SAME OL' LEFTIST SONG AND DANCE

Believe it or not, the AMERICAN COMMUNIST LIBERTIES UNION has threatened the Gwinnett County, Georgia school system for having an internet filtering system on school computers that blocks access to pornographic websites.  In blocking students' access to pornographic websites, the filtering system also blocks access to gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual websites (ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION ARTICLE).  It's a well-known fact these sites are pornographic and very explicit, and certainly not appropriate for school-age children.

To show the extremes to which the ACLU will go to further it's extreme left-wing agenda, here are a couple of quotes.  The first is from the legal director of the ACLU Georgia, Chara Jackson.  Speaking of the homosexual, transgender, and bisexual websties, Ms. Jackson said in her letter to the Gwinnett County School Board, "If you continue to censor these websites, you could be subject to legal liability and the expense of litigation."  Use of the threat of causing a very expensive court battle is a frequent tactic.  The ACLU hopes that a local government will cave in to their demands to save money.  Ms. Jackson also said "the use of a filter that blocks access to websites about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues 'doesn't serve a legitimate purpose.' " on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act the requires equal access to school resources for extracurricular clubs.

"No legitimate purpose."  Really? Preventing school children from accessing pornographic websites serves "no legitimate purpose?"  This shows just how warped their reasoning is.

What makes this even more ludicrous is that the filtering complies with guidelines contained in the Federal Children's Internet Protection Act, which means that if these left wingnuts are successful in court, then school systems everywhere could have to grant access to such websites.

Since of the ACLU's assertions is "equal access", let's look at a hypothetical scenario.  If this was an extracurricular Christian club rather than the gay-straight alliance at Brookwood High School, and the organizer of the group complained to the ACLU about not having access to Christian websites on school computers, do you think the ACLU would raise any objection whatsoever?  Not a chance.

The ACLU had originally given the Gwinnett County school system until this past Monday to respond, but extended the deadline according to an ARTICLE posted by the Gwinnett Daily Post.  The school board has not responded to the ACLU's demands yet.

As we have seen before, public opposition will stop them.  Whether or not you are a resident of Gwinnett County does not matter.  You still have very much a vested interest in this if you have children in school.  It's time to organize, and creating a Facebook page or group would be a great place to start.  It happened in King, North Carolina and Cherokee County, Georgia recently, it can happen this time.  Organize, then contact every news media outlet you can to publicize your group and gain support in other areas other than locally. Be sure to show overwhelming support to the Gwinnett County School Board for maintaining the smut filters.  Click HERE for a listing of the superintendent, school board members, and how to contact them.  

The leftists can be stopped, and outward public opposition is the way to do it.  We don't need to run and hide every time the ACLU says, "boo".

THE LEFT SEZ "OPEN THOSE BORDERS!"

The AMERICAN COMMUNIST LIBERTIES UNION and other leftist agenda-pushing groups filed a lawsuit yesterday attempting to stop Georgia's new immigration law, H. B. 87, from being enforced and going into effect July 1, 2011. (Source 1, 2, 3)

CHARA JACKSON, ACLU of Georgia's legal director, told CNN, "This law essentially turns Georgia into a police state, requiring everyone to carry their papers in order to prove that they are lawfully present in the United States, or risk being subject to lengthy detention or investigation."

I don't think so Ms. Jackson.  Here is a direct quote from H. B. 87:

" . . . during any investigation of a criminal suspect by a peace officer, when such officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a criminal violation, the officer shall be authorized to seek to verify such suspect's immigration status when the suspect is unable to provide ONE (emphasis mine) of the following: 1) A secure and verifiable document as defined in Code Section 50-36-2; 2) A VALID GEORGIA DRIVER'S LICENSE (emphasis mine); 3) A valid Georgia identification card issued by the Department of Driver Services; 4) If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, ANY VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE FROM A STATE OR DISTRICT OF THE UNITED STATES (emphasis mine),  or ANY VALID IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT (emphasis mine) issued by the United States government; 5) A document used in compliance with paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Code Section 40-5-21 (which is a section of Georgia traffic law); 6) Other information as to the suspect's identity that is sufficient to allow the peace officer to independently identify the suspect.

Just where does it say that an immigrant has to keep their papers on them to prove they are here legally?  You're right, it doesn't.  A driver's license or state-issued ID card will do it.  

Wait a minute.  Georgia state law requires ME, born in Washington, D.C.,  to have my driver's license or other identification on me at all times when I am out and about.  It would seem that, according to Ms. Jackson's definition, we ALREADY live in a "police state."  By Jiminy, Ms. Jackson and her band of merry leftists better hurry and file a lawsuit pronto to overturn such a bigoted, discriminatory (oh, almost forgot, racist) law!  If I'm caught driving without my driver's license, guess what? I GO TO JAIL!!  Highly discriminatory. Ms. Jackson's statement is just one more example of the lies and distortions from the left in their quest to force an agenda on the American people.

