Judges, Lawyers, and the ACLU - Enemies of the People

By Gribbit

Have you ever noticed that every nutty idea that the ACLU sues over comes out of San Francisco, New York, Boston, or Chicago? Think about it seriously for a few minutes. None of these ignorant press releases about national policy ever originate in say Rapid City, SD or Kansas City, MO. And why is that? It is because all the brain dead lawyers in this nation gather like rats in the least pleasant locations in the nation.

Where the riff-raff are, the ACLU will be there to defend them. Deny it if you wish but you if you do you are living in the land of denial. The ACLU is nothing more than Ambulance Chasers with cause. And their cause is to take cases which will place national and local policies designed to defend morality and shred them in their precious cause of civil rights.

They don’t give a flying fart about civil liberties. That is just their cover story. Their what you ask? Their cover story, every Communist Front Organization has to have one. Their goal is to destroy anything which is American. To remove all barriers to free-will and create chaos. What this does is give the self appointed Kings By Committee the opportunity to step in and establish limitations.

We are being groomed. Groomed to accept judicial review as the law establishing authority. It started with Roe v Wade where the Supreme Court stepped out of it’s judicial review mode and decided that they could dictate and establish law. And we let them get away with that. Now the Congress passes their laws to withstand judicial review rather than with the authority of the will of the people. More grooming. Next phase for those who are grooming us is to remove the relevance of Congress altogether.

Once that is established, all laws restricting personal freedoms will be dissolved. Then the self appointed Kings By Committee will be in that position to dictate their morality and establish their law. And a Communist State will be born at last.

[Read more]

Get Involved! Stand Up Against the ACLU

Debbie Schussel, lawyer and investigative blogger, is asking for concerned citizens to join her in intervening the ALCU’s lawsuit against the NSA.

Jay at Stop the ACLU is helping out, as is Michelle Malkin. Euphoric Reality is joining the fight as well. If you’d like to be listed as an interested party, you can contact Debbie personally.

She explains a bit of the background:

I note that among the Plaintiffs (besides HAMAS front-group CAIR) is Christopher Hitchens. Trotskyite Hitchens was scheduled to appear at a Republican Jewish Coalition event, tomorrow–until I and others protested this far-left wacko’s appearance.

The text of the Complaint is very similar to–and includes a lot of the same language–as the ACLU’s lawsuit against Section 215 of the Patriot Act, also filed in Detroit, in 2003. That case has NEVER been decided and languishes in the courtroom of Judge Denise Page Hood. The judge drawn by the ACLU, Anna Diggs Taylor, is a liberal judge, but not as liberal as several of the others they could have drawn (like Judges Arthur Tarnow and Avern Cohn–who decided in favor of Islamic terrorist Ibrahim Parlak; or Republican Appointee Gerald Rosen, who overturned the Detroit Terror Cell conviction–all while behaving unethically behind the scenes while the case was before him).

This is an extremely important issue. Let’s get on board and stop CAIR and the ACLU!

ACLU Reaps What It Sows (oink)

The Commie oinkers over at the ACLU must be giving birth to a whole litter of piglets right now. A Democrat (believe it or not) has stepped up and voiced what all of us have been saying for a long time, and the legislature has backed him up.

The Louisiana Legislature has approved a resolution urging Congress to pass the Constitution Restoration Act, a bill that would prohibit federal courts from ruling in cases involving government officials who acknowledge God “as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.”

During a special session this month to address Katrina recovery issues, Sen. Mike Smith, a Democrat, introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 30, which passed the body by a 34-0 vote. The measure passed the state House by acclamation.

The first of its kind in the nation, the resolution finds that “… the federal judiciary has overstepped its constitutional boundaries and ruled against the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and government by local and state officers and other state institutions, including state schools. …”

The measure urges Congress to pass the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, saying that by doing so lawmakers would be “protecting the ability of the people of Louisiana to display the Ten Commandments in public places, to express their faith in public, to retain God in the Pledge of Allegiance, to retain ‘In God We Trust’ as our national motto, and to use Article III, Section 2.2 of the United States Constitution to except these areas from the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.”

