30 June 2005

Getting the Congressional Brushoff

Several weeks ago, those of us active in Stop The ACLU began to support the passage of HR 2679 known as the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (PERA 2005). When we began our active support, I sent an email to my Congressman, Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, 14th Congressional District of Ohio. Today I received a letter from my Congressman. And in a sense got the proverbial brushoff. Here is what the letter said:
Thank you for your email urging support for H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act. It was good to hear from you. This bill would prohibit attorney fees from being awarded in court cases concerning the "establishment of religion." As you shared, federal civil rights laws do permit courts the option of providing what are called "attorney fees." These are to help cover costs that are incurred from taking the case. Part of the reason for this reimbursement is to encourage lawyers to take civil rights cases they otherwise might not agree to represent. That said, there is a petition circulating to prohibit courts from granting attorney fees in civil rights suits altogether. Some argue that the use of this discretionary reimbursement has outlived its purpose. I know you raised particular concerns about the ACLU. As you may know, the ACLU is a nonprofit organization. As such, they are supported by annual dues and contributions from their members. They also receive grants from private foundations and individuals, but the do not receive any government funding. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have further questions about this or any other federal issue, please do not hesitate to contact me again. I remain
Very truly yours, Steven C. LaTourette Member of Congress
Obviously he will not be getting a vote from me again. He basically told me that the bill that I read isn't the bill that has been proposed. And that's bull. I read the bill. It only removes the awarding of attorney fees in 1st Amendment Establishment Clause cases. Cases that have no business in the court system to begin with. Until Congress passes a bill requiring all Americans to become members of a government sanctioned religion, then there should be no challenges. All these "Establishment Clause" cases involve displays of religion or personal speech regarding religion. And infringe upon my rights. And in doing so violates my 1st Amendment rights. "..., or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." They all seem to forget that clause in the 1st Amendment. You cannot exercise a Constitutional right if in doing so you interfere with my ability to exercise mine. And these cases do just that. My point is, if these attorneys are going to sue on the grounds of a civil rights infringements, obviously if they win their client will be awarded damages. In that case, why can't they recover their legal expenses like personal injury attorneys. From a percentage of the awarded damages. And if they lose... Nothing. The contention that forcing a local, state, or the federal government to pay for attorney fees is "they do not receive any government funding" is outright inaccurate. Where do the fees awarded come from? The taxpayers. And that IS government funding. Regardless of what the Congressman says, they do take these cases in order to receive these fees. It is a source of income for them. The more challenges that they file and win, the more money they receive. If you take away the government awarding of these fees, you take away the incentive to file frivolous suits. Which in my opinion, they all are. Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

Stop The ACLU BlogBurst 6/30/05

During my scan of google alerts on the ACLU, I came across an article in the ChronWatch that dealt with the recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court. A thread titled "Freedom of Religion in America: Adieu!" I have decided to re-print the article today as my BlogBurst contribution to Stop The ACLU and Gribbit's Word.

Freedom of Religion in America: Adieu!

Written by Lee Ellis Wednesday, June 29, 2005

A few days ago, the majority of the Supreme Court ruled as if it were using the Constitution of France instead of the Constitution of the USA. The French Constitution states that its nation is a secular one, while our Constitution states that we are a nation under God. One would not know this if the majority of the Supreme Court today is to be believed.
Mark Levin states in his book, Men in Black, “Chief Justice William Rehnquist has written that the Court ‘bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.’” Based on a misreading of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the Court has propounded and expanded the concept of a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state.
The framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that all Americans could worship freely, without religious persecution. So they prohibited the federal government from ‘establishing a religion’ and equally prohibiting it from ‘interfering with the people’s free expression of their religion.’
States, however, were permitted to have established churches (the Puritans were the officially established church in Massachusetts.). Even two of the most secular framers, Madison and Jefferson, appreciated the role of religion in the public life of the United States. Jefferson himself wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, that our liberty is not endowed by states or governments, but by God.
President George Washington established Thanksgiving Day as a day of prayer to God. And it was not until 1897 that the Congress decided to stop appropriating money for education at religious schools.
In that now-famous letter, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists that the U.S. legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise of, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” Interestingly, a mere two days after writing this letter, Jefferson participated in church services held in the House of Representatives.
Yet liberal judges have seized on this image of a wall of separation, and are waging a war on religious freedom in our country.
Now the Socialist movement, the ACLU, and other liberal organizations (some with “Mom and Apple Pie” names to fool its readers, its fiscal donators and the country) have been partly successful in its efforts to drive the Judeo-Christian religion out America. The secularists have not failed in making most of Europe and Canada almost wholly secular and they are working hard to do this to America.
They have crammed our courts with liberal legislative judges as replacements for Constitutional judges, and now their representatives in Congress have filibustered to keep President Bush from appointing a majority of Constitutional federal judges. Finally, the ACLU has tried to eliminate any mention of “GOD” from all public places. I don’t think that the word, “God” is a symbol of any one particular denomination or denotes any one specific religion, do you? So why do they act as if it does?
Apparently, the ACLU has forgotten that the founders were only afraid of a federally-owned religion ruled by a King or a President, not by free religious bodies governed by themselves.
In addition, the secularists have convinced enough people that they cannot offend any minority; they must all be “politically correct.” They accuse the majority of “trampling” on minority rights. What about the rights of the religious majority? Is not the minority trampling on those? Do the atheists not offend those who believe in God when they try to eliminate Judeo-Christian religious symbols from all public arenas?
One of the most important causes for the Bush Administration and American voters is to get Congress to accept only Federal judges who believe in and will rule upon and in light of what is actually written in the Constitution of America, not that of France, nor any other document, nor of a personal letter written by an individual—whether he is Thomas Jefferson or not.
The ONLY way this will happen is if you elect a STRONG majority of conservatives to Congress in 2006 and 2008!
Fail this and bid welcome to a godless nation. Or prepare to bid Adieu (literally and ironically, “to God”) to any semblance of freedom of (not from) religion in America.
About the Writer: Lee Ellis is a retired journalist and a former vice president of both CBS and Gannet. He resides in Indio, California, where he writes op-eds that appear in several local newspapers. Lee receives e-mail at indiolee@dc.rr.com.

