As the Kentucky coordinator for the Stop The ACLU Coalition, I feel compelled to post this project from our national website. Please invest a few minutes and 37 cents to send a clear message to the ACLU. THANKS!!!

To those of you who have as much disdain for the ACLU as me, please join us as we join forces with the Musclehead Revolution to inundate the ACLU's headquarters with Christmas cards. Our blog, run by Jay Stephenson, has already committed to this cause and now so do we.

This effort was founded by Kevin McCullough of WMCA in New York, former afternoon host of WYLL here in Chicagoland, someone I know who has with outstanding credentials, both as a Christian and a deejay.

Unlike other lone ranger conservative/pro-family groups who want to go solo against the liberals and ACLU types, we are delighted to participate with other good causes to preserve America's heritage.

So if you wish to take part in this effort, we welcome you to do so. But please observe the following guidleines:

Be polite. Yes, I know that is hard, given the ACLU's agenda. I fully sympathize. But hold your breath and do so anyway. Remember, you're representing the Musclehead Revolution and the Stop the ACLU Coalition. We want to have a good name.
Make sure the card you send contains the words Merry Christmas and if possible, some other clause that contains the meaning of Christmas to maximize impact. Do not send a card that contains "Xmas".
Do not e-mail any cards. They will likely be ignored or discarded. Snail mail only. Spend 37 cents to do so. It will be worth it.
If you wish, mail more than one card this season to the ACLU. WMCA is doing it every day. You don't have to do so every day but perhaps you can once a week.
Be sure to share this effort with your family, friends and others in your databases and address books.
Mail your cards to:
ACLU
I wish you a Merry Christmas
125 Broad St, 18th Fl.
New York, NY 10004

If you choose to participate in this effort, please e-mail me with the words in the subject line "I did it ". That's all you need to say. However, if you are sending more than one card to the ACLU, let me know how many cards you sent.

Thank you!

This is another article I had previously written for a blog which I used to operate. Once again, I think it is one that deserves repreinting, so here it is.

Allow me to start this article by saying that, compared to most articles I write, this will be a rather lengthy one. However, for those concerned about morality and parents? rights in this country, I feel it will be worth your time.

Parental consent for babies aborting babies is an issue that will not, and should not (until its resolution), go away. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there are actually people, a lot of people, out there that feel like it is not the business of a parent to know that: a. their child is having a MAJOR medical procedure performed; b. this procedure could affect their child's mental and physical well-being for the rest of that child's life; c. that their child is sexually active (and without the use of contraceptives) and that; d. there is a possibility that their child has been sexually abused.

Who in their right mind would want to deny a parent this knowledge? Who? Well, for starters, there are liberal democrats, who seem to continually perpetuate a culture of death. Then there is the ACLU. But who can actually believe, in good conscience, anything that the ACLU has to say these days? And then we have Planned Parenthood"would a mustard gas by any other name not be as toxic?" (Thanks Mr. Shakespeare)

On the issue of Planned Parenthood, I recently visited their website, http://www.plannedparenthood.org, in preparation for this article. There they have a section titled "Teenagers, Abortion, And Government Intrusion Laws." I find the information they provide there to be fallacious at best. I would like to take this opportunity to rebut at least part of the fallacies I found there.

Their first set of arguments, and and obviously their best, since in making an argument, you want to put your most compelling evidence up front, deals with a child's "capacity to consent to their own medical care." In my estimation, this is an easy one.

First, they say that "Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia grant all minors the authority to consent to contraceptive services. Approximately eleven other states grant most minors this authority (AGI, 2004a)." "Consent to contraceptive services" covers a lot of ground. Does this mean the dispensing of condoms, or are we talking about an implanted device? Is it the "day before pill," or the "morning after pill"? Generalities are one of the left's favorite ways to argue an issue. At any rate, I know a whole slew of parents (myself included) who feel that it is THEIR job, not the government's, Planned Parenthood's, or anybody else's, to make the decision of whether or not their child uses contraceptives, as well as what type will be used. My personal favorite is ABSTINENCE!.

Number two argument at the site? "Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia authorize a pregnant minor to obtain prenatal care and delivery services without parental consent or notification (AGI, 2004b)." Again, I say that not all parents agree (again, myself included) to these services being performed without their consent, but at least none of the afore mentioned services are actually terminating a human life. And, as much as some of these liberals may hate it, those services actually foster and protect the innocent unborn.

