I’ll Tell You What…

There’s nothing like intimidating people to get your way. Some bosses employ that technique to get employees to do their biding. Couples do that to each other as well as brothers and sisters. It doesn’t matter who intimidates who because the root is always founded in selfishness.

La Shawn Barber pointed out one such case in Massachusetts.

It appears that a couple of gay-rights advocates have threatened to post the name, addresses and phone numbers of anyone who signs a petition that could lead to a ban on gay marriages and civil unions. And that’s not all. One of the men has already paid a personal visit to one of the first signers of the petition.

Are they trying to embarrass people by doing this or are they doing this so that they can go door to door interrogating those who signed the petition. Who knows their true motives but one thing’s for sure, the mere threat of doing this is an act of intimidation. Nothing more and nothing less.

My uncle died of AIDS during the mid-80s and in the end he regretted his choices. Because of that no one and nothing can convince me that the gay lifestyle is physically, emotionally or spiritually healthy in any way, shape or form.

If you or anyone you know is gay or even thinks (s)he is gay, check out Exodus International to learn more about freedom through the love of Jesus Christ as related by former homosexuals. Jesus can change you. You just have to let him.

I received this today from the American Center for Law and Justice. This is really a sad attempt to discredit Supreme nominee, John G. Roberts, Jr.

Should activist groups be allowed to fabricate complete deceptions - and broadcast them across America - in order to try to derail the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the Supreme Court of the United States?

NO!

And yet, that is exactly what is happening.

In another misguided attempt to ‘’smear'’ this worthy candidate, NARAL: Pro-Choice America is running a national ad campaign on television and radio that claims Judge Roberts advocates violent abortion protests because of his involvement in a certain abortion-related case (Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic).

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The very case in question is one that I argued twice before the Supreme Court on behalf of the pro-life demonstrators, and John Roberts argued on behalf of the United States in support of our legal position. I know what happened. I know what didn’t. And today, I am writing to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!

Please read and then forward this message to your entire address book.
——– snip ——–
… America needs to know the TRUTH.

The NARAL: Pro-Choice America ad is an outrageous distortion of the facts.

The claim: In the Bray case, John Roberts argued in defense of a violent protester who bombed a clinic ‘’seven years ago.'’

The truth: The protests that were the subject of the Bray case were nonviolent sit-ins, reminiscent of the sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. The activities that led up to the case were not violent activities at all. In fact, the protests took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, almost ten years before a clinic bombing in Birmingham, Alabama. Eric Rudolph was recently convicted of that offense, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the demonstrators involved in the Bray case. We had nothing to do with any acts of violence on any abortion clinics.

John Roberts and I argued before the Supreme Court (not once, but twice) that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 did not apply to nonviolent protestors because opposition to abortion did not constitute discrimination against women. We won our case both times with a 6-3 vote. In fact, the Court went out of its way to say that to put a pro-life protestor in the same category as a racist was, in Justice Scalia’s own words, ‘’ridiculous.'’

NARAL: Pro-Choice America’s ad is a complete fabrication … a compilation of random facts that have been cleverly edited but have nothing to do with Judge Roberts or me.

They should be called on the carpet for this. Their ad should be banned! Instead, CNN and others are continuing to run it.

CNN, or any respectable news organization, should not run this ad.

Integrity has been tossed out the window with this ad.

Please read and then forward this message to your entire address book.
——– snip ——–
… America needs to know the TRUTH.

The ACLJ is committed to doing all we can to fight for John Roberts. As I have said before, he is a man of great character. He will rightly interpret the Constitution. He will return the rule of law to our country.

We will continue to alert you to the deception and propaganda being spewed over the airwaves against John G. Roberts, Jr.

Thank you for your continued support as a member of the ACLJ.

American Center for Law and Justice
P.O. Box 90555, Washington, D.C. 20090-0555
Phone: (800) 296-4529

Won’t you please sign the petition to support John G. Roberts, Jr?

From the ACLJ:

June 6

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, today demanded that a community college in California reverse a low grade given to a student who was punished for including a reference to God in a paper written for an English class.