We can take comfort in the fact that the judicial year is over for the United States Supreme Court and that the worst court in history is no longer seated in session. We can also hope that at least 2 are expected to retire prior to the beginning of the next judicial year.
This past week's rulings have been nothing less than invasive. The Eminent Domain ruling is hopefully going to backfire on at least 1 of the 9 Justices. An effort to seize Justice Souter's home in New Hampshire to build a Hotel is in the works. This is not a prank. It's a real project. A project that the Justice himself helped to make possible.
Who do we have to blame for the current illogical activities of the high court? The American Civil Liberties Union that's who. The ACLU's promotion of judicial activism has led the 9 Justices to unofficially declare themselves King by Committee of the United States.
How else can we describe them? The Justices have taken it upon themselves to ignore the very document that they are to judge the application of other laws by. Laws passed by the legitimate body to do such legislating, the United States Congress.
The Supreme Court has ruled that you can seize private property and turn it over to a private development company for the purpose of generating more revenue for the local government. This is the common good that the high court has seen fit to make legal something that is in direct contrast to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
The Supremes have taken it upon themselves to make law instead of judge law. Starting with Roe v Wade, the high court has chosen to ignore the Constitution. No law on the federal level was in question in Roe v Wade. A state law banning a medical procedure was at issue. The last time I checked, medical procedures are NOT covered by the Constitution at all. And the court's decision to even hear the case was a violation of the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” How can they forget that one? Think of all the Looney decisions that have come before the Supreme Court. How many of them actually contain violations of the Constitution? None of the religion challenges do.
Medical procedures aren't covered in the Constitution. And Congress hasn't attempted to pass a law forcing a national state run religion upon us. Did I miss an action by Congress? Have the legislators of this nation been corrupted by the Church of Scientology at the insistence of Tom Cruise? Did they pass a law stating that ALL Americans must convert to the Looney cult of Scientology? I don't think so.
But yet the Supremes have ruled consistently that a cross in public view and the 10 Commandments hanging on the wall violate the Establishment Clause. At what point was Congress involved with the 2 county courts in Kentucky? If they were, I didn't catch it.
The 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This Amendment doesn't say, Ohio shall make no law or California shall make no law, it says CONGRESS shall make no law.
It's time we take back our court. The Supreme Court is ours. We are the People in "WE The People of the United States..." It is time maybe to consider a Constitutional Amendment establishing a Term Limit for Supreme Court Justices. More to be released on this in a special upcoming posting. Stay tuned... you won't be disappointed.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members, who have not registered, please do so. There are additional advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Some of The Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU Freedom Of Thought Mad Tech Respublica The Wide Awakes Angry Republican Mom Kender's Musings American Patriots What Attitude Problem? Life Trek Gribbit's Word Def Conservative An American Housewife A Tic In The Mind's Eye Cao's Blog Regular Ron Freedom Of Is This Life? Patriots For Bush California Conservative 4 Truth NIF Obiter Dictum PBS Watch Xtreme Right Wing Daily Inklings Miss Patriot Jack Lewis.net Conservative Dialysis Conservative Angst Kill Righty American Warmonger Birth Of A Neo-Con The Nose On Your Face The View From Firehouse Ogre's View Fundamentally right Conservative Rant My Political Soap Box Common Sense Runs Wild Redstate Rant Time Hath Found Us American Dinosaur Merri Musings And Rightly So Sweet Spirits of Ammonia Smithereen's Files Pulpit Pounder Ravings of J.C.B. Is It Just Me? Blogtalker Parrot Check Stuff You Should Know Rancher Blog Christmas Ghost Vista On Current Events Musing Minds Pirate's Cove Mr. Minority The Lesser Of Two Evils RAGE The Life And Times TMH's Bacon Bits Right Decisions Euphoric Reality The Right Dominion Undiscovered country Steve's Blog Right On! It Is What It Is Kiddsafe My View Third World Country Crosses aCross America

Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

29 June 2005

Thought Police in 2005? It may be coming...

The Federal Elections Commission is considering new rules which may restrict what you can, and cannot say in a political blog. Thought Police. George Orwell wrote about "Big Brother" in his novel 1984. It is amazing how insightful that book was. Here in 2005 we are starting to see the first evidence that "Big Brother" may be on his way. Those of us who are active in Stop The ACLU are just as outraged at the potential invasion of our basic Constitutional rights. The 1st Amendment is a common debate in our circle. But the ability for us to debate and our rights to say what we want is never a question. As opposed as we are to the ACLU, one of their tenants, Free Speech, is also one of ours. Both Conservative and Liberal bloggers who would never agree on very much, are outraged on this issue. So much so that the author of Daily KOS, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, testified before the commission. His prepared remarks are listed on Daily KOS. Every major Conservative Blog has touched on this issue today. FoxNews is treating this as a major news story. Anchor Sheppard Smith interviewing Judge Andrew Nepolitano made a statement saying, "if they don't like what you say, they can take your house and put up a mansion." The Judge added, " and receive more money in tax revenue." source Studio B with Shappard Smith FNC, June 29, 2005 Regulating blogs, keeping track of gun owners, removing religion from public life, cameras on our streets photographing everyone who drives or walks down them, taking people's homes and turning them over to private developers, and making us pay more for our lack of these freedoms through our tax money, is the first steps in removing our way of life. Until the FEC's board of attorney's recommended regulation of political websites and blogs, the idea that this was our electronic version of taking a box, standing upon it in the center of our local park, and ranting about what we see as injustice in our communities and our government was undeniable. Regulation of blogs and websites equates to regulation of newspapers and magazines. No department of the federal government is suggesting that we monitor the New York Times or US News and World Report. But the FEC is considering monitoring us. Facts are facts. If a blogger is using his/her forum as a profit making enterprise to further a political candidate and sling mud at another is improper. To me, they aren't a blogger. Bloggers give opinions on issues. My endorsement of any candidate has nothing to do with money. I am not paid for what I say or what I write. If I trash a candidate it is because of what they have said or done. And I use past actions to predict future actions of political candidates. And that is what most of us do. We regulate ourselves, have editorial responsibility to ourselves, spark debate on a personal level, and ultimately get people to think. And that is all good. Why regulate us? My idea is to have a one time, one day, bipartisan BlogBurst voicing our Pledge not to comply with any infringement on our 1st Amendment rights.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

28 June 2005

FEC v Bloggers

Political bloggers are under potential assault by the federal government. In an effort to comply with a federal judge's order, the FEC is looking into how to curtail online abuses of soft money contributions to political campaigns. In their effort to comply, the FEC has the potential to strip away some of our 1st Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. During the last campaign, a few misguided bloggers accepted money to endorse a candidate and trash others. These few bad apples have brought the heat of the FEC to bear on us. If you haven't done so yet, please visit this site and sign the online petition. I am also attempting to organize a one day, one time, mass BlogBurst with bloggers from both sides of the political spectrum. I've contacted a few big fish in the blogging pond suggesting this mass BlogBurst hoping to spark interest and gain some advice. Daily KOS (a liberal blog), InstaPundit, Right Wing News, and our own Red State Rant. If the mass BlogBurst happens, my suggestion for it is a declaration of the Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.
How would that look? Every blog all saying the same thing one time, one day, supporting each other despite political differences. All to protect our 1st Amendment right to have our peace. Our right to mount our soapbox and let it rip. To speak our minds and be heard. Let me know what you think.

Kerry 180 BlogBurst 6/28/05

It was 149 Days ago that John Kerry told a national television office that he would sign SF-180 to release his military service records. And after months of dealing with groups of bloggers and blog readers flooding his fax machine with blank copies of SF-180, he finally signed the form 39 days ago. Last Tuesday, Power Line published images of the signed SF-180. It's been 39 days since they've been signed and still no word on the contents of his military records. As it is, Kerry delayed mailing the form even after it was signed. Why? Stall tactics. This man ran for President of the United States of America. He wanted to be the leader of the free world. And there is some speculation that he originally received a discharge under less than honorable conditions. Which is equivalent to a Bad Conduct Discharge. Senator Kerry's activities after leaving Vietnam and the years of his military obligation don't jive. He had even paid a visit to North Vietnam while he was still supposed to be in the Navy. The discharge paperwork that he provided the first time this information was requested is dated 1978. Which would be aptly timed for a pardon discharge upgrade signed into law by The Peanut Man Carter. Now, lets break this down. As a Naval Reserve Officer, Kerry was obligated to serve 6 years in the Naval Reserves. He graduates college in 1968 and enters the Naval Reserve. This would make his obligation from 1968 to 1974. Soon after returning from Vietnam, he is doing anti-war rallies with Hanoi Jane and even makes a trip to North Vietnam in 1972 while under military obligation. On January 20, 1978, President Carter signed an executive order issuing a pardon for all who avoided serving during the Vietnam Conflict. All military deserters were given the pardon also. Their discharges where given a blanket upgrade to honorable. John Kerry's discharge is dated in 1978 not 1974. Interesting huh. So don't you think that he has something to gain by delaying the release of these records? First, he makes a promise. Then he doesn't follow through with it until public pressure was put upon him to sign the document releasing the information. He then delays putting it in the mail. He can't claim that he didn't have a stamp, members of Congress get free postal service. And now I'm sure he's burning up the phone lines trying to delay the release of the information or trying to find a way to do what he did during the campaign, sanitize the records. This man shouldn't be trusted any further than I can throw the Washinton Monument. The people of Massechusetts should demandl his recall.