Number three argument at the site? "All 50 states and the District of Columbia give minors the authority to consent to the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (AGI, 2004c)." Same old rebuttal, not all parents agree (again, myself included) to these services being performed without their consent. However, I must say that treating an STD is VASTLY different than killing an innocent child.

The PP site (naturally a term of endearment) then goes on to a section where they say that most kids who are pregnant do in fact inform their parents, and that those who don't do so for very compelling reasons. To this, all I can say is...HOGWASH!

One portion of this states that, "Of those minors who did not inform their parents of their abortions, 30 percent had histories of violence in their families, feared the occurrence of violence, or were afraid of being forced to leave their homes." Now, obviously, I would not want to see ANY child abused. However, there are so many variables here that they require addressing one-by-one.

Firstly, what is violence? According to many liberals, a couple of whacks on the arse is violent these days. By those standards, I would venture to say that 90 % of today's kids are treated violently at one time or another in their lives. I know I certainly was. And I dare say that kids now days, with the liberals telling them that if their parents spank them, they are being abused, most would probably give the PP's the answer they were looking for.

Secondly, bearing that in mind, if 30% "had histories of violence in their families, feared the occurrence of violence, or were afraid of being forced to leave their homes," is it not conceivable that 29% fell into the category that they feared a couple of whacks from their parents?

Thirdly, to put this in perspective, try to remember when you were 13 or 14. Did you not virtually ALWAYS think that your parents would produce the most monstrous reaction possible when you did something that could be remotely construed to be as life-changing as getting pregnant? Of course you would fear the worst of all possible outcomes. I would have to say that this 30% figure is WAY overblown.

Number four argument on the PP website is that, "Among the respondents who did not inform their parents of their pregnancies, all consulted someone in addition to clinic staff about their abortions, such as their boyfriend (89 percent), an adult (52 percent), or a professional (22 percent). (Henshaw & Kost, 1992)" Oh, well, there is the proof. Eighty-nine percent of pregnant teens consulted with their teenaged boyfriends, who are looking at becoming a father at 14 and paying child support for the next 18 years, on whether or not to have an abortion. This argument is so absurd that I would be EMBARASSED to even publish the fact that I even included that in a question! No rebuttal is needed here.

Reading further on the PP website, I found a section that talks about how, if The Child Custody Protection Act were put into law, the consequences would just be unfathomable. I will tell you what is unfathomable: the arguments made under this section!

One states that, "The CCPA would subject to criminal penalties anyone--a grandparent, adult sibling, member of the clergy, or medical professional--who assists a minor in traveling across state lines to receive an abortion without the parental consent or notification required by her home state." You know, that's the darndest thing about those who break the law THEY ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES! PERIOD!

The next PP argument: "CCPA makes such assistance a crime even if confidential abortions are legal in the state where the abortion is to be performed and even if that state allows the accompanying grandparent or adult sibling to give lawful consent for the minor's abortion." Well, there is a little thing in the United States Constitution that kind of makes this argument, shall we say, IGNORANT! Under Article IV, Section 1, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Now, I could argue this further, but I am hoping that you would not place my words above those of the U.S. Constitution.

The same Full Faith and Credit clause can be applied to the next PP argument..."The CCPA also raises a number of other constitutional and legal questions, particularly those related to issues of federalism. The legislation effectively nullifies the laws of those states that allow physicians to provide confidential services to minors who enter the states for abortion and deprives individuals of their right to cross state lines to obtain lawful services. Such intervention by the federal government would be unprecedented, and raises serious implications for states, and individuals' rights (Saul, 1998)." Unprecedented? PLEASE! Article IV, Section 1.

It amazes me how these liberals will yell "Full Faith and credit" all day long as regards gay marriage, but when it comes to transporting a minor across state lines to commit the government sanctioned murder of a baby, the Constitution is meaningless. A little consistency might help your arguments, guys.

Look, it all boils down to this...I, as a parent, have EVERY RIGHT to know when my child is going to be operated on. It is a sad day when a school nurse could face sanctions for giving a kid an aspirin, but the PP's can crush the skull of a baby inside my 14 year old daughter, and not a word has to be said to me.