“It is absolutely unbelievable that a student would be punished for presenting a thoughtful and well written paper that included references to God,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which is representing the student. “The actions by the instructor reflect a profound hostility toward religious expression and his actions clearly violate the constitutional rights of our client. We are demanding that the college immediately remove the low grade given for this paper and order the instructor to end his discriminatory treatment, and apologize to the student for his actions. We are giving the school an opportunity to correct this injustice before federal litigation is considered.”

The ACLJ today sent a letter to Patricia Spencer, President of Victor Valley Community College in Victorville, CA regarding an incident involving adjunct instructor Michael Shefchik and his actions toward student Bethany Hauf. The issue revolves around an assignment given to an English class by Shefchik.

Hauf notified the instructor that her topic for the research paper would be “Religion and Its Place within the Government.” In an email to Hauf, Shefchik, a self-described atheist, said the topic was within the bounds of the assignment. However, he put one troubling condition on Hauf’s paper: “I have one limiting factor,” wrote Shefchik, “no mention of the big “G” gods, i.e., one, true god argumentation.” After pursuing this topic and presenting a draft of the paper to Shefchik, as required by course requirements, Hauf was told that, at best, because she had written off topic about God, she would be graded 69 out of a possible 100 points. Shefchik told Hauf that among the reasons for the low grade was that references to “God” could be offensive. After presenting her paper on Friday, Shefchik handed out the final grade on Monday and gave Hauf a score of 49 out of a possible 100 points for the research paper.

Hauf’s paper included a thoughtful and historical look at the role that God and religion have played in the formation of our country and government.

In a letter sent today to the college president, the ACLJ contends the actions of the instructor violate the First Amendment rights of Hauf including numerous rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States which safeguard student speech and expression. The ACLJ is demanding that the discriminatory treatment of Hauf by Shefchik cease, that the instructor recalculate and reverse the scoring for the paper, and that the instructor apologize to Hauf for his discriminatory treatment of her views. The ACLJ letter states: “It is imperative that this situation be corrected immediately to avoid possible litigation in federal court.”

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law. The ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C.
======

If you can support the ACLJ monetarily (for any amount) do so today.

From an email I received from the ACLJ:

American Center for Law and Justice
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005

He was not acting combative or shouting obscenities.

He had not hurt anyone or caused any disturbance.

And yet Daniel Heenan, a college student from northern Virginia, was attacked and wrestled to the ground by a security guard outside of a Washington, D.C., Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. Because the guard was behind him, he never even saw him coming.

What was Daniel doing there? Exercising his free speech rights - participating in a prayer vigil and offering a message of help and hope to women approaching the facility.

Now, the ACLJ needs your help to bring the Planned Parenthood security guard to justice and fight the ongoing battle for the sanctity of human life. The lawsuit has been filed, so please make a secure online donation today to protect pro-life demonstrators and unborn children. Donate today.

Daniel Heenan had not provoked the security guard in any way. He never said or did anything that would indicate he was going to enter the clinic … never expressed aggression or intimidation. He was simply taking a stand for unborn babies - and attempting to save a baby from the horror of abortion through a peaceable demonstration.

It is unacceptable for citizens of the United States, who are on public property, to be tackled and knocked to the ground by security guards!

And to make matters worse, several officers of the Metropolitan Police Department witnessed the altercation and refused Heenan’s request to press charges. No police report was made concerning the incident. This is a blatant free speech violation, and those involved MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

Last week in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, our Washington, D.C., legal team filed the lawsuit on behalf of this courageous young man against Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, Inc., and Harry James, the security guard. It contends that James and Planned Parenthood committed battery against Heenan which resulted in both physical and emotional injury to him. It asks that Heenan’s constitutional rights be protected against the defendants in the future.

We must fight this battle in the courts for Daniel Heenan … for everyone who peaceably demonstrates in front of abortion clinics … but also for those trying to protect life. If we do not, who will be next to face unlawful discrimination for standing up for their beliefs? You? Your loved ones?