27 June 2005

The Supreme Court, 10 C's, & Public Displays

Cross-Posted From Stop The ACLU
In true activist fashion, the Supreme Court today released 2 decisions on public displays of The 10 Commandments. Failing to define a clear line in the sand, the US Supreme Court today left more questions then answers. In McCreary v ACLU, the high court ruled that the 10 Commandments were placed inside the courthouses with the intent of promoting religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. In the 5-4 split decision, Justice Sauder writes for the majority, "The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the 'First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.'" He goes on to state, "Manifesting a purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion, generally, clashes with the 'understanding, reached ... after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens.'" I have a problem with this. First of all, Congress didn't attempt to pass a law establishing a national religion as stated in the text of the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." And because Congress, or any other branch of the federal government, wasn't involved in the posting of the 10 Commandments in these 2 courthouses this is a state matter. The 10th Amendment states, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " Search as you may, but you will not find any provision in the Constitution that prohibits states from establishing religion or regulating it. And since Congress played no part in this case what-so-ever, I am not convinced that the 1st Amendment was being violated. What this comes down to is, the ACLU through their efforts since 1920, has convinced the federal court system that their responsibility is to interpret the Constitution under a phantom "spirit" of the document. The fact that the document took 11 years to author and pass and the language used was specifically selected to remove any doubt as to the intent of the document, is immaterial to the ACLU and the liberal left. The other case decision related to the 10 Commandments the court released today was Van Orden v. Perry. This case is centered around a monument of the 10 Commandments on the State House grounds. The monument is 1 among many on the grounds and has been there since 1961 without challenge. Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist wrote, "According to Judeo-Christian belief, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning."
Rehnquist also said that the statue's placement on the grounds among secular monuments was "passive," rather than confrontational. Rehnquist was joined in his opinion by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas. Justice Breyer wrote his opinion separately. Justice Stevens, writing the dissent on behalf of O'Connor, Souter and Ginsburg, said there was nothing passive about the display. Having noted that the first commandment "I am the Lord thy God" is more boldly displayed than the other nine, he wrote, "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the 'Judeo-Christian' God."
Again, same thing... Why was this even heard? It didn't even start as lawsuit. This is a state matter. Congress was not involved in the placement of this monument. As Bill O'Reilly would say, "Go have another glass of Koolaid."

24 June 2005

Why Boycott Aruba??

Some in the media are calling for a boycott of Aruba in the wake of the disappearance of Natalee Holoway. Their reasoning is that the island isn’t safe. I have even caught myself thinking the same thing. The reality is that Aruba has an international reputation of being one of the safest vacation destinations in the world.

The facts are that this cannot condemn an entire people and their economy. The talk of the Aruban Police’s inexperience when it comes to missing persons and homicide investigations only further supports the fact that Aruba hasn’t got these problems.

The problem in this case is allowing teenagers to go on these types of trips relatively unsupervised. Some may argue that Natalee is 18 years old and an adult. The truth is that wisdom and maturity don’t automatically turn themselves on like a switch on a child’s 18th birthday. Rational thought and decision making cannot be expected to be made with any kind of responsible certainty of a positive outcome.

My position shouldn’t be construed as blaming Natalee’s parents or Natalee herself for what has befallen her. My problem with this is with the practice itself. High School graduates from her hometown have been taking this particular trip for years. It is now kind of tradition and right of passage for graduates.

Aruba was selected because of its drinking age of 18 and the availability of illicit drugs. By allowing their children to go on these party junkets relatively unsupervised is the problem. Children, and an 18 year old is still a child, should not be going to locations for the express purposes of engaging in activities which would be considered illegal in the United States.

These kids could have gone to San Padre Island, Miami, Hawaii, Key West, Tampa, Orlando, or a host of other locations to experience paradise. Places within the United States where drinking and drugging could be held to a minimum.

Aruba is a location for adults. And by adults I mean people who are capable of making rational educated decisions. Sending an 18 year old child to Aruba is telling them that it’s ok to drink, do drugs, and have sex with no consequences.

Aruba is a Dutch Protectorate. And as such, falls under Dutch law. There is a reason why so many travel to The Netherlands each year. People go to use drugs and partake in the sex trade, which are both legal in The Netherlands. And sending children to a Protectorate of a nation with such liberal substance laws is irresponsible.

Now, Natalee’s parents cannot be held accountable for this in anyway. For years now this trip has been taken with no serious negative impact. And for her parents to deny her the opportunity which has been experienced by so many others wouldn’t be fair to her. But now I believe that we can all agree that these types of trips are not responsible. Unfortunately it takes occurrences such as this to bring to the attention of parents exactly how dangerous these trips can be.

If you are planning a Honeymoon, an anniversary, a single’s cruse, or retirement vacation, by all means go to Aruba. It’s a small island, beautiful, warm, and full of friendly people by all accounts. But if your 18 year old recently graduated child comes to you with an opportunity to go to Aruba on a class trip, I’d advise to deny the request. Insist on them staying within the United States. Or better yet, go with them. Only you can be ultimately responsible enough to supervise your own child.

23 June 2005

Stop The ACLU BlogBurst 6/23/05

Constitutional Amendment Banning Flag Desecration & the ACLU's Opposition to It

For a couple of decades now, Congress has repeatedly attempted to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning the burning of our national flag. Until now, the chances of its passing have been nil. Yesterday, the House passed a bill banning burning of the flag by 8 votes. Now it's on to the Senate. The ACLU has released a statement, "the House’s approval of the "Flag Desecration Amendment" a loss for freedom and an unwarranted assault on the First Amendment." And are Claiming, "Nationwide, there is growing opposition to this proposal. The First Amendment Center issued a survey in which 63 percent of those polled said that the Constitution 'should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag.'" source Well as a Cold War Veteran, I am appalled every time I see the flag that I was willing to die for, desecrated by these liberal wackjobs that have the French mentality of capitulation to our enemies. First off the symbolism of flag burning is related to the desire of the person or persons doing the burning of a wish that the same happen to the country whose flag is being burned. Think of it, who on an international scale burns our flag? Extremists who want to destroy America. Who burns Israel's flag? Islamic extremists who wish to exterminate Israel from the Earth. So when one of our own citizens, burns our flag on the streets of a city in the United States, they are publicly calling for our destruction. And that angers me. Liberals would have you believe that it's protected under free speech. You see, they really don't think that it's free speech. They really want the USA as it is today destroyed. It has been their goal to turn this nation into a socialist state since its founding in 1920.

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." Roger Baldwin 1935
Critics of my position point out that Baldwin renounced Communism. That is true. It happened when Germany and Stalin signed the non-aggression treaty. The ACLU even adopted a policy to not allow members who are members of the Communist Party. Several high ranking individuals were removed from the membership roles only to be reinstated after the war when the policy was revoked. source And to further their communist cause, they will resort to anything. As stated in the 45 goals of the Communist Party entered into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963:

  • 19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. (To which they would include burning of the national flag.)
  • 42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
  • Public discourse is a natural thing. Protesting unfavorable government policies is natural. And a Constitutional Right. But your exercising of your rights under the Constitution cannot interfere with my rights. And burning the flag offends me. And if a visual offense can spark the ACLU to come to the aid of an atheist who is offended by a cross that is part of a memorial on top of a hill that's been there for decades, then why are they opposing my position. I'm offended. I want it stopped. Ever since 1814, when Francis Scott Key wrote the Poem "The Star Spangled Banner," our symbol has been that flag. It is by nature a battle flag. Why? Because freedom comes at a cost. We are always at war. War against forces that are aimed at destroying us. And the ACLU is one of those forces. Here is a list that I prepared for our members to draw source material from:

    From aclu.org

    For more than a decade, the Citizen's Flag Alliance and others have expended seemingly endless resources lobbying candidates and members of Congress to pass a constitutional amendment giving the government the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. Civil libertarians have fought back hard, organizing coalitions of veterans, religious leaders and other Americans who believe that such a constitutional amendment would undermine the very principles for which the American flag stands.

