15 September 2005

Stop The ACLU BlogBurst - Full Frontal Assault

For the first 50+ years of its existence, the American Civil Liberties Union operated in the obscure background of the Civil Liberties Movement. Promoting Communism through subtle but deliberate means and operating just below the radar of the common American. But starting with the 1973 decision of Roe v Wade, the ACLU has declared all out war on the American Way of Life. And in the past couple of years this has led them to launch a full frontal assault on religion, the military, the family unit, and America as a whole. They do this through the threat and filing of legal actions which are extremely expensive for their targets to defend. And when they win, it costs the taxpayers money in the form of legal fees.
"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." Roger Nash Baldwin, ACLU Founder, 1917.
This is a false image that Baldwin was advocating.

"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 in a yearbook commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Harvard graduating class of 1905

"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." He goes on to say, "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental." Roger Baldwin "Soviet Russia Today" September 1934

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. Source Congressional Record September 20, 1961

Roger Baldwin's goal in 1920 when he, along with Crystal Eastman (another Communist Party member), formed the ACLU was the development of a Communist movement through subversive means. Promoting pacifism and social reform, the ACLU won the hearts and minds of many unwitting liberal dupes. People who have no desire to see the Soviet model tried in the United States, but non-the-less have fallen victim to the Civil Liberties propaganda that the ACLU has been putting forward in print and in film for years. The ACLU has been using the smoke screen of defending the Bill of Rights since 1920 when they fully ignore the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments. And Roe was the largest victory in their stable. In Roe, they convinced the Supreme Court into believing that a so-called woman's right to choose qualifies under the liberty protections of the 14th Amendments and trumps the State's right to govern medical procedures under the 10th Amendment. And in doing so, opened a flood gate of Judicial Activism which the ACLU has taken full advantage of since. The ACLU has become very astute in understanding which Courts of Appeals to file Civil Liberties Law Suits in. They are aware of which Courts have a track record of siding with liberal causes and they shop in those Courts. For example this week's decision from Senior United States District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of the US District Court for Easternsten District of California, ruled that the words "Under God" included in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. He ruled, " that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." And in doing so, opened these same children into a coercive requirement to reject God in favor of Secular Humanism, or Atheism if you like.
Justice Black said in the opinion of Torasco v. Watkins:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, 10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. 11
Now on the surface this plays into the anti-religious lefts hands until you read the footnotes attached to the opinion.

[ Footnote 10 ] In discussing Article VI in the debate of the North Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, James Iredell, later a Justice of this Court, said:

    ". . . [I]t is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?"

And another delegate pointed out that Article VI "leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority; and no kind of oppression can take place." 4 Elliot, op. cit., supra, at 194, 200.

[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47. Source

Those on the left will say that this declaration by the court that Secular Humanism is not a religion due to the fact that it appears in the footnote. Actually it does appear in the opinion through the use of the footnote itself. And claim that it is a Myth that the court ruled in this manner. The Justice could have spelled out every word in the opinion which appears in the 11 footnotes cited, but those would have lengthened the overall opinion. And because the application of the opinion is left to attorneys to follow, the fact that it appears in the footnote is understood to be part of the decision since it was referred to in the opinion. We can argue with the ACLU and the left all day and all night, but it does not remove the fact that Justice Black referred to precedentdent in his opinion. Therefore, it is part of the opinion. The ACLU filed the "friend of the court [or as we call it enemy of the nation] brief on behalf of 1 atheist. The same situation thatoccurringring in San Diego with the Mt Solemonumentment struggle. And in by repeating their need to remove religious icons and references from public life and on public lands, they are showing their "Godless Communist" ways.
And keep in mind, if the ACLU can be successful in removing religious icons, celebrations, and references in public, it is only a matter of time before that transitions to private property in public view, then to within private property with public access such as a church, then into the private home.
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. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.


Post a Comment

<< Home