America, we had best get our priorities straight here. Situations such as this simply CANNOT be allowed to exist.

It would seem that, due to some faulty information I received, I misspoke on the absence of the ACLU during the Rush Limbaugh ordeal. As it turns out, they did in fact go to bat for Rush's privacy rights.

Although I disagree with the ACLU on most things; their defense of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), taking Christ out of Christmas, and a host of other issues, it seems they were dead on with this one, so for that, I apologize.

Today I received an email from John Petrello, III, detailing how Peter B. Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Insurance Company, has donated $8.5 MILLION to help fund the anti-Christian ACLU?s war on Christmas.

You can read the full story at the American Family Association?s website by going here: http://www.afa.net/progressive.asp. Once you read the shocking news, please click on one of the links; either "if you have a Progressive policy," or "if you do not have a Progressive policy." These will take you to a page where you can send Chairman Lewis a very loud and very clear message on how you feel about his decision to try and help suppress Christianity in a country where 85% of the population claims to be Christian, and 95% say they celebrate Christmas.

I would also encourage you to pass this story along to everyone you know. Obviously, the more folks who know what is going on, the better our chances of putting an end to it.

The ACLU is totally out of control folks, and we HAVE to take a stand if we are going to protect the rights of the majority of Americans. I have NEVER in my life seen the rights of 85% of Americans stripped away simply to appease a small minority of people.

Once you are done there, please visit http://www.stoptheaclu.org and consider helping us eliminate the ACLU. I appreciate everyone's time in visiting my little corner of the web, and for acting to protect the rights inherent to ALL Americans.

God Bless,
Mr. Right Opinion

This is an article I wrote some time back, and it has appeared on many websites which are concerned about illegal immigration and/or Social Security.

I feel it contains VERY important information of which many Americans have no idea. Therefore, I have decided to once again re-publish it here. As yet, President Bush has not signed a Totalization Agreement with Mexico. However, it could happen at any time.

I urge all who read this to print out the "post cards" that I received and put in the article. I request that you act on them as soon as possible, because, as I said, this could happen at any time.

Thanks for your time--here is the article:

Recently, I received a letter from Edward I. Nelson, the Chairman of United States Border Control, regarding a proposed ?Totalization Treaty/Agreement? with Mexico. This is not a subject with which I am unfamiliar, as I wrote an article about it while I was a reporter for Talon News/GOPUSA.com, viewable here. (I have to refer you to this website, as the archives at Talon News are no longer available since the ?Gannon-gate? ordeal.)

Totalization agreements were begun to help employees sent abroad to still have enough credits to draw Social Security benefits with the contributions paid in total in the countries in which the employee worked. Most such agreements -- the United States has 20 -- are with European countries.

In his letter, Mr. Nelson explains that past Totalization Agreements have had little impact on U.S. taxpayers because they involved only a few thousand workers who were sent abroad by their employers, and that the reciprocating countries also sent a reasonably equal number of workers to work, and pay taxes, in the United States.

However, with the State Department and the Social Security Administration having now signed onto the idea of Totalization with Mexico, it has become an issue that could devastate the American Social Security system, and therefore, an issue which needs to be brought to the attention of EVERY AMERICAN! As I view it, this literally has the potential to bankrupt our retirement system.

Should the President sign this treaty, it would instantly make millions of Mexicans, both legal AND ILLEGAL, eligible for S.S. benefits. Naturally, this comes at a time when the President (of whom, in most matters, I am a strong supporter) is going around the country trying to convince Americans that the Social Security system is in crisis?and with that, I agree!

The Social Security Administration would have us believe that illegal workers would not qualify under a Totalization Agreement with Mexico. However, according to azcentral.com, an Inspector General's report says that the SSA "doesn't consider the work-authorization status of the individual when they earned the wages. It only considers whether the individual can prove he or she paid Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes as part of this work." And, even IF the claim that Illegal workers were not eligible were true, the writing on the wall is that a general amnesty is on the horizon, which would immediately make ALL illegals (and their dependants) eligible

Further complicating this issue is the fact that once a beneficiary of this Treaty returns to Mexico, his/her spouse and dependants also become eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. Can you imagine the cost to the S.S. system? According to the Center for Immigration Studies, (http://www.cis.org), in 2000, there were an estimated 9,177,000 Mexicans in the United States (4,808,000 are here illegally), compared to a TOTAL of 3,831,000 foreigners from ALL other countries with whom the United States has Totalization agreements; nearly 2.5 times as many!

