ACLU fulfilling communist agenda

[Solo]

ACLU fulfilling communist agenda

Every day, the headlines scream with some new threat from the American Civil Liberties Union. I believe it's important to look behind the curtain and discover the origins of groups and organizations to better understand their activities.

The ACLU was founded in the 1920s by Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman, described as a "progressive" and "the perfect feminist."

Earl Browder was general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States from 1930 through its dissolution in 1944. When the party was reconstituted as the Communist Political Association later that year, Browder was chosen as its president. Browder proudly proclaimed that the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party. To deny the ACLU's founding was attached at the hip to communist organizations is to deny what can easily be proven as truth.

For the past few decades, the ACLU has been on a major crusade to destroy Christianity in America, promote filth under "freedom of speech and expression," and of course, vigorously defend the homosexual culture of death. On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr., D-Fla., read a list of 45 communist goals into the Congressional Record. Below are the communist goals being implemented by the ACLU in their quest to destroy America's culture and traditions:

• Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television.
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the communists took over. Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
  [/*:m:bff44]
• Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. [/*:m:bff44]

Anyone who has been following the destructive path of the ACLU can easily see how effective these communist goals have been implemented to "promote democracy" and protect your "civil rights." Lenin stated: "Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy." (See Tucker, "The Lenin Anthology"). James Madison, known as the "Father of the Constitution" had something different to say about a democracy:

• Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Perhaps it's time to recognize the ACLU as the American Communist Lawyers Union instead of their disingenuous "civil rights" stage name.

No organization can exist without memberships and funding. It is inconceivable to me how anyone who claims to be a Christian, lawyer or layman, could belong to such an anti-American organization as the ACLU. Burn your card and get out. Organizations like Working Assets, tobacco companies and big corporations all donate to the ACLU, which in turn uses that money to buy the favors of those who serve in Congress – who vote to unconstitutionally fund the activities of the ACLU under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976.

If Americans really want to put the ACLU out of business, remove yourself as a member of their organization, boycott companies that donate to them and demand these public servants in Congress repeal the unconstitutional funding of this subversive organization.

There is no justification under Art. 1, Sec. 8, to steal from the people's treasury to give money to the ACLU or any other organization for "civil rights" lawsuits. Your Congress critter will be in your district during the month of December – make the most of it.

Retrieved from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=41751

 

[Quath]

Why didn't you mention this tidbit from Wikipedia:

In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. He later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny". In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members.

This seems the opposite of what a Communist group would do.

From what I have seen, the ACLU has the stance that Christianity should be treated equally as any other religion. This is what upsets Christians that are against the ACLU. They are loosing their perks and special treatment, and they are looking for some group to blame.

 

[Solo]

ACLU Founder a Communist Ideologue Bent on Uprooting Judeo-Christian Foundation of America

GRANTS PASS, OR, September 22, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The founder of the American Civil Liberties Union was a card-carrying communist whose goal was to undermine the Judeo-Christian foundations of America, according to author David Kupelian.

The ACLU is “engaged in trying to eliminate every vestige of Judeo-Christian expression in public places in America,†Kupelian explained in his landmark book, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom, according to a review by Agape press. “It's frightening -- and they are using our tax dollars to do this. They use the laws of the land to get American taxpayers to spend their hard-earned money, actually financing their own destruction.â€Â

The ultimate goal of the ACLU is to see an America “with little or no public vestige left of religious faith and the traditional family,†according to the Alliance Defense Fund’s Alan Sears and Craig Osten, who wrote the book, The ACLU vs. America.

The goals of the ACLU were clear from the group’s founding, as indicated by the writings of its founder, Roger Baldwin: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.â€Â

The ACLU “positions itself as the great defender of rights, [but] is against the right of parents not to allow their children to participate in assemblies and curricula that actively undermine and ridicule their religious beliefs,†according to Sears and Osten, commenting on the ACLU’s successful bid to force public school children in California to attend classes that indoctrinate them with homosexual propaganda.

