The focus on 1931 is misleading since the ACLU very publically purged its CP members several years later.
> 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.
If so-isn't it time to start pressing our congress to defund this horrific and biased slimeball group ASAP?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can we just get the Second American Civil started and settle this once and for all already?
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.
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 ACLUs 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.And finally on page 14
(mommy, mommy the mean judge is picking on me! (LOL))
Third, the ACLU erroneouslythough perhaps intentionallyequates 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.After all that, if I was the ACLU lawyer, I'd be crying and wanting my ''blanky'... If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nations 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.
(Like Shakespeare said: First we kill all the lawyers.)
religious speech should be treated like any other speech
religious speech is speech
This is the GeronL Doctrine
Using state power to destroy religious expression is a mighty funny way of "abolishing the state."
The ACLU is literally seeking to criminalize Christianity.
If the ACLU is prepared to physically prevent me from resisting, fine.
Wasn’t at least one member of the Supreme Court a member of the ACLU?
Oh, I guess no school administrator would accept my email address: Diana17@believer.com. Probably would be considered spam, dangerous spam.