ACLU: 'Communism is the Goal'

TownHall.com ^ | 03-25-2011 | Matt Barber

[jimluke01]

Irony is defined as "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning." The term doublespeak means "evasive, ambiguous language that is intended to deceive or confuse."

There is perhaps no greater example of ironic doublespeak than inclusion of the phrase "civil liberties" within the inapt designation: "American Civil Liberties Union."

Indeed, few leftist organizations in existence today can compete with the ACLU in terms of demonstrated hostility toward what the Declaration of Independence describes as "certain unalienable rights" with which Americans are "endowed by their Creator."

Consider the doublespeak inherent throughout the "progressive" Goliath's flowery self-representation:

"The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country."

Now contrast that depiction with ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's candid vision:

"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."

Ironic, isn't it? So much for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." By combining straightforward segments from each ACLU rendering we arrive with an accurate portrayal. One that cuts through the doublespeak:

"The ACLU is...working daily in courts, legislatures and communities. Communism is the goal."

In 1931, just eleven years after the ACLU's inception, the US Congress convened a Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities. On the ACLU it reported:

"The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists."

To be sure, the "main function of the ACLU" is entirely counter-constitutional.

A shared objective between both Communism generally, and the ACLU specifically is the suppression of religious liberty; principally, the free exercise of Christianity.

Karl Marx, high priest of the ACLU's beloved cult of Communism, once said: "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion."

Even the ACLU's own promotional materials overtly advocate religious discrimination: "The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion."

Utter hokum.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause -- a mere 10 words -- says nothing of the sort. Its message is abundantly clear, requiring severe distortion to stuff within the ACLU's Marxist parameters. It merely states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That's it.

Now let's break it down. What do you suppose the Framers of the US Constitution -- a document expressly designed to limit the powers of federal government -- intended with the word "Congress"? Did they mean State government? Municipal government? Your local school district? Your third grade teacher?

Of course not. They meant exactly what they said: Congress. As in: The United States Congress! It takes someone with a distinctly disingenuous ulterior motive to derive anything else.

Now what did they mean by "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"

Well, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson -- often touted by the left as the great church-state separationst -- answered that question. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was singularly intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively "establishing," through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).

Or, as Jefferson put it: "[T]he clause of the Constitution" covering "freedom of religion" was intended to necessarily preclude "an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States."

How far removed we are today from the original intent of our Founding Fathers. The ACLU is largely responsible for creating the gulf between the Constitution's original construction and its modern misapplication.

The ACLU remains one of America's most powerful secular-socialist political pressure groups. It relentlessly tramples underfoot the First Amendment, which guarantees sweeping and absolute liberty for all Americans -- including government employees -- to freely exercise their faith both publicly and privately without fear of reprisal: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Examples of its constitutional abuses are manifold, but one of the most recent involves an ACLU assault against a group of Christians in Santa Rosa County, FL. Liberty Counsel represents those Christians.

An ACLU-crafted Consent Decree has been used as a weapon to threaten school district employees with fines and jail time for merely praying over a meal, and for exercising -- even while away from school -- their sincerely held Christian faith. You read that right. The ACLU is literally seeking to criminalize Christianity.

In August of 2009, Liberty Counsel successfully defended staff member Michelle Winkler from contempt charges brought by the ACLU after her husband, who is not even employed by the district, offered a meal prayer at a privately sponsored event in a neighboring county.

Liberty Counsel also successfully defended Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman against criminal contempt charges, after the ACLU sought to have the men thrown in jail for blessing a lunch meal served to about 20 adult booster club members.

Under the Consent Decree teachers are considered to be acting in their "official capacity" anytime a student is present, even at private functions off campus.

Liberty Counsel describes this unconstitutional decree:

"Teachers cannot pray, bow their heads, or fold their hands to show agreement with anyone who does pray. Teachers and staff cannot 'Reply' to an email sent by a parent if the parent's email refers to God or Scripture. Teachers either have to delete such references from the original email or reply by initiating a new email. Teachers and staff are also required to stop students from praying in their own private club meetings."

During witness testimony, Mrs. Winkler sobbed as she described how she and a coworker, who had recently lost a child, literally had to hide in a closet to pray.

Although the case continues, on Monday the ACLU suffered a tremendous setback while freedom took a significant step forward. Federal District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers granted in part a Preliminary Injunction in favor of Liberty Counsel's twenty-four Christian clients.

Judge Rodgers concluded that even though "a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy," one aspect of the Consent Decree -- its attempt to prohibit school employees from fully participating in private religious events -- is so flawed that it must be immediately halted.

The Court thus enjoined the School Board "from enforcing any school policy that restrains in any way an employee's participation in, or speech or conduct during, a private religious service, including baccalaureate" pending a trial on the merits.

"Progressives" are nothing if not consistent. As they gain confidence, they invariably rush across that bridge too far. They engage wild-eyed efforts to "fundamentally transform America" to reflect their own secular-socialist self-image.

I'm certain that both the bare-knuckle spirit of the American people and Liberty Counsel's enduring 92 percent win record against the ACLU will maintain a durable safeguard - an "impenetrable wall of separation" if you will - between our constitutionally guaranteed liberties and a subversive "progressive" agenda built upon the distinctly un-American creed: "Communism is the goal."

####

J. Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is VP of Liberty Counsel Action.

