Illegal Protest

Illegal Protest
American Citizens who are tired of the illegal alien invasion

Under the Constitution, Appointed Judges Should Be Enforcing Laws Not Writing Them

September 4th, 2007

H/T Immigration Watchdog for this article from

The Family Security Foundation    Contributing Editor John Armor

I don’t often write about law. It’s been one of my professions for 35 years, but I have to admit the subject is boring. I don’t often accuse anyone else of being “un-American” because there’s a lot of leeway for opinion in a free country. Today I drop both restrictions. The subject is Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and the ACLU.

The ACLU recently filed a petition for Hazleton to pay it $2.4 million in fees because ACLU lawyers persuaded a U.S. District judge to strike down a series of local ordinances. Those laws intended to make it difficult for illegal aliens to live and work in that town. A precipitating event for passage of the ordinances was the murder of a local resident by an illegal alien.

Update on that: the murderer was released and is to be deported. The witness, who gave the police the murder weapon and described a confession, was “accidentally” deported and will not return. So, the murderer skates. The ACLU publicly praised the dismissal of the murder charges.

The ACLU fee petition says of the case, “Hazleton has used this Court as its laboratory. Defendant’s experimentation over the past year comes at a price.”

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, noting that his City has a total annual budget of only $7.9 million, calls the petition “absurd.” He added, “It illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to the case. They had over 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom, with plenty of them doing nothing but running up the bill.Their goal was to bankrupt the city of Hazleton.”

I go further than that. I accuse the ACLU of trying to destroy the United States, piece by piece, and jurisdiction by jurisdiction. And, I accuse the federal judge in this case, James M. Munley, of being equally un-American in his ruling in the case I will, however, give the judge credit for being stupid, rather than malicious. Having made such charges, I’m obliged to back them up.

After stating our God-given rights, the Declaration of Independence recites our basic political rights, stating that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed. – That when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it….”

The ordinances of Hazleton were passed for the health and safety of town residents. They applied only within the town. In attacking those ordinances, the ACLU also attacked both parts of that statement from the Declaration. No surprise. But here, a federal judge joined in the attack.

He is not elected. And yet, he substituted his political views for those of the people, who had just reelected their mayor by causing him to win both primaries, Republican and Democrat. There was no doubt whatsoever where the “consent of the governed” lies. On the other point, the judge assumed that he had somehow obtained the power to overrule the people.

More than a few Supreme Court Justices have claimed and used the power to amend the Constitution, stealing that right from the American people. But what does the Constitution say about that?

The only power that a District Court has over a case like this is what Congress has granted to it. See Article I, Section 1, and Section 2, clause 2. Congress has not given federal courts the power to destroy local governments. If there is any doubt about that, Congress should strip courts of any pretense of such power.

See also Article V, the amendment provisions. Power to change the Constitution is reserved to the people, through two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, plus three-fourths of the state legislatures. Not a unanimous Supreme Court, much less a contentious one-vote majority of that Court, may legitimately change the Constitution.

Article VI, Section 4, contains a guarantee that most people skip right over, yet it’s clearly violated here. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government….” What did “Republican” mean, more than a century before it became the name of a political party? It meant a government in which people elected their representatives who act for them in writing laws. If the people disagreed with those laws, they could defeat those representatives and elect others in their stead.

Today, when people use the word “democracy,” they mean “republican form of government.” Remember that some parts of our governments aren’t “democratic.” Bureaucrats generally aren’t elected. Neither are courts.

That brings us to Judge Munley. He was not elected. He cannot be defeated if he writes bad laws. That is precisely why federal judges should not be in the business of writing laws at all. Their job, under the Constitution, is to obey and enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. In this decision, an unelected judge made political decisions, which will cause harm and perhaps death to citizens who sought the protection of the law. His is an un-American decision.

This case has already been appealed, as has a similar case from Farmers Branch, Texas. Regardless of the outcomes of both cases in the Courts of Appeal, they will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, probably consolidated for decision.

If there are at least five Justices of the Court who believe the Constitution should be obeyed, not toyed with, this decision will be reversed. Self-government will be restored to Hazleton and all towns and states like it. Lastly, a fat award of fees and costs, say $20 million or so, should be assessed against the ACLU for violating the constitutional rights of the people of Hazleton, and by extension, of all Americans.