    While our fight against the proposed amendment has made headway in recent years, the margins of our victories remain precariously thin. Recent calls for patriotic unity threaten to bolster the cause of those who wish to protect the symbol of our freedoms at the expense of the freedoms themselves.

    We urge you to read about the history of the flag amendment and why Americans across the country oppose this amendment. Then make your voice heard! (source)

    · ACLU talking points on why this amendment is unwarranted and unconstitutional

    · ACLU letter to the Senate opposing the flag amendment

    · ACLU letter to the House opposing the flag amendment

    ACLU Calls Flag Desecration Amendment Assault on Free Speech; Says Measure Fails Very Principles Flag Embodies (05/25/2005)

    WASHINGTON - Noting that free expression and the right to dissent are among the core principles for which the American flag stands, the American Civil Liberties Union today strongly urged Congress to reject the reintroduced Flag Desecration Amendment. The House Judiciary Committee is considering that measure today.

    House Votes to Amend Constitution Once Again; But Margin of Support For Flag Amendment Drops Again (07/17/2001)

    WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives today voted by a slim 8-vote margin to once again approve a controversial proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban desecration of the American flag. This year's vote was particularly noteworthy, the American Civil Liberties Union said, because the number of votes for the amendment dropped under 300.

    Flag Desecration Amendment Marked Up in House Judiciary; ACLU Urges Opposition, Says American Strength Based in Tolerance (06/20/2001)

    WASHINGTON - With the perennial flag "desecration" amendment set for yet another floor vote as early as next week, the American Civil Liberties Union is again urging lawmakers to oppose the misguided and dangerous proposal.

    House Subcommittee Approves Flag Amendment; ACLU Says Patriotism Can Not Be Forced (05/24/2001)

    WASHINGTON -- A House subcommittee today approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit "desecration" of the American flag. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union joined with veterans and reiterated its strong disapproval of what it calls a misguided and counter-productive initiative.

    Flag Desecration Amendment Reintroduced; ACLU Vows to Renew Grassroots Campaign Against Measure (03/13/2001)

    WASHINGTON - As proponents once again reopened their drive to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban desecration of the American flag, the American Civil Liberties Union today joined with veterans and urged members of Congress to reject the proposed amendment once again

    From The House & Senate

    1 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.5.IH] 2 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.12.IS] 3 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.10.IH] 4 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Reported in House)[H.J.RES.10.RH]

    Burning our flag isn't free speech. It is inciting violent destruction of our nation. And if the libs can't see that, they are mentally flawed.

    Congressional Emergency

    Urge passage of HR 2679, The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. What this bill does, is to remove the ability for the awarding of federal funds in order to recover legal fees in Constitutional challenges to the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. These suits are often taken pro bono. But once won, the attorneys are able to recover legal fees from the government. We need to get groups like the ACLU off the Taxpayers' Dime. Call, write, or email your Congressman and Senators and urge passage of this bill.

22 June 2005

Betrayal at the Top: The Record of the American Civil Liberties Union

by William H. McIlhany
The ACLU is widely portrayed by the mass media as an uncompromising defender of our most cherished freedoms. The impression given is of a group so dedicated to protecting the Bill of Rights that they would be willing in 1979 to lose as many as 70,000 of their members through their controversial defense of the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois.

Unquestionably the vast majority of ACLU members have been drawn to the organization by an idealistic response to this image. But on closer examination, a great disparity exists between the group's professed ideals and the work and statements of its leadership. A review of such contradictions can lead to an understanding of why this is the case.

The ACLU and The Right to Life

Since the Supreme Court's legalization of abortion in 1973, the ACLU has remained the staunchest advocate not only of the mass murder of millions of unborn children, but also of compelling those to whom abortion is morally repugnant to pay for it through public funding.

The Union endorses euthanasia or "mercy killing" through so-called "living wills" in which the right to terminate one's own life is delegated to the doctor with the protection of the state.

In spite of the Union's insistence on what it calls a woman's "right to control her own body," we find the group consistently absent from defending doctors and patients who are persecuted for choosing nutritional therapies for terminal diseases. The Union's record in defending the civil liberties of mental patients against involuntary commitment to institutions also leaves much to be desired.

But most amazingly, in spite of the group's willingness to give the government power to determine when life both begins and ends, the ACLU flatly maintains that there is no crime one can commit so horrible, either for retribution or deference, than capital punishment.

ACLU Defends the Soviet Family

It would be fair to say that the ACLU has contributed to the attempted undermining of the American family. They have been active in fighting for distribution of often dangerous methods of contraception and abortion to minors without parental approval. While avoiding defense of doctors who recommend nutrition to their patients, the ACLU has pushed for legalization of dangerous "recreational" drugs, not in the free market, but under government monopoly control. In the face of growing evidence of its relationship to child molestation, the ACLU is famous defending all kinds of pornography from the restrictions of local government, while sanctioning an even more intrusive and impossibly unenforceable "national standard" on obscenity and related matters. And, of course, there is the ACLU's unsuccessful support for that Pandora's box of federal power extensions that was called the "Equal Rights Amendment."

In so many of these issues, which include areas in which the Union has in recent years received much publicity, the ACLU claims to be defending the rights of minors as individuals against the wishes of their parents. But when 12-year-old Ukrainian Walter Polovchak in 1980 ran away from his parents in Chicago because he did not want to be forced to return to a life of slavery in the Soviet Union, the ACLU was so moved by his parents "concern," that they took the case for the boy's involuntary repatriation. Apparently for the ACLU, an American child should be free to do anything regardless of the consequences, but a child from behind the Iron Curtain should be refused the chance for a life of freedom.

Whose Rights?

It may seem incredible that a group like the ACLU would fear the exhibition of Nativity scenes on public property or the singing of "hark the Herald Angels Sing" in public school assembly programs as threats to the First Amendment while turning deaf ears to the pleas of a 12-year-old boy for freedom. But strange conclusions result from the group's tendency to view the concept of rights as pertaining not to all individuals and what they have the right to do, but rather to groups who use government to take away from others the things they think they deserve.

Unlike the authors of the U.S. Constitution, the ACLU views our rights as demanding the fruits of another's labor rather than the opportunity to earn them ourselves. The late Ayn Rand correctly pointed out that this really means the right to enslave others to provide what we want. The Union's leaning toward a collectivist view of rights is further illustrated by the fact that that other guide books separately detail the rights of women, gay people, teachers, students, military personnel, veterans, hospital patients, mentally retarded persons, young people, aliens, students, candidates and voters, suspects, prisoners, lawyers and clients, government employees, etc. It's almost as if our rights are defined by our job or sex, or lack of either.

ACLU Assaults our Intelligence Agencies

Had the ACLU not been around we might not have had the tragedies in Oklahoma City or the bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.

Perhaps the best known posturing against Big Brother on the part of the Union consists of its often bewilderingly contradictory positions on personal privacy vs. government surveillance and investigation.

