Moonhowlings

From Huffingtonpost.com:

On his Monday radio show, Glenn Beck highlighted claims that before he started targeting a little-known, left-leaning organization called the Tides Foundation on his Fox News TV show, “nobody knew” what the non-profit was.

Indeed, for more than a year Beck has been portraying the progressive organization as a central player in a larger, nefarious cabal of Marxist/socialist/Nazi Obama-loving outlets determined to destroy democracy in America. Beck has routinely smeared the low-profile entity for being staffed by “thugs” and “bullies” and involved in “the nasty of the nastiest,” like indoctrinating schoolchildren and creating a “mass organization to seize power.”

As Media Matters reported, the conspiratorial host had mentioned (read: attacked) the little-known progressive organization nearly 30 times on his Fox program alone since it premiered in 2009, including several mentions in the last month. (Beck’s the only TV talker who regularly references the foundation, according to our Nexis searches.)

So yes, Beck has done all he can to scare the hell out of people about the Tides Foundation and “turn the light of day” onto an organization that actually facilitates non-profit giving.

And guess what? Everybody in America would have found out about the Tides Foundation last week if Byron Williams had had his way. He’s the right-wing, government-hating, gun-toting nut who strapped on his body armor, stocked a pickup truck with guns and ammo, and set off up the California coast to San Francisco in order to start killing employees at the previously obscure Tides Foundation in hopes of sparking a political revolution.

Read more…

ACLU

UPDATE: See Video at end of Post

March 11, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

OXFORD, MS – The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today against a Mississippi High School that has canceled prom rather than let a lesbian high school student attend the prom with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo to the event. In papers filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, the ACLU asks the court to reinstate the prom for all students at the school and charges Itawamba County School District officials are violating Constance McMillen’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

“All I wanted was the same chance to enjoy my prom night like any other student. But my school would rather hurt all the students than treat everyone fairly,” said McMillen, an 18-year-old senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi. “This isn’t just about me and my rights anymore – now I’m fighting for the right of all the students at my school to have our prom.”

Read entire Press Release

How about let’s just alter this scene just a little bit.  How about if the girl didn’t say she was a lesbian and 2 girls just showed up at the door to go to prom, like unromantic friends.  Would they be denied admission?  What is wrong with schools? 

There was a suggestion made that a private group should sponsor a private prom for ”people like this.’  Now just what is that supposed to mean?  I read in the paper that Bull Run Unitarian Universalist Church did sponsor a special prom for gay and lesbian students last spring.  Good for them.  That church is a real standard bearer for helping those who are under-represented.  I hope they will do that every year, despite the fact that local bloggers (many who claim to be good Christians)  had a field day and made extremely disparaging remarks about the church and the kids.   It’s easy to point fingers.  Its harder to step up to the plate and provide for those amongst us who might not have an advocate. 

Most of the time I think the ACLU is a pain in the ass.  I think we are supposed to think that.  However, this is one time I am glad they are out there, defending those who might not otherwise have a line of defense.  Schools need realize that gay and lesbian students are not all closeted like they were a generation ago, not should they be. 

If  the school wants to ensure that people’s sensibilities are not offended, it  needs to address the behavior of everyone coming to the dance.  It  needs to set standards of conduct and stick to its  guns.  It  should demand the same lines of decency from the heterosexual students as it is  obviously going to do with the homosexual students.  They can all do their dirty dancing after the prom.

More from the hometown newspaper

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The ACLU is now fighting 7 loitering charges stemming from arrests made near Coverstone. The names of 3 more Latinos have been added to the already existing request for charges to be dropped.

According to the Washington Post:

“We have two problems here,” said Rebecca Glenberg, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia. “One is that there appears to be a pattern of using this ordinance to target the Latino community, and two, the loitering ordinance [overall] is unconstitutional.”

It was the second time in four weeks the ACLU has acted on behalf of Latinos in the county. A similar motion to dismiss loitering charges filed last month on behalf of four men stated that the county’s loitering ordinance is unconstitutional. Both motions are set to go before a Prince William General District Court judge Oct. 27.

This appears to be a wait and see situation. The 3 men live in Coverstone Apartments. Their attorney, Daniel Voss, reported that the men were doing nothing wrong and were standing outside the complex on a grassy area. However, something seems odd:

All the men were released after the incidents. If, however, they had been detained in the jail, they would have been questioned about their immigration status under Prince William’s agreement with federal immigration authorities, said Voss, who would not comment on whether the men are in the United States legally.

Is that how the Resolution works? Isn’t a person’s status checked post arrest? Does a person have to be jailed to have status checked? I must not have understood the Resolution after all–or are the men arrested legal residents?

From the Manassas News and Messenger:

Published: August 14, 2009

The American Civil Liberties Union on Friday filed a motion to dismiss charges against four Hispanic men arrested for loitering near the Coverstone apartment complex in Manassas earlier this year.

In the papers, filed in Prince William General District Court, the ACLU challenges Prince William County’s loitering ordinance, saying the law is “unconstitutionally vague,” and allows police to target “disfavored groups.”

According to the court documents filed by the ACLU, Alberto Miguel Arias, 35, Juan Canseco-Rodriguez, 51, Jesus Velasquez Lopez, 43, and Isreal Lopez Amador, 36, were arrested for loitering on May 5.

According to the ACLU, the men were part of a larger group of men standing on the sidewalk near a bus stop outside Coverstone Apartments, where they lived, when police officers approached them on May 5.

The police officers asked each of the men for identification. The men who were unable to prove they lived in the apartment complex were charged with trespassing and the men who could prove they were apartment complex residents were charged with loitering, according to the ACLU.

Prince William County police late Friday said they had no information available about the case.

According to online court documents, Arias, Canseco-Rodriguez, Lopez, and Amador were all charged with loitering.

According to the Prince William County code, loitering is a Class1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500.

Nancy Lyall of Mexicans Without Borders said the four men charged with loitering contacted the group shortly after their arrests.

Nancy Lyall of Mexicans Without Borders said the four men charged with loitering contacted the group shortly after their arrests.

“We don’t understand the reason for the arrests,” she said. “They were standing in a public area.”

Lyall said the group received several complaints of police arresting day laborers in the Coverstone area this spring, but hadn’t heard of any recent arrests under the county’s loitering ordinance.

“We believe these individuals were targeted because of their ethnicity,” stated ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg in a statement.

The four men are due in Prince William General District Court on Sept. 1 for a hearing on the loitering charges.

I decided this one couldn’t be summarized. Was this predictable or what?

Does anyone else wonder who else was involved in this case? I drive in that area frequently. I always see Hispanic men. I never see cops or people being arrested.

Stay tuned. This case should bring out the hounds of Hell and some lively red circles beating the war drums.

Meanwhile, who pays for this? Just askin’. I know who I would like to send the bill to.