Whoa. So what is this wonder law proposing exactly?

Touted by some supporters as one of the most important pieces of legislation in U.S. history, the bill states:

The Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
The legislation also addresses what many high-court watchers consider a dangerous trend: Supreme Court justices looking to foreign law and rulings for guidance when deciding cases. States the bill:

In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law.

Misha calls it “Something Good Out of Louisiana“, and we think it’s flat-out awesome.

Now, what does this have to do with the ACLU? Simple. Because of their stupid little lawsuits protesting everything American and religious in this country, it’s gotten to a poin far past ridiculous. It’s about time a legislator stood up and said “no more”. There’s another new one here, by the way.

Make sure to write your Congressmen and Senators and demand that they support this bill!

ACLU Fun in My Backyard

Apparently even here in the heart of the Bible Belt there are idiots. Stop The ACLU has the full story. I should have caught it myself, considering it’s right here in town, but I missed it.

TULSA, Okla. — A group of pastors fired up a crowd of more than 300 people during a rally around a monument engraved with the Ten Commandments on the Haskell County Courthouse lawn.

U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn spoke Saturday at the gathering in favor of the monument, which a recent American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit says is a sign of the government favoring one religion over another.

But Coburn and others who were vocal at the rally contend that the statements listed in the Ten Commandments are guidelines to a moral, law-abiding society regardless of religious beliefs. [...]

Jim Green, the Stigler resident who is the plaintiff in the ACLU case, was contacted by telephone and declined to comment because of the ongoing litigation.

I wish I’d have known about this rally. I’d have been there with bells on. You can guarantee I’ll be there for the next one, and this time I’ll bring the camera.

It’s ridiculous to see these lawsuits. People who sue to get some facet of Christianity taken out of the government are about as bright as a burned-out bulb.

More Newdow Lawsuits

Michael Newdow has, unfortunately, not yet been hit by a runaway train. As a result, he’s still doing what he does best: filing frivolous and asinine lawsuits in an effort to erode the Christian history of our country.

Stop The ACLU has the full story of Newdow’s latest bid for attention: a lawsuit to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency.

Is this folly? Of course it is. Newdow says it interferes with his - get this - First Amendment rights because his church doesn’t believe there’s a God.

Are you finished laughing yet?

What an idiot. He’s officially joined the ranks of People Who Need To Go Play In the Street(tm). Talk about a poster child for condoms. Too bad there’s not a draft. Then maybe people like him could go do something productive with their lives, like help earn the freedom he’s taking a crap on.

Stop The ACLU Blogburst

It seems from my email alerts that the Most Dangerous Organization in America is concerning themselves mainly with voter ID requirements in various states and prayers being said in local council meetings. Don’t these idiots have a life?

From the ACLU:

ALBUQUERQUE –The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico filed a lawsuit today asking a federal court to declare Albuquerque’s recently passed Voter ID Amendment “unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.”

The new law requires people who vote in person to present a “current valid identification card containing the voter’s name and photograph.” Among the acceptable forms of identification are a driver’s license, a credit card, and a voter identification card issued by the City Clerk. Absentee voters are exempt from any photo ID requirements.

“If you’re poor or homeless, there’s a good chance you don’t have any of the permissible forms of identification,” said ACLU Executive Director Peter Simonson. “Wealth shouldn’t determine your ability to participate in democracy. Americans shouldn’t have to jump through unnecessary hoops to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote.”

Why are people traveling around without identification in the first place. At minimum ID should be carried in the event of an accident. It is a no brainier to require an ID to vote. How else would the elections officials be able to tell if you are who you say you are?

Across this nation we hear stories of people registering their dogs and dead relatives. This is voter fraud. And the simplest solution to combat voter fraud is requiring ID to vote.