WE MUST STOP THIS NOW! We must send a strong message that violence against peaceful pro-life demonstrators will not be tolerated! We must stand up for our First Amendment rights to speak freely. Today, we urge you to give as generously as you possibly can online to help us fight - and win - this significant pro-life case. Donate today.

The ACLJ’s team of skilled researchers and lawyers will work tirelessly to see this case through to a victorious end. But we cannot do that without your prayers and financial assistance.

Please give an online donation today to protect unborn babies. Donate today.

Thank you.

American Center for Law and Justice
P.O. Box 90555, Washington, D.C. 20090-0555
Phone: (800) 296-4529

I just wanted to post some of the results of the hard work of the ACLJ. The ACLJ is an organization that fights to protect the US Constitution, protect religious liberties, protect life and protect the religious rights of Americans.

* School children can continue to say “one nation under God” when they quote the Pledge of Allegiance - thanks to a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (on June 14, Flag Day!). The Justices DISMISSED the case, doing away with a lower court’s decision that declared the phrase “under God” unconstitutional. With the support of members all around the country, the ACLJ filed a major brief in the case on behalf of 68 members of Congress and more than 260,300 Americans (including some 2,600 school-age children, many of whom attend public schools and wanted to continue reciting the Pledge intact).

By dismissing this case and eradicating the appeals court decision, the Supreme Court of the United States REMOVED A DARK CLOUD that had been hanging over one of the nation’s most important and cherished traditions: acknowledging via the Pledge of Allegiance that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government. Thank you again for your prayers and support in this important legal battle!

* The U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City dismissed a lawsuit challenging the public display of a monument of the Ten Commandments - a monument that had been on display in Pleasant Grove, Utah, since the early 1970s. The court agreed with the ACLJ about the historical significance of this monument - and that the law is clear concerning the display of the Ten Commandments: in short, that such a monument is CONSTITUTIONAL. The ACLJ continues to be involved in more than a dozen cases nationwide - defending the constitutional display of monuments of the Ten Commandments in Nebraska, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

* We’ve settled the case of a county health department employee from Illinois who filed a FEDERAL DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT claiming she was denied a promotion because she expressed reluctance to participate in any way in abortion counseling of health department clients. We argued that this violated her rights of free speech and freedom of religion, as well as her right to be free from religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. In the settlement agreement, the county agreed to pay the settlement of the claims (without admitting liability in the case). Both parties agreed that the lawsuit would be DISMISSED.

* With your help, the ACLJ succeeded in protecting the constitutional rights of students in a Michigan case, where two high school graduation speakers were asked to talk about friendship at commencement exercises. In their speech, they wanted to mention that the best example of friendship in their lives comes from Jesus Christ. The speakers told the ACLJ a school official said that if they mentioned the name of Jesus during the speech, they would be REMOVED from the stage. The speakers contacted the ACLJ just two days before graduation, and we immediately sent the principal a legal memorandum outlining the law. The speakers were permitted to deliver their speech as planned - including the mention of the name of Jesus - WITHOUT CENSORSHIP.

* In a second Michigan case, Marylou Statson of Davison wanted to place a marker with the message “John 3:16” as part of a school district’s playground fundraising project, in which patrons could - in exchange for a donation - place a paving stone inscribed with the message of their choice in the playground. Statson contacted the ACLJ when she was told that her message was unacceptable and that the marker would not be placed in the playground. The ACLJ sent a demand letter to the superintendent of schools outlining the legal issues and the fact that denying Statson the opportunity to use that message violated her First Amendment FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. The ACLJ letter said that if the school district did not accept the inscription, a lawsuit would be filed. The school district responded by reporting that the marker with the inscription “John 3:16” would indeed be permitted.

* The Justices handed down a disappointing decision that blocked the implementation of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a measure that would have protected America’s youth from the most sordid material on the World Wide Web. The high court declared COPA unconstitutional and sent the case back to a lower court for trial. In its major brief, the ACLJ represented itself and 13 members of Congress and urged the high court to reverse the lower court’s decision. PLEASE CONTINUE TO PRAY for this critical issue as it goes back to a lower court and we continue our efforts.