[Captain Kirk]

The focus on 1931 is misleading since the ACLU very publically purged its CP members several years later.

[BuffaloJack]

> The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty

BULL SH!T
The ACLU is a PC term for a pro-commie group of lawyers.

[Republic]

Isn't the ACLU propped by government money via our tax dollars?

If so-isn't it time to start pressing our congress to defund this horrific and biased slimeball group ASAP?

[Dilbert San Diego]

In the waning days of the Carter administration, Jan. 16, 1981, Jimmy Carter awarded Roger Baldwin the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Gee, Jimmy, if you were so proud of the ACLU and their stand for freedom and constitutional rights and all that, why didn’t you give Roger his award before the 1980 election? That would have given you a good campaign issue to run on, namely, your support of ACLU style liberalism. (sarcasm).

[Logical me]

Who would be surprised? Communism is so embedded in our Country if is getting hard to find something that is not infested. The next time America goes after these communists we should hang them.

[vpintheak]

I love this posters comments: Ad hominem is a argument style. If it were true. Slamming the ACLU for being a "communist organization" is a partial truth taken out of context of the time and conditions. From Wikipedia about In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Originally, at the beginning of the ACLU, he had said, "Communism, of course, is the goal." Later, however, as more and more information came out about Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, Baldwin became more and more disillusioned with Soviet-style communism and called it "A NEW SLAVERY" (capitalized in the original).[4] He condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny".[5] In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin Barber lies by omission. His arguments are tainted by his lies. Given that the basis of his celebration is based on an ourtright attemt to deceive, I will be very interested in seeing the outcome of this case. So as long as the ACLU thinks its all roses and sunshine, communism is OK! Idiots.

[RetiredArmy]

Of course religion is the first goal to kill off. They want you to worship at the feet of liberalism, communism, SELF!!! What’s in it for ME! I WANT MINE! I have a RIGHT to HAVE it. It is OWED too me. Government PROMISES of entitlements from cradle to grave. Rich OWE the poor a living. It has been their goal since the godfather of socialism in America, FDR, first started us down the path of socialism at the national level. Government control of the sheep. That is their goal. And, sadly folks, I have to say, they are winning.

[MeganC]

“The focus on 1931 is misleading since the ACLU very publically purged its CP members several years later.”

So what? Stalin ran purges, too. It didn’t make him any less communist and the ACLU purges didn’t make them any less communist.

[Art in Idaho]

From the article:

In 1931, just eleven years after the ACLU's inception, the US Congress convened a Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities. On the ACLU it reported:

"The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists."

Yes, it's time to Reinstitute the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

[Walkingfeather]

You have to remember the Goal is communism “for them” not the ruling elite. THAT IS THE KEY. If they think they could create a peasant society easier with castles and lords, believe me they would do it.

[darkangel82]

Explains modern liberalism, doesn’t it.

[ratsreek]

My memory may be flawed on this, but, IIRC, some years back - during Clinton, I think - congress passed something that allows the ACLU to recover fees, costs and expenses in ways not available to other entities. THIS is what should be attacked before worrying about NPR and the BBC funding.

[SpringtoLiberty]

Can we just get the Second American Civil started and settle this once and for all already?

[ohioman]

Who cares. The ACLU is still a leftist, anti-American organization.

[OrangeHoof]

American Communist Lawyers Union

[SandRat]

Don’t forget the SLCU - Southern Communist Lawyers Union either.

[loboinok]

The focus on 1931 is misleading since the ACLU very publically purged its CP members several years later.

Which was basically all show.

The ACLU's Not-So-Holy Trinity

[bibletruth]

ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's candid vision: "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."

I'm happy there is a GOD and Jesus Christ in heaven; and GOD's Righteous Judgment will condemn the ACLU founder Roger Baldwin and those who follow him - to the lake of fire and hell.

[Condor51]

The absolutely BEST SMACK-DOWN of the Communist ACLU was delivered by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in The ACLU v Mercer County, Kentucky. It was about the public display of the Ten Commandments by a courthouse.

Unfortunately tt came out on Dec 20, 2005 and nobody (the MSM) paid any attention to it as it was so close to Christmas, so it got zero press coverage.

It;s only 14 pages (.pdf) and the 'smack-down' comes near the end, starting on on page 13, in the 2nd paragraph:

...Religion does not become relevant to standing in the political community simply because a particular viewer of a governmental display feels uncomfortable. ... Our concern is that of the reasonable person. And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is “to ensure that the government [is kept] out of the religion business, does not embody the reasonable person. (OUCH! LOL)

And the ACLU REALLY gets hit in the 3rd paragraph:

The ACLU’s argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.
(mommy, mommy the mean judge is picking on me! (LOL))

And finally on page 14

Third, the ACLU erroneously–though perhaps intentionally–equates recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow. .... nothing in the display, its history, or its implementation supports the notion that Mercer County has selectively endorsed the sectarian elements of the first four Commandments, we fail to see why the reasonable person would interpret the presence of the Ten Commandments as part of the larger “Foundations” display as a governmental endorsement of religion.

... If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation’s cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto. Fortunately, the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff. .... Instead, he appreciates the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American legal traditions.

After all that, if I was the ACLU lawyer, I'd be crying and wanting my ''blanky'

(Like Shakespeare said: First we kill all the lawyers.)