The ACLU’s contention that this is an effort to suppress the poor vote which is heavily Democratic is nothing more than a political temper tantrum. The ACLU would like voter registration to remain as is because it allows people to vote more than once.

In other news, the ACLU of Tennessee is asking the 6th District Court of Appeals to uphold a ruling by a lower court which barred “Choose Life” license plates. Excuse me… But didn’t a case like this in Ohio just get settled? And if I’m not mistaken, the Choose Life plates won out.

From the ACLU:

CINCINNATI - The American Civil Liberties Union today asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court ruling blocking an anti-abortion specialty license plate in Tennessee, saying that the plate discriminates against opposing viewpoints.

“When the state of Tennessee approved an anti-abortion license plate and failed to do the same for a pro-choice plate, it effectively cut off public discussion,”” said Julie Sternberg, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, who argued the case today before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. “The lower court made clear that the state cannot open up a forum for public debate on abortion without allowing both sides an equal opportunity to express their position. We are hopeful that the appeals court will do the same.”

The law in question makes a “Choose Life” license plate available to motorists for an annual fee of $35 over and above the basic costs of registering a car in the state. Fifty percent of all funds raised, after expenses, go to a private anti-choice organization called New Life Resources. The legislature twice rejected an amendment that would have authorized a “Pro Choice”” specialty plate.

This is the same old argument against the right of a state to govern themselves. The members of Politburo take every opportunity to trample on the states’ 10th guarantees by getting a panel of black robed Kings by Committee to make decisions as to what is best for the citizens; taking away the power of guaranteed them through the system of representative government.

The people have representatives to their state governments to make decisions like these. And when necessary, the people themselves take a popular vote on issues. But God forbid if the people or their elected officials make a decision which differs from the ACLU’s agenda. Ooops, I’m sorry, we can’t mention God. But we can mention Satan, Allah, the Spirits of the 4 winds, or any other Deity just as long as it isn’t God or mentions the name Jesus.

Specialty license places are used to raise money for various charities. From protecting the wildlife of a state to private organizations, people select these plates to show their support of the cause. This is the vary argument made in the Ohio case.

Moving on we get to the Cobb County prayer case. The ACLU has their panties in a twist over a prayer being said using the words, “in the name of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Oh no! A town dares to challenge the ACLU over religion! Savages… Don’t they know that rules of PC tolerance forbids the mention of the Judeo/Christian Deity?

Cobb County is fighting the ACLU suit by filing a 50 page brief. In the brief, the County makes a point of fact, “As a matter of historical fact, the exact prayers given in the first Congress explicitly referred to Jesus Christ.”

As we have seen in this past year if a historical context can be attached to a religious reference it is permissible. The US Supreme Court ruled in July that a memorial containing the 10 Commandments could remain in front of a court house citing its historical context.

So if it is permissible for the House of Representatives of the United States to refer to the Christian savior in its first session, what right has anyone to tell a local government that they cannot follow that tradition? None.

It seems to me that these idiots can be pursuing cases where real civil liberties are being violated. Wait, that is over with isn’t it. The government of the United States no longer discriminates against anyone regardless of race, creed, national origin, sex, sexual preference, or handicap. So they haven’t any real horse in a race. So they remain relevant by prosecuting legal actions against local governments. And in this way, they put forward their founder’s vision for America. “Communism is the goal.” - Roger Baldwin 1935.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Stop the ACLU Blogburst

Yesterday, the new session of the Supreme Court opened with the controversial topic of assisted suicide. The legal debate is over States rights, but for America the real debate is a moral one. The “death with dignity” crowd plea that someone who is terminal and suffering should be allowed to die in a less painful way. There may be many of you that agree with that, but I think this opens Pandora’s box. Once we hand over power to the medical community to determine who is fit to live, we open the door for some Dr. Death-type zealot to step in. Many doctors feel if they were compelled by the State to comply with the wishes of a patient to help them die, it would be a violation of their Hippocratic oath. North American Patriot points out from an article in the Scientific American Of the 34 euthanasia cases, Ogden found that half were botched and ultimately resulted in increased suffering. This is where the moral line gets drawn.
“The ACLU recognizes the right of a patient to euthanasia…”–ACLU Policy Guide of 1986. They have also went to the defense of many in assisted suicide cases, and other “right to die” cases See here. In 1988 the ACLU supported a proposal in Michigan that would allow a panel of physicians to determine whether a person is terminally ill and mentally competent to choose to have a physician-assisted death.