The ACLU provided primary leadership for the Left's drive to abolish the:

  • House Committee on Un-American Activities(later House Internal Security Committee),
  • Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
  • Subversive Activities Control Board
  • Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations
  • Internal Security Division of the Justice Department
  • domestic operations of Military Intelligence
  • and the 1977 Levi Guidelines which crippled the investigative capacity of the FBI.
The Saga of Jay Paul

In 1982 the ACLU of Southern California sued Los Angeles Police Department for alleged "abuses" committed by the Public Disorder Intelligence Division, a department which had investigated subversion and terrorism for many years.

Though initially a fishing expedition to determine what data the department possessed as well as its sources, by 1983 the focus of the attack had become PDID Detective Jay Paul, an acknowledged expert on Communist subversion and terrorism. LAPD had been under outside pressure to destroy its intelligence files and Detective Paul had stored them in his home. These files consisted of many boxes full of public record information, mostly newspaper and magazine articles going back to the 1930's. They were of historical value, possibly useful in ongoing or future investigations and were rescued by Paul from destruction. The ACLU and its liberal political allies in Los Angeles were horrified to discover the collection contained information on their own left-wing activities.

In January 1983 Jay Paul was removed from his intelligence capacity and subjected to an exhausting daily interrogation and investigation that would continue almost 18 months. It is not without significance that this action and the subsequent abolition of the PDID stopped the only advance investigation security preparation that could have helped stop terrorism at the 1984 Summer Olympics before it started.

Using this suit as a public "cause celebre", in the summer of 1983, the Union pushed mightily for a local Freedom of Information ordinance which Police Chief Darryl Gates told the LA City Council would prevent him from protecting the people of Los Angeles against terrorism at the 1984 Olympics. Fortunately enough concerned citizens packed the council chambers in opposition to this measure that only a very emasculated version of the proposal became law.

The ACLU File

One reason why some prominent leaders of the ACLU have been so opposed to public and private investigations of subversion must relate to what such an investigation would reveal about the Union itself.

The ACLU was formed out of earlier organizations in 1920 and its Executive Director and moving spirit until 1950 was Roger Baldwin. Before he died at age 97 in 1981, his ideology may have changed, but during the early years of his ACLU tenure there is no doubt where he stood.

In the "Harvard Class Book of 1935, spotlighting Baldwin's class of 1905 on its thirtieth anniversary, he was quoted as saying, "I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal." He gave this advice in 1917 to an associate who was forming another group:

"Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise...We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."
It should not be surprising to note that Baldwin was active during the 1930's in quite a few of the Communist Party's United Front organizations - he was an officer of the Garland Fund, for instance - along with other ACLU leaders including Rev. Harry Ward, Rev. John Haynes Holmes, Clarence Darrow, Scott Nearing, Robert Morss Lovett, Arthur Garfield Hayes, Archibald MacLeish, and Oswald Fraenkel. ACLU leadership also included identified Communist Louis Budenz, Robert Dunn and Corliss Lamont. ACLU activists William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn would later become leaders of the Communist Party, U.S.A.

Since that time, the ACLU's official left-leaning activism has only steadily increased. Some local affiliates of the Union have always led this crusade, such as the Southern California ACLU which had maintained on its Board identified Communist Party operative Frank Wilkinson. While the national ACLU has not been characterized as a Communist front by any state or federal investigation since 1938, any doubt about its becoming a 'staunch defender' of individual rights was put to rest in April 1976, when the ACLU National Board formally reinstated Communist Elizabeth Gurley Flynn "posthumously" in its ranks. Despite this partisanship, the ACLU and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation continue to receive substantial yearly support from the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Field, and other foundations.

21 June 2005

Kerry 180 BlogBurst Tuesday

For 5 months we in the Conservative Blogsphere have been pushing the fact that John Kerry had promised on national television that he would sign SF-180 and release his military records. During this period, campaigns to convince the Senator to sign the form included faxing blank copies of the form for him to sign to his office. That prompted him to turn off his fax machine. Well, he has finally done it. Power Line has copies of his SF-180 on display. Check it out. Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin But don't forget to read the next post down. It has some good info.