High and mightly ACLU had exec who was into violent child porn

May 26th, 2007

Meanwhile, while he was President of the VA ACLU, he lobbied for open access to the Internet and used the education of CHILDREN as the base for his argument. What he REALLY meant to say was he was for open access to the Internet to educate his CHILD PORN HABIT!

Notice how you have not heard about this on CNN or FOX News or any other large news outlet. Doesn’t that clue you in to the agenda by our Mainstream Media?
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55883

CRIMENETDAILY
Child porn hearing set for former ACLU exec finger
Facing possible prison time for acting on group’s agenda

Posted: May 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A former youth league sports coach and executive of the American Civil Liberties Union, who has argued against any limits on Internet access in public libraries, is facing a hearing – and the possibility of prison – for having hard-core child pornography.

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, as WND reported earlier, was arrested in February and was indicted earlier this month on allegations of having what a U.S. magistrate described as “the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography” she ever had seen.

Rust-Tierney, who was president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU until 2005 and served on the group’s board until the day he was arrested, now is scheduled to appear in a court hearing on June 1 at which local reports say he is expected to plead guilty to various charges.

Authorities have alleged he used his own credit card and his own e-mail address to access and purchase an estimated $1,000 in graphic and violent child pornography during 2005 and 2006, according to Virginia’s North Country Gazette.

(Story continues below)

Magistrate Theresa Buchanan said the material included an extended video featuring the sexual torture of children, accompanied by a song by the band called Nine Inch Nails.

He’s been indicted on a count of receiving child pornography and another count of possessing child pornography, and authorities say he could face a prison sentence of 11 to 14 years on each charge.

While serving the ACLU, he argued against any restrictions on Internet access in public libraries, claiming “individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library” so those facilities should provide “maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet.”

Court records indicate Rust-Tierney had subscribed to several websites featuring child pornography over a period of years, covering the same time he was serving as a youth sports league coach and arguing for an open Internet.

Twice during pretrial hearings judges had denied him bond, describing the material as some of the most sickening they’d ever seen. Authorities allege he used a computer located in his 10-year-old son’s bedroom for the transactions.

Rust-Tierney was a coach in Arlington’s Little League and had children who participated in Arlington’s flag football league, according to Arlington County Parks & Recreation spokesperson Susan Kalish. She said all the group’s coaches must go through annual background checks, and Rust-Tierney had passed all previous background checks.

Some of the children he coached had written letters of support. Several dozen people appeared at a hearing for him, urging the judge to release him from jail.

He and his lawyers have declined to respond to media requests for comment.

The federal indictment alleged he “knowingly received multiple computer files that contained photo and video depictions of minor teenage and prepubescent children engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

An anonymous chat room participant on the cannablog was distressed by the low profile in the national media over the case. When his arrested first was announced, authorities didn’t even mention either his ACLU or youth league coaching connections.

This man was the PRESIDENT of the Virginia ACLU and while he was president, he lobbied to keep the Internet available to child pornographers via any port available, and WHILE he was president he was engaged in purchasing and subscribing to child (infant and toddler torture) pornography for his personal and sexual gratification. The ACLU. Pouring money into a machine that victimizes children. For years. And that the media is keeping this out of sight is okay with you? Wow,” he said.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly called it a “horrifying” case. And he noted that the two “biggest left-wing outfits in the country – the New York Times and NBC News – ignored the story entirely.” CBS News, CNN and most of the big city liberal newspapers also failed to cover the Rust-Tierney arrest, Fox said.

Several area broadcast stations and newspapers actually have begun to cover the case as it appears to be heading towards a conclusion.

That Mr. Rust-Tierney, a leading proponent of unrestricted access to the Internet, has now been arrested for receiving and possessing graphic child pornography should serve as testimony to the injudicious and baleful outgrowth of the legal challenges launched by the ACLU questioning the constitutionality of important legislation that protects children from Internet exploitation and content harmful to minors,” said a statement released by spokeswoman Cris Clapp of Enough is Enough, an organization dedicated to protecting children from the dangers on the Internet.

“When Mr. Rust-Tierney argued before the Loudoun County Library Board that unrestricted access to the resources of the Internet was essential for our children’s ability to learn and communicate, and when groups like the ACLU contend that acceptable use policies alone are capable of protecting children online, they fail to acknowledge the tragic and devastating effects to children and families of both intentional and unintentional access to online pornography,” the statement said.

The investigation that resulted in Rust-Tierney’s arrest was conducted by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, as well as Arlington County police as part of the Northern Virginia and District of Columbia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.