These were all voluntary cases involving terminally ill people, so what is the problem? The problem is a moral one, and another case for the slippery slope argument. It is based on the intentions of our founders.

The ACLU attempts to promote euthanasia and assisted suicide in the guise of “the right to privacy”. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not private acts. Instead, they involve one person participating directly in the death of another. This is a matter of public concern since it can lead to significant abuse, exploitation and degradation of care for some of the most vulnerable people among us.

Oregon, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only places in the world where laws specifically allow euthanasia or assisted suicide. Oregon permits assisted suicide. The Netherlands and Belgium allow both euthanasia and assisted suicide.

We can learn some important lessons of such concepts from history:

“In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread “mercy killing” of the sick and disabled.

Code named “Aktion T 4,” the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate “life unworthy of life” at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry.

The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler’s decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged “the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.”Source

Could this happen in America? I fear we have opened a door that could very well push us in that direction. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this law, many other states could follow suit. First its voluntary, then we get into the issue of guardianship, which can lead to sick babies, deformed babies, etc…

Many of you will not like what I have got to say, but here it is…I’m gonna go evangelical on you; an individual has no right to take their own life. It is important to understand this. Allow me explain.

The opening refrain of the Declaration of Independence provides the necessity of an absolute standard upon which the rule of law must be based:

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;…” Declaration of Independence

First of all, and most importantly, notice who the founders believed endowed us our rights. Then notice that while the right of life was granted, there is no right to choose your death.

Thomas Jefferson said, “the chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that, and you have abandoned all.”

Abraham Lincoln was faced with the same issue when he questioned the institution of slavery. He said,”I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon priciple, and making exceptions to it, where it will stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?”

The individual is granted the gift of life by God. Who has the right to take it away? A legal guardian? A Court? In my opinion, the only one who has the right to take away life is the Creator who granted it. If you put that right into the hands of the individual, a panel of doctors, a legal guardian, or the judicial system, you have given up that right. God grants our rights, not the State. If the State granted rights it could take them away, and that is where the danger lies.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, they are about changing public policy so that doctors or others can directly end or be involved in ending another person’s life. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about the right to die. They are about the right to kill.

Our best hope for civil liberties protection is not the ACLU, but to return to the rule of law based on the inalienable right to life endowed to all men by their Creator. The rule of law intended by our founders.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal. You will be added to our maling list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Stop The ACLU: The Pledge Under Fire Again

Just yesterday a lefty judge ruled the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional. It’s pretty simple, either we are a nation under God, or a nation without God. I’m not sure the far left know how dangerous it is that they are trying to take God out of our history, and how fragile our moral fabric has become. It wasn’t that long ago the out of control judicial branch ruled in favor of the federal government to take away our private property. There is no doubt the judicial branch has too much power that goes unchecked. It’s time Congress step up and put a stop to the judicial tyranny and legislation from the bench. Rehnquist said it should be an impeachable offense. I completely agree.

Part of the process of exposing the radical agenda of the ACLU is to expose some of the deceptive tactics that it uses. One of those methods is often referred to as “spinning”. One example of this is to take a quote from someone, take it out of context, and claim that it means something completely different than it’s original intent. That is the case in one lie that the ACLU uses in many cases….

Not that many people could quote you the first amendment, but many would tell you that it refers to separation of church and state. That is a common misconception, and is absolutely not true. The words “separation of Church and State” are not in the first amendment. What the first amendment does say is,”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”This falsehood comes up almost every time religion and politics touch, and usually by the ACLU. Most recently it has come up with the issue of the ten commandments case.