The Growth of the Hive

(Reprinted from SOBRAN’S, July 1999, page 3)
What I like to call the Hive — the informal socialist apparat that uses “liberal” rhetoric — differs from the classic Left in its avoidance of naming its ultimate goals. Today the old socialists and Communists of yore seem quaintly naive in their ingenuously open espousals of revolution. In the old days The New Republic could say: “In order to have socialism, we must have a new Constitution.” Socialists recognized frankly that socialism would be impossible under the Constitution, and they didn’t pretend otherwise. The Old Left proclaimed its creed boldly, hoping to galvanize “the masses.” That changed when the “progressives” saw that honesty, for their purposes, was not necessarily the best policy. Even the “working classes” feared and hated socialism, so there was no prospect of socialism’s winning through either bullets or ballots. At this point the progressives adopted a subtle strategy: they chose evolution over revolution. Instead of abolishing the Constitution, they would control its interpretation. It would become a “living document,” of fluid and adaptable meanings. If you can’t win by the rules, change the rules! And do it in such a way that most people hardly notice you’re doing it. Except for its Communist minority, the Hive has never been directed by commands from above. Instead it uses peer pressure, verbal signals, and the amorphous power of “public opinion.” It accustoms the general public to accepting its definitions of discrete “issues,” couched in reformist, seemingly “pragmatic” language, so that the bees — the agents of the Hive — range from conscious ideologues to passive dupes. The Hive is so powerful in controlling public opinion that it has transmuted its ideology into etiquette. “Politically correct” language, extending even to pronouns, is largely Hive-imposed. “Everyone” is no longer “he,” but “he or she”; homosexuals are “gays”; unborn children are antiseptic “fetuses,” and those who kill them are no longer abortionists, but “abortion providers.” Old words like fornicate, promiscuous, and unchaste are replaced by the bland sexually active. The archetypal Hive institution was the American Civil Liberties Union. In 1927 its long-time leader, Roger Baldwin, visited the Soviet Union, where he said there was no need for a civil liberties union, since the “working class” already ruled in Russia. Later, two top officials of the American Communist Party would be appointed to the national board of the ACLU. Subservience to Stalin was fully compatible with devotion to American “civil liberties” — as defined by the ACLU. Liberals revere the ACLU as the “watchdog of the Bill of Rights,” but this depends on whether you count the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments as part of the Constitution. The ACLU never has. It upholds peculiar interpretations of other amendments, using the First Amendment to defend Communists and pornographers. (It likes to point out that it has also defended neo-Nazis and Klansmen, but there’s a big difference: the ACLU has never welcomed such “right-wingers” to its national board.) In the name of “rights,” the ACLU has actually campaigned to lead the federal courts to strike down the laws of the states, thereby usurping the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. It has never defended property rights or opposed taxation; and above all, it has made systematic legal war on federalism. All its efforts have tended to promote the socialist model of totally centralized and secularized government. And it has done much to change the U.S. Supreme Court’s understanding of the Constitution, wildly inflating the meanings of a few pet clauses while reducing inconvenient clauses to dead letters. The remaining powers of the states now exist only by the sufferance of the Court. Not that the Court was hard to seduce; during the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt appointed a series of Hive liberals — Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas — and subsequent presidents added Earl Warren, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The ACLU reading of the Constitution has become the standard accepted by the courts, lawyers, legal scholars, and the media. And nobody describes the ACLU as “socialist,” despite its history and the obvious pattern of its pursuits. The Court scored one of the Hive’s greatest coups when it ruled in 1973 that laws against abortion — state laws, of course — violated the Constitution. This ruling (supported by the ACLU, of course) capped a long Hive campaign of twisting words from their accepted meanings. (Though it says it favors “choice,” not abortion as such, the Hive has no objection, of course, to forced abortion in Communist China.) Roosevelt himself was an enemy of individual rights; his agenda was collectivist, directed against private property, and he readily used the FBI and IRS to punish his opponents. He also put Japanese-Americans into wartime concentration camps. He showed favor to the Soviet Union from the first year of his presidency through World War II and allowed Communist penetration of his administration. He remains a hero to the Hive. After Roosevelt’s death Martin Dies, Richard Nixon, Joe McCarthy, and the House Un-American Activities Committee sought to purge Communists in government. To the Hive, this period remains “the era of McCarthyism,” a period of “hysteria” and “witch-hunts,” “one of the darkest moments in our nation’s history.” What this boils down to is that the “progressives,” for once, were on the defensive. Soviet agents, far from being imaginary “witches,” had infiltrated even Roosevelt’s inner circle and the Manhattan Project, enabling Stalin to get nuclear weapons. Here the Hive’s rhetoric reached its highest level of fluidity. At first, McCarthyism purported to mean false charges against innocent liberals of harboring Communist sympathies. Later, when the taboo on Communism had been struck down, the Hive celebrated even real Communists — the Hollywood Ten, Lillian Hellman, Paul Robeson — as “victims of McCarthyism,” virtual martyrs in the catacombs. Merely to identify Communists as Communists, it turned out, was persecution — “McCarthyism.” Its real sin was not libel, but (accurately) “naming names.” At a deeper level, the sin was principled disapproval of socialism. And the Hive’s real target, all along, was anti-Communism. Such shifting definitions are central to the Hive’s modus operandi. But most people don’t notice its semantic bait-and-switch operations. Today the media have passively accepted the Hive’s account of the “evil of McCarthyism.” Despite the complicity of American Communists in the Soviet mass murders, the Hive treats them as an oppressed minority of “idealists,” devoted to “civil rights” and “social justice.” Many Hive causes have had Red roots. I’ve mentioned the ACLU. W.E.B. DuBois of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was an avowed Communist. Such feminist leaders as Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and Susan Brownmiller started out as Communists; feminism is not so much anti-male as anti-Christian. The “women’s movement” is the ladies’ auxiliary of the Hive. The Hive’s three general targets are private property (which provides material independence of state power), the family (which affords loyalties prior to the state), and religion (which claims authority above the state’s). Property is attacked under the guises of civil rights, affirmative action, antitrust measures, discouraging smoking, consumer protection, environmentalism, equality, gun control, and tax equity; the family, under the guises of sexual freedom, contraception, “choice,” “gay rights” (including homosexual marriage), women’s rights, children’s rights, divorce reform, and opposing censorship; religion, under the guises of separation of church and state, state education (in which prayer is forbidden — the Hive’s notion of “religious freedom”), teaching Darwinism as “science,” and demands for female, married, and homosexual clergy. (The Hive even has its theologians, such as Richard McBrien of Notre Dame, who labor to eliminate supernatural revelation and authority from religion.) The elections of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush showed that the Hive’s hegemony over American public discourse had failed to eliminate popular conservative sentiment. Moreover, the Hive’s Queen Bee died when the Soviet Union collapsed. I used to doubt that the Hive could continue to exist without the Soviet Union. I was wrong. Bill and Hillary Clinton have given the Hive new life and energy. Clinton seems never to have been an outright Communist or sympathizer. He advertised himself as a “New Democrat,” unlike the McGovernite left. He gives lip service to property (he favors a “strong economy”), the family (with touching constant references to “our children”), and religion (quoting the Bible incessantly). Nevertheless, the concrete measures he favors always centralize power at the expense of private life, whether the measure is national health care or job leave for new parents. Bill and Hillary (renowned for advocating children’s rights) have won the loyalty of the Hive, which ferociously defended him against impeachment (denouncing “sexual McCarthyism”). Favoring abortion and homosexual rights, they have made the sexual revolution the agenda of the federal government. The Hive has adapted surprisingly well to the failure of socialism. Faced with the triumph of market economies, it now concentrates its energy against its ultimate target: Christianity. And it has an ideal front man in Clinton, who, Bible in hand, professes Christianity even as he works to subvert it. During the Cold War, the Hive was anti-American. But under the Clinton regime it has become pro-American. The U.S. Government has replaced the Soviet Union as the Queen Bee, the vehicle of “progress” around the world. And why not? By now the U.S. Government has abandoned the Constitution and incorporated most of the goals of the Hive. It may not exemplify the old socialist dream, but it’s about as good as it gets.

20 June 2005

The Truth About The American Civil Liberties Union

I've touched upon this information in the past. But, because some that troll here and elsewhere still insist on making me prove my points, I will do so again. The reason why there is no recent information on this Communist Front Organization is that they are extremely clever in the cover up operations. They rarely give anyone a glimps into the inner workings of their organization.

The Truth About The American Civil Liberties Union

Extension of Remarks of Hon. John H. Rousselot of California In The House Of Representatives Wednesday, September 20, 1961

Mr ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, many people have becomed very concerned about the connections of certain persons involved in the affairs of the American Civil Liberties Union with Communist front groups. They are asking the question: Does the ACLU really promote adherence to rights guaranteed the individual by the Constitution?

Organizational Research Associates, the address of which is Post Office Box 51, Garden Grove, Calif., has prepared a pamphlet entitled, "The Truth About the American Civil Liberties Union," which I believe should be brought to the attention of every member of Congress and to the American public. Under unanimous consent, I include the pamphlet in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

"Masters of Deceit," J. Edgar Hoover, page 228: "Fronts probably represent the party's most successful tactic in capturing non-Communist support. Like mass agitation and infiltration, fronts espouse the deceptive party line (hence the term "front"), while actually advancing the real party line. In this way the party is able to influence thousands of non-Communists, collect large sums of money, and reach the minds, pens, and tongues of many high-ranking and distinguished individuals. Moreover fronts are excellent fields for party recruitment."

Dr. Fred Schwarz, executive director of the International Christian Anticommunism Crusade, "Communist Legal Subversion," page 75, HCUA: "Any attempt to judge the influence of Communists by their numbers is like trying to determine the validity of the hull of a boat by relating the area of the holes to the area which is sound. One hole can sink the ship. Communism is the theory of the disciplined few controlling and directing the rest. One person in a sensitive position can control and manipulate thousands of others."

One quick way to evaluate the ideology of organizations is through consideration of the statements and claims of their leaders. So it seems neccessary for a realistic appraisal of the civil rights policy of the American Civil Liberties Union that we develop the factual background of their prominent officials and leaders.

It has taken us months of painstaking research to prepare this pamphlet; it will take you only minutes to read it. So please read it and then pass it on and inform others of the information you are about to learn.


These are a few of the past and present prominent officials and leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union.

1. Roger Baldwin, founder and guiding light of the ACLU for over 30 years, is now a member of the National Committee of the ACLU. Mr Roger Baldwin has a record of over 100 communist-front affiliations and citations (documented in detail, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May 26, 1952). In an article written for Soviet Russia Today (September 1934), Roger Baldwin said: "When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental."

Entry of Roger Baldwin in the Harvard reunion book on the occasion of the 30th anniversary reunion of his class of 1905 (1935), "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal."