Read a review of The ACLU Vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values, by Alan Sears and Craig Osten at:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/22005d.asp

Read a review of David Kupelian’s The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom, at:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive ... 02005g.asp

 

[Featherbop]

NAMBLA's goal is to essentially make it legal to be a pedophile.

To repeal age of consent laws, yes.

The ACLU supported NAMBLA, but I see you are saying it was supporting a Free Speech issue, not the cause of NAMBLA?

Correct. The ACLU did not defend pedophilia. It was free speech issue.

In my mind it's difficult to defend a organization like NAMBLA at any part for any reason.

I think I would have difficulty in defending a person or organization that I felt has beliefs or values that I find disturbing or wrong.

However, liberty must be protected. That means for all people, not just people we are comfortable defending.

 

[Guest]

Absolutely. Christians don't seem to understand this, so let me make it clear:

Your civil rights, your liberty should not be violated. Being a christian does not entitle you to special rights, nor does being christian mean you can restrict the rights of others(which is why christians largely hate the ACLU).

It matters not who you are. Even NAMBLA members(which was a free speech issue that the ACLU was involved in), even Pat Robertson, even George W. Bush, even Fred Phelps, even racists, even christians, even muslims, even me, even you.

Making some big generalities there are you not?

In fact, I have not spoken out against ACLU on this thread and I know that the ACLU has supported some Christian cases.

I also recognize that there are cases that the ACLU rejects to take - so it does have some way to discern which cases to take and which not to.

And yes, I understand that the NAMBLA case was and is extremely contraversial - I believe it was a case that they should not have taken. Especially when you look at the merits and the facts of the case.

I do not believe that I should have special rights as a Christian - just the same as everyone else. In fact, I will not even 'fight' for those rights - because I recognize that the rights I enjoy come from God the Father - not the ACLU or the Courts.

 

[Featherbop]

Making some big generalities there are you not?

Ah, yes. I shouldn't have lumped all christians together. "Many christians in my experience" is more like it.

In fact, I have not spoken out against ACLU on this thread and I know that the ACLU has supported some Christian cases.

I appreciate that honesty. It seems that most christians do not realize that.

And yes, I understand that the NAMBLA case was and is extremely contraversial - I believe it was a case that they should not have taken. Especially when you look at the merits and the facts of the case.

Something I would be interested to know is how the ACLU decided to take this case. Perhaps it was for the obvious controversy. The ACLU is certainly no stranger to that.

I do not believe that I should have special rights as a Christian - just the same as everyone else.

In fact, I will not even 'fight' for those rights - because I recognize that the rights I enjoy come from God the Father - not the ACLU or the Courts.

And I will protect mine. To each his own.

 

[Vic C.]

Thread cleaned up of off topic posts

 

[Abimelech]

I think the ACLU does work that is essential to our democracy.

 

[jgredline]

You mean ''demon''cracy?

 

[Solo]

I think the ACLU does work that is essential to our democracy.

You are correct. Unfortunately for you and the ACLU is that the United States Constitution declares the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy; and the founding fathers knew the dangers of a Democracy:

• "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government..." -Article 4, Section 4 of The U.S. Constitution
  [/*:m:b2b0e]
• Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin
  [/*:m:b2b0e]
• Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and conflict; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -James Madison, fourth president of the United States & framer of the U.S. Constitution
  [/*:m:b2b0e]
• At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, "What have you wrought?" He answered, "...a republic, if you can keep it."[/*:m:b2b0e]

A democracy is only a step away from communism; it always collapses and is always followed by a dictatorship. Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto lists ten things a government needs to affect a communist state. The United States has all ten of those things now. We haven't even got our own stuff together and we're pushing it on everyone else!?

http://my.opera.com/Armitage/blog/index ... %20Fathers

 

[Lewis]

The ACLU' is a dangerous organization' I do not like what they stand for' when it comes to the Church. They are against us' and that cannot be denied. The ACLU has done a lot of harm to Christians' with their secular mind set. To be honest with you all' I think they are a bunch of fools.