These types of lawsuits are unconstitutional in and of itself.  Court rulings up to the U. S. Supreme Court were never intended to become law.  Nowhere in the Constitution will you find court rulings able to overturn laws passed by duly elected legislative officials.  Duly elected, by We The People.  Such lawsuits are intended to bypass We The People and the entire legislative process including the President and Congress.

It's time to push back once again.  As I've said many times here, the only to put a stop to these leftist groups is public opposition.  They do not like public opposition because it shows they are in the minority, not the majority as they would like you to believe. 

One small way to show your support for Georgia's We The People, go to this Facebook site, STAND WITH GEORGIA (AND AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION), and click like, then share it on your Facebook wall.  You may also contact Georgia Governor Nathan Deal by clicking HERE and offering your support and encouragement to stand firm as the games begin. 

REBUTTAL!

I haven't done this in a long time, but Bruce Gourley, Director of the BAPTIST HISTORY AND HERITAGE SOCIETY, took the time to leave a well thought out comment with a somewhat opposing viewpoint.  His comment on my previous post is lengthy, so I won't repeat it here.  Please read his comment first before reading this post.

First, the issue of schools renting church buildings isn't a separation of church and state issue.  This has been ruled on by the Supreme Court in reverse a long time ago giving churches equal access to school buildings in which to hold services.  If a church were to deny a school access to its facility, but give access to other groups and organizations, that church would be open to a law suit.  This just exposes even more the Americans United for Separation of Church and State's true agenda which is anything but religious freedom.

The First Amendment has been turned upside down for about the past fifty years by groups such as the ACLU, AU, Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) into suppressing the rights of Christians.  With a leftist activist judiciary in place in the U. S. Supreme Court for about the same length of time, these groups have violated the Constitution by bypassing entirely the legislative process which represents the will of the people.  A very glaring example of the anti-Christian agenda was a lawsuit in Louisiana about 2005, in which the ACLU sued an elementary school for displaying a Nativity scene.  What the ACLU failed to mention in their suit and court briefs was that there was also a Kwanzaa display, a display for a Mexican bilingual display, and a Menorah.  The ACLU lost that lawsuit, and should have.  

I believe there are several reasons these groups use lawsuits rather than go through the various State legislatures and Congress to further their agenda.  One is that they know what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion . . . "  So, they just bypass Congress.  The next reason is tied in to the first in a way.  Anytime polls are conducted, the overwhelming majority of Americans express a belief in God.  The statistics are anywhere from the mid-eighty percent range to over ninety percent.  Now whether or not they are living the life is another question and another sermon!  If any type of legislation were somehow attempted, these groups and Congress would risk a huge backlash.  Politicians want to keep their jobs, not lose them.  The last reason I believe is speed.  Since Supreme Court rulings have been unconstitutionally given the authority of law (as in "caselaw"), it is much faster to further an agenda through lawsuits and once a ruling is handed down, it is law.  Period.  We The People can't vote on it or have anything to say about it.  Pretty dictatorial, isn't it?  No where in the Constitution or any of its amendments, or anywhere else for that matter will you find Supreme Court rulings becoming law.  This concentration of power without representation is another reason America was founded.

While freedom of religion is an essential part of our heritage and the reason this country was founded, the short quote from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Baptist Association has been turned around to limit our right to religious expression to certain venues,  specifically out of the public eye totally whether or not government property is involved or not.  All it takes is one person to claim they are offended, and one call to any one of these groups to set the wheels in motion, just as in the case of the Christian flag in King, North Carolina. 

In order to keep Jefferson's position on the role of Christianity in government clear, here are a few historical facts that probably will not be found easily anymore.  

First, Jefferson actually encourage local governments to make land available for Christian purposes in a letter to Bishop Carroll on September 3, 1801.  This letter is in the Library of Congress, #19966.  The Capitol building in Washington, D. C. was also a church building (as voted on by Congress) in which then President Jefferson chose to worship.  He even provided government paid musicians for the services.  He also had Christian services in the War Building and the Treasury Building.  He also closed all of his presidential documents with, "In the year of our Lord Christ, by the President, Thomas Jefferson."   Jefferson proposed the Great Seal of the United States include a depiction of a Bible story and include "God" in its motto (August 20, 1776, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Report on a Seal for the United States, with Related Papers).  Jefferson also endorsed the use of a local courthouse for church services (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, to Dr. Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822).  He even promised government business to a Christian religious school (letter to the Order of the Nuns at Saint Ursula at New Orleans, May 15, 1804).

The final clarification of Jefferson's position on the role of Christianity in government.  Jefferson was quoted as saying, "[The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will, [is] a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." Funny thing, the left now seems to believe that worshipping our Creator is "incompatible with good government."  Continuing on, "No nation has ever existed, or been governed without religion.  Nor can be.  The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example."