2. Dr. Harry Ward, first chairman of the ACLU. Dr. Harry Ward has a record of over 200 Communist front affiliations and citations listed by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities (HCUA). Dr. Harry Ward was chairman of one of the largest Communist fronts to flourish in this country, "The American League for Peace and Democracy," which was placed on the Attorney General of the United States list of subversive organizations on June 1, 1948. Dr. Ward is the author of "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit," two pro-Communist books which clearly show Dr. Ward's love for the Soviet system of government. The California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, in their 1948 report, page 246, said: "The Communist affiliation of Dr. Harry F. Ward is indicative of the Communist sympaties of the members and sponsors of the "Friends of the Soviet Union."

3. Abraham L. Wirin, chief counsel for the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU, sometimes referred to as "Mr. ACLU."

In 1934 A. L. Wirin formed a law partnership with Leo Gllagher and Grover Johnson (reference: Daily Peoples World, Mar. 5, 1934, official publication of the Communist Party on the west coast). Mr Leo Gallagher ran for State office on the Communist Party ticket in 1936 and Grover Johnson, when asked by a governmental investigating agency if he had ever been a member of the Communist Party, refused to answer the question on the grounds that he might incriminate himself.

In 1954, A. L. Wirin was a candidate for the executive board of National Lawyers Guild (reference: Los Angeles Daily Journal, Jan 13, 1954). The National Lawyers Guild has been cited as a Communist Front organization by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) September 21, 1950. (Four years before, Mr. Wirin was a candidate for the executive board.)

4. Dr. Albert Eason Monroe, executive director of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU:

In 1952, Dr. Albert Eason Monroe, U.S. Navy serial No. 316900, was discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve under conditions other than honorable.

In 1950, Dr. Monroe was fired from his position as head of the English department of San Francisco college for refusing to sign a loyalty oath. (The purpose of loyalty oaths is to protect the unsuspecting individual from lending his name to a Communist cause and from becoming a Communist dupe. The requirements of loyalty oaths have multiplied the obstacles to the Communists in recruiting memberships for their front organizations and maintaining discipline over fellow travelers in Government service. Few people will swear to an oath knowing it to be false and knowing that they might be liable to indictment and imprisonment for perjury. This requirement places a most difficult hurdle in front of the Communists attempting to ensnare an unsuspecting recruit into their conspiracy.)

In 1953, Dr. Albert Eason Monroe was listed as being chairman of the Federation for Repeal of the Levering Act (ie., loyalty oaths), which was cited as being a Communist front organization by the California State Senate Committee on Education in its 1952 report to the State legislature.

5. Rev. A. A. Heist, executive director of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU in 1952, and Dr. Monroe's predecessor. Rev. A. A. Heist was a signer of the statement to the President of the United States, defending the Communist Party (reference: Daily Worker Mar 5, 1941). In 1952, the Reverend Heist resigned his position in the ACLU to become director of a new organization which he founded, called the Citizens' Committee to Preserve American Freedoms (CCPAF). This organization is run by its executive secretary, Mr. Frank Wilkinson, an identified Communist. At a meeting of the district council of the southern California district of the Communist Party, United States of America, Dorothy Healy, well-known Communist and chairman of the district council, said, "The party preferred public protest meetings against the HCUA to be held by the Citizens Committee To Preserve American Freedoms rather than under party auspices because Communists could attend without danger of being exposed as party members." (Reference HCUA, H. Rept. 259, Apr 3, 1950, "Report on the Southern California District of the Communist Party". The Citizens Committee To Preserve American Freedoms was cited as being a Communist front organization by the HCUA on April 3, 1959.

The Reverend Heist stated in a speech to an audience of high school and junior college students in Pasadena that "the Constitution of the United States is outmoded, outdated, and impotent." (One of the stated goals of the ACLU is to preserve the Constitution.)

In 1948, the Reverend Heist protested the withdrawal of the use of their hall by Occidental College to an identified Communist poet, Langston Hughes, who was to speak on a poem of his entitled, "Goodbye, Christ," which called for "Christ, Jesus, Lord God Jehovah" to "beat it" and "make way for a new guy named Marx, Communist Lenin, Peasant Stalin, and worker me." (Reference: Hollywood Citizen News, February 26, 1948.) This would not be a strange protest from an atheistic Communist, but when it comes from a Methodist minister?

6. Carey McWilliams, a member of the national committee of the ACLU in 1948, who now figures prominently in the affairs of the ACLU, has been identified in sworn testimony, according to Government documents, as a member of the Communist Party. Carey McWilliams has a record of over 50 Communist-front affiliations and citations. He is the editor of "Rights," the official publication of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee which has been cited as a Communist front by the HCUA (November 8, 1957).

7. Prof. William A. Kilpatrick, prominent member of the ACLU on the east coast, was for many years head of Teacherc College, Columbia University. In his book, "The Teacher and Society," published in 1939, Professor Kilpatrick said that "the revolution by force and violence was probably necessary in Russia, but it would not be necessary in America. Here, the same goals could be acheived by effectuating change within the framework of the Constitution."

8. William Z. Foster, former head of the Communist Party, United States of America, was a former member of the National Committee of the ACLU. 9. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, former member of the National Committee of the ACLU until 1940, is a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, United States of America.

In the report on "Communist Propaganda in America" (published 1935, A.F.L.) as submitted to the State Department, by William Green, the late president of the American Federation of Labor, Mr. Green states that: "During all the years since the establishment of the Soviet regime in Russia, propaganda in the United States has been conducted, not only through agencies directly set up by the Communist high command, but through agencies and organizations in which non-Communists of good standing and repute have been induced to participate. A careful studyof these organizations shows that they are so related through interlocking directorates that apparently some hundreds of organizations are dominated by an interlocking group of directors numbering not more than 60. Their tactics may perhaps be called the tactics of irritation, since their purpose is to create dissatisfaction as widely as possible and to bring into disrepute the authorities, and the established institutions of the country. As an example, the American Civil Liberties Union may be cited."

To support Mr. Green's statement of "the interlocking directorates," we discovered that when we looked at the record of the top 15 past and current leaders of the ACLU, we found that they had a combined record of over 1000 Communist front affiliations and citations.

Section II

What others think of the ACLU

1. Daily Worker, March 22, 1957. In reference to an ACLU meeting (New York chapter) featuring John Gates, editor of the Daily Worker, "it remains an axiom of our time, that to defend the rights of Communists is to defend the rights of all Americans." (We as a nation are forced to spend $50 billion a year to defend ourselves from the Communists.)

2. California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, 1948 report, page 107: "The ACLU may be definitely classified as a Communist front or transmission belt organization." "At least 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of Communists who come in conflict with the law."

3. House Committee To Investigate Communist Activities in the United States, report 2290 entitled, "Investigation of Communist Propaganda": "It is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to protect the Communists in their advocacy of force and vilence to overthrow the U.S. Government."

4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, special commission to investigate Communist avtivities: "The ACLU, with its front of respectability and with its large membership of sincere, worthy citizens, has provided important legal talent and a camouflage of decency behind which Communist forces have agitated and promoted their campaigns."

Section III

Odd Coincidences

1. The ACLU, long an advocate of unlimited freedom of the press and freedom of speech, asked Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson to withdraw a pamphlet entitled "How to Spot a Communist," prepared by the 1st Army and used by the Watertown, Mass., arsenal (New York Times, June 12, 1955).

2. The ACLU protested the publishing by the League of Decency of a list of movies and books that the league considered immoral. (Reference: Daily Worker, Mar. 22, 1957). (It has long been known that one of the primary aims of the Communist Party is to subvert the morals of the American public.)

3. The ACLU, when queried by Columnist Lawrence Fertig as to why "They did not defend the most basic of all civil liberties--the right of a man to earn his living without paying tribute to any other individual or private organization" (right to work laws in various States), replied, "there are no civil liberties grounds on which such statutes should be supported," (reference: Fortnights magazine, July 1955).

