.

Most of the Founders wanted to abolish the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Jefferson had denounced that “execrable traffic” in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence.

But South Carolina and Georgia delegates would not go along and, significantly, some in New England recognized the powerful influence of merchants whose ships included slavers.

But they were able to get into the original Constitution a provision which allowed Congress to ban the Slave Trade in twenty years. How odd for all those Washington liberals who today tout compromise to attack as immoral and vile this most important of compromises. Would most of the Founders have so desperately wanted to ban the Slave Trade if they thought it a good thing? If they condoned it?

Read More...

Liberals Mock Conservatives’ Constitutional “Fetish”

by Meredith Jessup

Today, the House of Representatives opened with a new procedure: the reading of the U.S. Constitution. The founding document doesn’t seem controversial, but the mere action of reading it aloud is already drawing ire from liberals.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein recently weighed in on the debate, telling MSNBC‘s Norah O’Donnell that reading the document aloud “a gimmick” and that “the issue of the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think they’re following; the issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.”

Read More...

Walter Williams - What is a Right?

Never Gonna Stand For This

Teachenor Clark