The many writings of the other 250 or so men involved with the founding of America are along the same vein.  Our government was never intended to be run totally devoid of the Christian faith.  The term "separation of church and state" clearly meant the government would not establish an official national religion as had been the case in England to the exclusion of all others.  This concept was never intended to prohibit our elected officials from practicing Christianity in the performance of their jobs, praying to God in public, or local governments not being able to put out Christmas decorations.

If "separation of church and state" was intended to mean what is commonly found in textbooks and history books now, then why don't the ACLU, the AU, the FFRF, and others not file lawsuits when Islamic imams are allowed in our schools for example? Why are there no lawsuits when public schools provide facilities for Islamic students to pray at their appointed times during the day?  Under the current misconception of "separation of church and state", is this not the government "establishing" a specific religion?  Yet, students wearing clothing with Christian symbols to school (or these days, the American flag) are sent home.

No, clearly, Jefferson's concept of "separation or church and state" was not a government devoid of Christianity.  It merely means the government can't decree an official national religion outlawing all others.  Just as clear, it also doesn't mean Christianity is only to be practiced behind closed doors.

The only "fabricated history" here is that of the Progressives, i. e. liberal leftists.  Historical records of the writings of the Founding Fathers, and the liberals' favorite, Thomas Jefferson, totally contradict the revisionist history we see today have seen for the past few decades.  The only mockery of our nation's founding principles are carried out by the leftist groups attempting to prohibit any mention of Christianity in the public arena.  This violates the will of the vast majority of Americans which is clearly unconstitutional, and such lawsuits making the Christian faith illegal except in private is a clear violation of the First Amendment they claim to be upholding.

I am not denying separation of church and state here, just the twisted context in which we find it today.  Comparing Islamic governments to the Christian faith in our government is comparing apples and oranges.  Just ask Jefferson.  Jefferson believed just the opposite. He believed the Christian faith to be our government's best support.

Thank you very much for your thoughts, Mr. Gourley.  I always invite different points of view, and thoroughly enjoy the resulting discussions.  I invite you to stop by regularly, and comment often, whether you agree or not.

WE THE PEOPLE WON, LEFTISTS 0

Update from King, North Carolina:

WXII12.com

Related To Story Margaret Johnson The Christian flag is once again flying at a veterans memorial in King. More

Christian Flag Flies Again At King Veterans Memorial

New Policy Begins Monday

POSTED: 3:05 pm EST January 3, 2011

UPDATED: 3:24 pm EST January 3, 2011

KING, N.C. -- For the first time since last summer, the Christian flag was once again flying on Monday at the public war memorial at Central Park that honors local veterans.

A new policy was adopted by the King City Council after a complaint over the Christian flag that formerly flew above the memorial.

A lottery held the week before Christmas determined that for 51 weeks, the Christian flag will be flown. During the week of June 6, no flag will be flown.

Under the new policy, any of 41 symbols approved by the federal Veterans Administration can be flown at the site in honor local veterans.

There were a total of 110 applications from residents requesting a flag be flown in honor of a loved one. Three of those were to have no flag flown. One was to have the atheist flag flown. 

The rest were requests to fly the Christian flag.

The Christian flag flying on Monday was requested by Jimmie Rosamond in honor of Troy Alexander, a Persian Gulf War veteran.

Civil liberties groups have said they're not entirely sold on the lottery.

Click here to view a full list of those being honored with flags.

This is the way it's done.  As I said before, the only way to put a stop to the left wingnut special interest groups pushing their agenda on the majority of      Americans.  

Again, if the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or some other leftist organization comes to your town, oppose them publicly through whatever media outlet is available to you, public protests, and pressure on local politicians to stand up and fight them instead of being intimidated by  threatening prohibitively expensive litigation.  Their usual modus operandi is targeting small towns and counties that has a small tax base and therefore limited funds for expensive court battles.  They don't like overwhelming public opposition because it exposes their true agenda and intent.  Anyone who opposes them quickly becomes the enemy.

One last thing.  Did you notice the sentence at the very end of the article?  "Civil liberties groups are not entirely sold on the lottery."  What their real objection here is that this was essentially a vote by the citizens of King which the ACLU, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, and similar organizations have a long history of overturning the will of the people with one single lawsuit.  Just look at the number of lawsuits they have filed against state constitutional amendments defining marriage passed by majority vote by duly elected officials, or referendums (like California) passed by majority popular vote.  These groups claim to represent us, the people, but always remain diametrically opposed the majority, We The People.

Way to go King!  Stand ready to face them down again, they may be back for round two.  If they do, keep on standing behind your local politicians encouraging them to stand up and fight.

By the way, their FACEBOOK page hit the 5,000 limit.