4. The ACLU has voiced the opinion many times that "they welcome investigation," but they unleash their vitriolic abuse upon the American Legion and brand the American Legion as a fascist group because they not only investigated the ACLU, but have requested the HCUA every year since 1953 to investigate the ACLU.

5. The ACLU has been the recipient of numerous grants from the Garland Foundation (American Fund for Public Service) which is the notorious bankroll for Communist front organizations. The Garland Fund is characterized by the California Senate Fact Finding Commission, 1948 report, page 247, as "the source of revenue for Communist causes is generally referred to as the Garland Fund."

The Garland Fund has also been cited by the United States House Special Committee on Un-American Activities as follows: "The Garland Fund was a major source for the financing of Communist Party enterprises," (reference: H. Rept. 1311, Mar 9, 1944).

Among those who have served as directors of the Garland Fund and who were directly responsible for the disbursement of funds to the different Communist Front organizations and who were or are now prominent members of the governing body of the ACLU are: Roger Baldwin, Harry F. Ward, William Z. Foster, Robert Morss Lovett, Morris L. Ernst, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Oswald Garrison Villard, and E. M. Borchard.

6. Frank Wilkinson, an identified Communist and chief hatchetman for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee and the Citizens Committee to Preserve American Freedoms in the "Operation Abolition" program, who, so far as we know, is not even a member of the ACLU, seems to be so prominent in the affairs of the ACLU. Also, an odd coincidence that a new organization that has been formed and which calls itself the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee (NCAHUAC) and has eight key members in the organization that have been identified as members of the Communist Party gives its mailing address at 617 North Larchmont Boulevard, Los Angeles 4, Calif., which is also the mailing address of the Citizens Committee to Preserve American Freedoms (CCPAF) and that of the 12 national committee members of the NCAHUAC, eight are currently officers or executive committee members of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee (interlocking directorates?).

If any ACLU spokesman charges that this report is biased, our answer is that is is biased only on the side of Americanism--that its only fault for those who don't like it is its bias in favor of truth and fact. in our months of investigation we were unable to find one occasion where the ACLU has something good to say about America. We were able, however, to find many occasions where the ACLU and its leaders had something good to say about Soviet Russia or did something that would benefit Soviet Russia.

In our opinion, the ACLU and its brother organizations have mastered the technique of Josef Goebbels and practiced by the Moscow Communists to the nth degree. "Tell a lie, make it big, and tell it often enough so that soon everyone will believe it." They have been spouting forth the statement that "the rights of all Americans are being threatened" so long and so hard that already everyone is looking for the Gestapo FBI, the Fascist police, the minions of that inquisition, the HCUA, behind every bush and every telephone.

Deep down in the hearts of all good Americans we know that this is a lie and if we stop and think of its source, then we can look at it in its true light.

Nicolai Lenin said, "We must build communism with non-Communist hands," Please don't let it be your hands.

A Soviet dialectician's definition of a Communist front

George Dimitrov, "Advice to the Lenin School of Political Warfare," as quoted in the report of the American Bar Association Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives--CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, August 22, 1958, page 17719. "As Soviet power grows, there will be greater aversion to Communist Parties everywhere. So we must practice the techniques of withdrawal. Never appear in the foreground; Let our friends do the work. We must always remember that one sympathizer is generally worth more than a dozen militant Communists. A university professor, who, without being a party member, lends himself to the interests of the Soviet Union, is worth more than a hundred men with party cards. A writer of reputation or a retired general are worth more than 500 poor devils who don't know any better than to get themselves beaten up by the police. Every man has his value, his merit.

And here is a timeline that I found here.
Loathed by Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell. And with good reason. They represented American Nazis in 1978, NAMBLA in 2000, and they consistently oppose any governmental endorsement of religion. That includes school-imposed prayers, as well as nativity scenes and Ten Commandments monuments on public property.

ACLU strangely refuses to take a position on the civil liberty issue of gun rights.

1919 Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer claims that communist agents have constructed a plan to overthrow the American Government on November 7th, 1919, the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Palmer and his assistant J. Edgar Hoover arrests over 10,000 suspected anarchists and communists and holds them without trial, ultimately releasing all but 247, who are deported to Russia. These mass arrests become known as the Palmer Raids.
Jan 1920 Palmer arrests 6,000 more suspected communists and holds them without trial. He announces that the communist revolution is planned for May 1st as justification.
1920 ACLU is founded in response to the Palmer Raids. Roger Baldwin is named first director of the ACLU.
1950 Roger Baldwin steps down as director, but continues work as spokesman for the ACLU. Patrick Murphy Malin becomes director, and starts the ACLU on greater membership, growing it from 9,000 to 60,000, mostly through the founding of local chapters.
1963 John de J. Pemberton becomes Executive Director of the ACLU.
1970 Aryeh Neier becomes Executive Director of the ACLU.
Jun 1978 Ruling in favor of the ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court commands that the predominantly Jewish city of Skokie, Illinois allow the National Socialist Party of America to march down its streets.
1978 Ira Glasser becomes Executive Director of the ACLU.
25 Sep 1988 During one of the Presidential debates, Vice President George HW Bush paints his opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, as practically un-American: "He said, 'I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.' That was what he said. He is out there, on out of the mainstream."
23 Sep 1991 ACLU Answers. Issue: Pornography "We support the prosecution of child pornographers under existing laws for the harm they inflict on children. But we believe government may not restrict the distribution of child pornography once it has been published."
1997 Reno v. ACLU
16 May 2000 After winning a $328 million wrongful death suit against the murderers of fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley, his parents file suit against NAMBLA for inciting the crime. The ACLU agrees to represent the organization, much to the dismay of almost everyone on Earth.
Dec 2000 Shirley Parraguirre, clerk of Clark County, Nevada, announces plans to require fingerprinting and police background checks of ministers performing wedding ceremonies. The proposal is rescinded after the ACLU points out that neither Jesus Christ nor Martin Luther King, Jr. would be allowed to marry people under the rules.
May 2001 Anthony D. Romero becomes ACLU Executive Director.
8 Sep 2001 In an editorial, Bill O'Reilly claims that the ACLU supports the practice of pederasty because they defended NAMBLA in court.
13 Sep 2001 During an exchange with Pat Robertson on the 700 Club, fellow televangelist Jerry Falwell declares that America's immorality is what caused the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center:

FALWELL: I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."
ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.
FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged". In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time -- calling upon God.
9 Jan 2004 On The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly makes a comparison to the Third Reich: ?The ACLU is the most fascist organization I have seen in decades. They want to tell you how to live. They don?t want to abide by the Constitution. They want to go around the Constitution. They?re intellectual fascists, and they use the courts as their Panzer divisions.?
12 May 2004 The ACLU announces a settlement with Stevenson High School in Sterling Heights, Michigan. The school had omitted valedictorian Abby Moler's submission for the 2001 yearbook because it contained a quote from the Bible (Jeremiah 29:11). The Michigan chapter of the ACLU sued the school on behalf of Moler, claiming that they violated her right to free speech. The school ultimately agreed not to censor yearbook submissions on the basis of religious or political speech.
Then there is the 45 goals of the Communist Party in the US as described and outlined in the Congressional Record of January 10, 1963. These items were excerpted from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen.
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. 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.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. 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."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. 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.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike
It seems that the biggest advocate of these priciples has been the ACLU. They have captured one of the political parties. Liberals make up the bulk of the over 400,000 + membership. Why? Because liberals are easily influenced by words such as civil liberties. And the liberal party in the US is the Dumocraps. And what kind of proof do I need? Howard "YeeeHaaaw!" Dean is the Chairman of the DNC. More to follow tomorrow.