 

[Vic C.]

You are correct. Unfortunately for you and the ACLU is that the United States Constitution declares the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy; and the founding fathers knew the dangers of a Democracy:

• "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government..." -Article 4, Section 4 of The U.S. Constitution...

• 
  
  "... and to the Republic for which it stands:
  one Nation under God,..."

 

[Featherbop]

Democratic Republic perhaps. Rebublic base with some democratic ideals. George W. Bush seems to think the U.S. is just a straight up democracy.

Anyway, I don't think the ACLU makes any claim about supporting any certain type of government. It is however, supporting and protecting civil liberties.

But, they do not give preference to any groups. All are to be equal under the law. Some christians oppose the ACLU for this-they don't get special treatment. The ACLU does defend christians. I believe jericho listed some cases of that already. Not granting special treatment does not equal being anti-christian.

 

[Heavenbound983]

"... and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God,..."

No offense, but the Pledge of Allegiance can hardly compare to the Constitution on matters of legal standing.

Anyway, back on topic...so how do those of you that believe the ACLU to be a communist or 'evil' organization reconcile the fact that it has also helped Christians retain THEIR rights?

 

[Vic C.]

What separates a Republic from a Monarchy, Theocracy, Dictatorship, some forms of Socialism, etc, is the fact that the ruling government is elected. So that makes a representative democracy a type of republic. Don't think for a moment that this country's people have any form of direct democratic say on Federal matters (in most cases), or even most State matters.

The highest form of direct democratic procedure we have is on the community level... and even that is limited by higher forms of law.

 

[Heavenbound983]

It is true that 'representative democracy' as opposed to 'direct democracy' is often used to term our system of government a Democratic Republic.

Direct democracy's failing is that it cannot be used in a large group of people due to time, space, and logistical constraints...representative democracy is the best we can do on that front.

But honestly, the more important feature is that we as a people are electing our leaders...a fact that most of our leaders seem to have forgotten.

 

[Abimelech]

I see most everyone has chosen to focus on my choice of the word "democracy" rather than the actual point I was making.

Those values and rights that we hold dear as Americans...those rights which young men and women are defending with their lives right now in Iraq....those are the principles that the ACLU fights for.

 

[Solo]

ACLU is leading us down a dangerous path

The following is a StopTheACLU Blogburst:

• Convincing liberals that the ACLU is leading us down a dangerous path is about as productive as talking to a rock. Perhaps this is because I mostly deal with far left liberals who share the same insane views and have the same radical agenda as the ACLU. Anyone who believes that the ACLU is there to purely defend the Constitution is naive at best. Surely there are some moderate liberals out there that can concede that the organization is in need of reform. [list:29641]
  But if they saw how the Left Win WingNuts treated the WaPo Omsbudman recently they are probably afraid to say anything.

A balanced society can not survive resting in the fringe. A Nation only concerned with security will drift toward a police state, and one that follows the absolutist views of liberty like the ACLU will drift toward anarchy.

The ACLU proudly display a banner that states, Keep America Safe and Free, but any honest person will admit that the ACLU have done nothing for the safety of America. As a matter of fact, all evidence leads to quite the opposite. The ACLU are always ready to put the security of America at risk in the pursuit of its absolutist views of liberty.

Many of the ACLU's former leaders have noticed the irresponsible shifting of the ACLU away from true civil liberty protection into a much more dangerous agenda. For example take the words of this former Executive Director of the ACLU:

• 
  The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.
  
  But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU's press release:[list:29641]
  "We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion."

Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.

The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled "The Nuremberg Files," after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called "baby butchers." ...

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

None of the anti-abortion group's intimidating writings explicitly threatened violence. Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants' First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief taking no one's side but arguing that speech constitutes a physical threat only when the speaker intends his statement to be taken as one.

And how is the person threatened supposed to know the intent of the threatener?