* In one of three terrorism cases, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the U.S. government has the power to hold American citizens and foreign nationals without charges or trials - BUT that detainees can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts. This troubling ruling limits the President’s role as commander-in-chief, gives suspected terrorists access to U.S. courts, and allows American civilian courts to become involved in military decisions. The ACLU had filed major briefs in all three terrorism cases.

THANK YOU for the important role you are playing in the ongoing work of the ACLJ! Victories like these can only happen as members like you continue to pray faithfully and give generously. You make the difference!

So we appreciate you … and we look forward to dramatically increased effectiveness in cases across the nation as friends like you contribute to our FREEDOM FIGHT 2004 Matching Challenge.

Your contribution during this campaign can be matched dollar-for-dollar up to $300,000, its impact doubled through the Matching Challenge fund. Please give generously today!

American Center for Law and Justice
P.O. Box 64429
Virginia Beach, VA 23467
Phone: (757) 226-2489
Fax: (757) 226-2836
www.aclj.org

The American Center for Law and Justice is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization engaged in education and support of litigation involving human and civil rights of citizens and other matters as set forth in the statement of exempt purpose. Donations are tax-deductible.

As always, let us know of threats to freedom in your area by calling (757) 226-2489. And tune in to our daily radio program, “Jay Sekulow Live!”

Stop Judicial Tyranny has a list of five amendments that would prevent “federal courts from adjudicating matters involving acknowledgment of God in the public square — matters, it is worth adding, not outlawed by the Constitution.“

Gov. Mitt Romney tells state workers they’ll have to resign if they won’t abide by the law.

The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, said today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to take an equal access case out of Arizona reinforces the constitutional protections afforded to religious speech…

In December, the ACLJ urged the high court to let stand an appeals court decision that overturned, as unconstitutional, an Arizona school district’s discriminatory refusal to distribute an organization’s brochures to promote an event because the event included religious speech.

“There was never any reason for the Supreme Court to take this case,” said Walter M. Weber, Senior Litigation Counsel of the ACLJ, which filed suit against the school district. “The law is clear on this issue. If a school district permits distribution of material from private groups, it cannot prohibit the distribution of literature simply because it promotes an event with a religious viewpoint. The federal appeals court correctly determined that such action is unconstitutional. And, clearly, the Supreme Court saw no need to revisit that decision.”

The case began in 2000 when the ACLJ filed a federal lawsuit against the Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 on behalf of Joseph Hills, president of an organization called “A Little Sonshine from Arizona” � a non-profit educational corporation that had planned to conduct a summer camp for kids and to advertise that camp through the school system. Although the school routinely distributed other summer camp flyers, the school district refused to distribute the brochure Hills submitted advertising a summer camp for kids because two of the nineteen classes were Bible classes. The school district told Hills it would consider permitting the distribution of the brochure if he removed the descriptions of the Bible classes and removed graphics of the Bible, a cross, and a dove carrying an olive branch.

In a unanimous decision in May 2003, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Hills saying the school district’s exclusion of the brochure “constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.” The school district asked the Supreme Court to take the case.

“The federal appeals court handed down a straightforward application of settled law,” said Weber. “There is no conflict on this issue among the federal appeals courts. It is clear that private speech � including religious speech � enjoys constitutional protections. The Supreme Court did what it should have done � let the lower court decision stand.”

The case is No. 03-693, Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48, et al., v. Joseph J. Hills.

The American Center for Law and Justice is an international public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law and based in Washington, D.C. The website address is www.aclj.org.

There’s a really good article about Novell’s release of lawyer correspondence between their lawyers and SCO’s lawyers at the Australian newspaper The Age.

SCO claims that when they purchased UNIX and UnixWare technology from Novell, all copyrights were transferred to SCO but the release of the lawyer correspodence cast a lot of doubt on SCO’s assertion.

It’s a good read.

Over at the American Center for Law and Justice, they have posted the oral arguments for the Locke v. Davey case. The link requires Adobe Acrobat since it is a PDF file.

It is very interesting to read.