So where did this myth come from?

It all started with a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Danburry Baptist Association in 1802. The focus is on a portion of the letter where Jefferson states, “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state…” Jefferson wrote this letter to the Danburry Baptist Association to assure them in their concerns that the government would not establish a national denomination.

One of the most significant in a series of cases heard by the Supreme Court on the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment was Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). It was in this case that the phrase “Wall of separation of Church and State” became the cry of the far-left, and anti-Christian movement.

Intent of The Founding Fathers

So, was the original intent of our founding fathers to keep religion completely out of the government? Well, I will let them speak for themselves.

If Jefferson believed that the government should keep its hands out of religion completely, then why, while President of the United States, and the first elected president of the Washington, D.C. public school board, did he place the Bible and the Isaac Watt’s hymnal into the public school system as required reading?Source

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”Quote(Gouverneur Morris, 1792, Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France.)
Founding father who physically wrote the Constitution, and most active member of Constitutional Convention, spoke 173 times on the floor.Source

“Why…should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed last long; and, probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes hold of the mind.”Quote
(Fisher Ames, The Works of Fisher Ames, 1809.) Founding father who on September 20, 1789 helped provide the wording for the First Amendment. Source

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars…. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them…. Let it simply be asked, ‘Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?’ …And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
(George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)Quote

These are just a few quotes showing how the founding fathers recognized religion’s place in the founding of our government. The First Amendment was meant to ensure the churches protection from government interference. Not vice versa.

“There was a secular study done by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era, which was 1760-1805.
This study found that 94% of the documents that went into the founding era were based on the Bible, and of that 34% of the contents were direct quotations from the Bible.
88% of students nationwide are educated in the public school system.
The Bible was the foundation and blueprint for our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, educational system, and our entire history until the last 20 to 30 years”.Source

As a matter of fact, Congress funded the printing of the first English language Bible printed in America. It came to be known as the “Bible of the American Revolution”.

So to downplay the significance of Christian influence in our nation’s founding, is to rewrite history in a false light. The founding fathers never intended for the secularization of the government that groups like the ACLU are advancing now. They wanted freedom to express religion. That is why it is the very first amendment in the constitution.

Who Has Endowed You With Your Rights?

It is a very important question, because whoever gives you the rights also has the power to take them away. Is it the state or God? Here is what the Declaration of Independence has to say about it:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Source

If you believe that your rights come from the state or society and not God, it brings up the question that George Washington asked…

“..Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?’ …And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
(George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)

Or the one that Jefferson himself asked…”"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?”
(Thomas Jefferson,Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781.)

And in summary, I will ask the same question. If you completely remove God from having any role in our government, you have handed your rights over to the State. The founders unanimously agreed that our rights were endowed to us by a Creator. They all signed the famous declaration that stated so. So, their intent should be obvious. It will be a scary day for those in the majority who believe in a deity, if the State tries to assume that role. Especially when it comes to our civil rights. And the secular direction that America is being pushed in is leading us far away from the original intent of our founding fathers. When the Courts have assumed the role of stripping us of our first amendment rights to express religion, they are playing God! And the fact that this is already beginning to happen, is a legitimate thing for us to fear.

It’s time we stand up and make our voices known.

This was a production of stop the ACLU blogburst. Over 100 blogs already onboard. If you would like to join us please just go to our portal, and register. You will be added to our mailing list, and we will send you the information you will need.

For sites already on board, See Here.

“One of the Bigger Nutjobs Out There”

…is guess who? Us! Just ask this guy, who not only has a hard time with gender identification, but also misses the point of the whole delinking-Instapundit thing. I’d have left him a comment explaining that we’re female, and that we can delink, protest, and talk bad about who we like, but he doesn’t have comments (or trackbacks) enabled on his blog. Perhaps he doesn’t like criticism.