...Before anti-abortion zealots started getting sued, the ACLU had much more tolerance for menacing speech. Few of the 20th century's great social movements were entirely peaceable. The labor, civil-rights, antiwar, environmental and black-power movements were an amalgam of violence, civil disobedience and highly charged rhetoric. But to gag fiery speakers who call for harm to the establishment because others in the movement pursue their political goals with fists, guns or bombs would do terrible damage to strong, emotive pleas tot social change. It is something neither the ACLU nor, thankfully, the courts have countenanced in the past.

That's why in 1969 the ACLU helped defend a Ku Klux Klan member who had called for violence against the president, Congress and the Supreme Court. At the ACLU's urging, the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating violence was constitutionally protected unless it incited imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. This case was later used to defend the speech of black militants.

The ACLU also applauded a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that speeches promising violent reprisals were protected by the First Amendment. During the civil-rights movement, a leader of the NAACP called for "breaking the necks" of blacks who violated a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, and published a list of those who did. Some of the boycott violators were beaten. The court ruled that despite the atmosphere of fear, all the speeches and lists were part of a debate on a public issue that needed to be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

I would argue that the Constitution doesn't protect all of these extreme positions of the ACLU, but that isn't the point he is trying to make. The issue is the ACLU's curious commitment to "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" free speech when it involves things such as virtual child pornography, but not when it involves a something like a boss making racially offensive statements.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are so hypnotized by the ACLU's absolutist views and of the ACLU's campaign for pedophilia and child pornography that they are prepared to defend an organization that has become a shadow of its former self--a group that lets its idealistic and skewed understanding of the establishment clause trump freedom of religion and freedom of speech.[/list:u:29641]
Stop the ACLU had the opportunity last year of interviewing a former ACLU lawyer. He was concerned with much of the same things.

• 
  The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due.†“But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.â€Â
  
  “The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.â€Â

It seems that the many of the ACLU's greatest critics came from their very ranks. The division within the ACLU will continue as long as the ACLU continues on the irresponsible, hypocritical path it is on. America needs a civil liberties union, sadly the ACLU isn't doing that job. If the ACLU succeeds in the dangerous direction it is steering America, they will ironically be putting in jeapordy the very liberty they claim to protect.

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 on-board.[/list:u:29641]

 

[Solo]

The Ben Franklin quote that has been so misused and abused by the civil liberties absolutists since Sept. 11 originally appeared in 1755:

• Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  The version that appears on the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal reads:
  
  They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  The omission of those key qualifiers–â€Âessential†and “littleâ€Â– makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made.
  
  Is there a single adult on campus who will correct the miseducated protesters and teach them to think rationally about trade-offs? Or is Georgetown’s educational mission to produce the next generation of ignorant Chicken Littles who’ll proclaim the collapse of civilization every time our government fingerprints a temporary foreign visitor, detains an illegal alien, interrogates an enemy combatant, prevents bogus charities from raising money for terrorism, refuses to admit radical Muslim clerics into the country, or monitors the internationally routed e-mails and phone calls of known and suspected al Qaeda operatives?

For a truthful understanding of the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, read the entire article at http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/01 ... liberties/

 

[Rick W]

The ACLU could care less if something is Christian or not.
There's money to made because winning the case means they get paid their fees from the defendant. They choose their battles where a buck can be made, it has nothing to do with anything but making money. Period.

Unfortunely Christianity in the public square is simply an easy target, easy prey, no more, no less. We can debate all day whether the ACLU is good or bad but it doesn't matter one iota. A shark doesn't make distinction where it's next meal comes from, it's a hunter of opportunity. Same with the ACLU.

The ACLU is not a watchdog. It protects nothing and will attack anything. It operates under a law intented to provide anyone justice by providing the opportunity to present their case in a court of law regardless of wealth or lack thereof. But like many other things it's use doesn't always reflect it's intent. Anyone that entertains the idea that laws are incorruptable or immune from abuse are fooling themselves. And if you think the ACLU is your champion be careful. The lady riding the tiger thought so too.