Add to all this mess what many see as an all-but-certain push for a blanket amnesty for all illegals, and the impact on the S.S. system will be disastrous should a Totalization agreement with Mexico be authorized. There would be so little reciprocation from the Mexican side of such an agreement that it may as well not even exist. The reason I say this is that, according to the CIS website, the SSA estimates that there are only ?3,000 current American workers and their employers (that) would benefit from a Totalization program.?

A program such as this will only further encourage illegal immigration to the United States. You see, it takes 40 YEARS to qualify for Mexico?s retirement system - and even then you are only entitled to receive back the amount that you have paid into the system. Kind of makes America sound like the promised land, doesn?t it?

And, since it would relieve the Mexican government from having to use its resources take care of its own citizens, the Mexican government would inevitably even further encourage its citizens to illegally migrate to the U.S. That is a no-brainer. I mean, as it is, they already publish manuals advising their citizens how to safely break into the U.S. without detection.

Now, here is the kicker. Even I was surprised to learn that all that needs to happen for a Totalization Agreement to pass is that the President sign it - that?s it. It DOES NOT need to be passed in Congress. However, there is hope! If, within 60 days of the president?s signature, Congress repeals the treaty, it is then nullified. This is where you, the American public, DESPARATELY need to get involved.

As Mr. Nelson?s letter points out, on Jan. 4 of this year, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), ?introduced H. Res. 20, a bill to disapprove the Totalization Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico.?

Included in the letter I got from the US Border Control were three post cards. The first of these was to President Bush. It reads as follows:

?Dear President Bush,

I am shocked and quite disturbed that you are allowing the Totalization Treaty between the United States and Mexico to go forward even as you warn the nation that our Social Security Trust Fund is in financial trouble.

Your strong support for AgJobs, Guest Workers and all the other thinly disguised amnesty programs for millions of illegal aliens, along with your support for Totalization, make it appear that you are more concerned about the health and welfare of Mexicans than the American people.

Please prove me wrong by expressing your opposition to the Totalization Treaty and to all forms of amnesty for illegal aliens. Thank you.

Sincerely,
(Your name here)?

A similar letter, from you, may be mailed to:

President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500

The second postcard is to Rep. J.D. Hayworth, and it reads as follows:

?Dear Rep. Hayworth,

Please accept my thanks for introducing H. Res. 20, the resolution of disapproval of the Totalization Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico. It is outrageous that this Administration would attempt to advance such a treaty at a time when our Social Security system is already in financial trouble.

Please know that there are millions of Americans who are on your side and counting on you to do everything in your power to move this bill through Congress. I have already written to my own Representative and to the President, expressing my outrage over this latest act of pandering to Mexico and to the millions of Mexicans here illegally.

Sincerely,
(Your name here)?

A similar letter from you may be mailed to:

The Honorable J.D. Hayworth
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-1101

The third postcard I received was one for my personal member of the House of Representatives. You can find the name and address of yours (if you don?t already know it) at: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

The card reads as follows:

?Dear Representative xxxxxxxxx:

As one of your constituents, I urge you to vote for H. Res. 20, the resolution of disapproval of the Social Security Treaty (Totalization) between the United States and Mexico.

To allow such a treaty to go forward, knowing it will bleed billions of dollars from our Trust Fund and put millions of Americans at risk, is criminal.

It is time for Congressmen to get off the fence. You either represent your American citizen constituents or you intend to sell them out as you pander after illegal alien votes. Your actions today will show the voters in your District where you stand - for Americans or for illegal aliens.

Sincerely,
(Your Name Here)?

PLEASE feel free to cut and paste these letters and then mail them to the appropriate people. The Gunner would consider it a personal favor, as I am concerned that the S.S. trust fund be there for my kids (and yours!).

Again, you can find YOUR Representative?s contact info at the following URL:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of not allowing this Totalization Agreement to be passed. Totalization is EXACTLY the right word in this situation!

To read Edward I. Nelson, chairman of United States Border Control?s testimony before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Committee on the Judiciary, go to the following URL:

http://www.usbc.org/info/USBC_Testimony_Totalization.pdf