We’re a conservative military blog. That means, we have conservative viewpoints. So it stands to reason that if we find that we are linking to someone who doesn’t share those viewpoints, we’d want to stop doing that. Why should we give someone we don’t agree with airtime and space on our blog?

Will it make a difference? Probably not. Instapundit’s hits are far more than we’ll ever get. But it’s not about the hits. It’s about believing in something, taking a stand, and having the fortitude and commitment to see it through. We have the right to do that. It’s our blog. And if we truly believe something, we have the duty to stand by it. Otherwise, it’s not a belief. It’s a hobby.

We disagree with abortion - so we wouldn’t link to Planned Parenthood or pro-abortion blogs. We disagree with illegal immigration - so we wouldn’t link to La Raza or pro-immigration blogs. We disagree with the ACLU, gay marriage, and human cloning - so we delinked Instapundit. It’s not rocket science. Besides, as I’ve said before, it’s not like liberals don’t know what protesting’s like.

If someone wants to claim we’re “nutjobs” because we have the conviction to stand by our beliefs even when called names by people supposedly on our side of the fence, then hey. We love nuts. ;)

Call To Action: Instapundit Mass Delinking

Several conservative blogs are calling for all right-oriented blogs to delink Instapundit, one of the most high-profile blogs on the internet, in light of this post. Owner Glenn Reynolds called outspoken disagreement and “demonization”of the ACLU “a bit silly”. He goes on:

I do feel that they’ve become overly partisan in recent years, but they still do good work (I’ve worked with them in the past, on the New Orleans rave case for example, and will probably do so again.)

Is Glenn making nice-nice for the sake of popularity? I know he’s got to be more intelligent than to actually think the ACLU is good for anything, or that their goals have anything to do with what conservatives believe in. How can any conservative worth his or her salt see the ACLU as anything besides what it is - a lions’ den of leftist thought that makes it a point to attack anything good and true and right. They are anti-American, anti-truth, anti-good. They are, quite literally, an evil organization. They support child molesters, approve of the “homosexualization” of the United States, and fight for everything sane people with morals are against. They support CAIR, the American version of al Qaeda. (If that’s not enough to tell you there’s a problem here, then you need to read this blog more.) In almost any court case that makes conservatives want to bang their heads against a wall, chances are good that the ACLU was involved.

Perhaps even more disturbing is this post. A reader emailed Reynolds to say basically “You just lost another reader because of your remarks.” Reynolds’ reply?

That’s okay — there are plenty of blogs out there, and this guy would clearly be happier somewhere else.

Someone’s a bit big for their britches, perhaps. And maybe delinking him won’t do a thing, but it’s the principle. I refuse to link to a blog that supports the ACLU - I don’t care how popular or “big” they are, or how small I am in relation.

Jay from Stop the ACLU had this to say:

Any conservative blogger who has kept track of the ACLU’s trends, and paid attention to the organizations and causes that they support can see that they are against everything conservatives stand for. I hope all conservative bloggers decide to stand up and be counted on this.

Here’s a partial list of blogs that are now delinking Instapundit in protest:

I’m trying to get more information about blogs jumping on board, and will be updating the list as the story develops. If you would like to have your name listed, email me at kit.jarrell at gmail dot com or leave a trackback on this post. [If you haven't had a link to Instapundit up to now, that's fine. The point is simply that you refuse to link to him, in protest of his pro-ACLU stand.]

Thanks to Junkyard Blog.
Linked to Basil’s Supper, Outside the Beltway’s Traffic Jam

Update: Apparently Reynolds is pro-cloning, as well.

UPDATE 2: More blogs linked above. Also, Jay at Stop the ACLU got himself an Instalanche, for delinking the Instapundit. Irony is alive and well. As you can see from the post, Glenn Reynolds is taking about the same approach to this as he did to the reader (who comments below) who dared to call him on it. In his own words to that reader, “Don’t let the monitor hit you on the way out.