Gunco Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I lean this way which is why I have no respect for the ACLU. The emphasis of the ACLU produces a nation where you can say or watch anything, but you can't do anything.

If the ACLU was really serious about rights, they would spend some time and money restraining government's power and scope to act consistent with how the Constitution was envisioned.


Is the Bill of Rights a "disaster"?
The Washington Times | December 15, 2004 | Rick Lynch

It may be that every American "knows" the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us a Bill of Rights as a guarantor of various liberties, and this belief may be so deeply ingrained in the national psyche that virtually every famous political actor in the country has attested to the framers' wisdom in their crafting of the great bill, but the plain, historical and undeniable fact of the matter is the framers overwhelmingly rejected any notion of a bill of rights. When the proposal was put forth during the Constitutional Convention, only two men of 55 spoke in favor of the measure, and the state delegations rejected the idea unanimously.

And the bill didn't fare much better with the men of the First Congress, who approved the amendments only because of crushing pressure from Anti-Federalist factions. Respected constitutional scholar Robert Goldwin notes the House was almost "unanimously opposed" to the amendments; and that the bill's sponsor was told of these feelings "in terms that were caustic, scornful, and even derisive." The framers were convinced that such a bill would actually rob Americans of their rights, not protect them. And they were correct, for as Alexander Hamilton said: "I affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous."

Unnecessary? Dangerous? How, exactly? When the framers wrote our Constitution, their strategy for safeguarding liberty against government encroachment was really quite simple ? they would list, specify and detail the few and defined rights of the federal government. All the uncountable, innumerable scores of rights and powers not found on this small list were off limits to the federal government and were retained by the people. As every good conservative knows, this list the framers referred to is the "enumeration," and it is contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

At this point the framers directed their critics who bemoaned the absence of a bill of rights to the enumeration and noted, quite logically, that since the enumeration contained no provision for the federal government to assail cherished liberties, those rights were already protected. A bill of rights was unnecessary because the rights so loved in our Bill of Rights were already protected, were already completely off limits to federal authority. Nowhere in the enumeration do the people cede to the government the power to regulate the press, thus the federal government has no authority whatsoever to do so, or to suppress free speech, or establish a church, or seize firearms. The logic and simplicity of their reasoning are undeniable.

We now see why the bill was unnecessary. But why, exactly, was it "dangerous?" Though Madison and Hamilton penned virtually the same words, James Wilson, Pennsylvania delegate to the convention, said it best: "In a government consisting of enumerated powers, such as is proposed for the United States, a bill of rights would not only be unnecessary, but, in my humble judgment, highly imprudent. In all societies, there are many powers and rights, which cannot be particularly enumerated. A bill of rights annexed to a constitution, is an enumeration of the powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration, every thing that is not enumerated, is presumed to be given. The consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete."

This, of course, is the sad situation in which we now live. A huge majority of Americans and our legislators believe that the federal government may legislate on any topic, at any time, for any reason, period ? so long as the legislation does not offend the Bill of Rights. We used to have all the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, plus untold scores of others. Now, as the framers predicted, we have only those rights contained in the Bill of Rights. This is a disaster, not a blessing. The world the framers gave us (government's powers limited to a small list) is entirely different from the world given by the Bill of Rights (people's powers limited to a small list). These two worlds are mutually exclusive. They represent, with mathematical precision, exact and precise diametric opposites. One is the antithesis of the other. The world the framers gave us is not diminished by the Bill of Rights, it is not marginalized; it is utterly and absolutely destroyed. These two visions simply cannot exist side by side. One must die, and indeed, one did. Others will blame any of a dozen different reasons for our lost rights, but can it really be a coincidence that the only rights we have left are found in the Bill of Rights? Can it?

Rick Lynch, a writer living in Virginia, discusses constitutional issues in his forthcoming book, "They Are Vicious... :How Democracy and the Bill of Rights destroyed the U.S. Constitution."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer, I think most of the BOR cases that the ACLU has gotten caught up in have been from the perspective of restraining governmental power - e.g. the power to interrogate detainees without advising them of their right to remain silent and to obtain legal counsel, the power to require loyalty oaths for govenmental employment, the power to ban obscene books and movies, the power to detain people for extended periods of time without filing charges, the power to detain US civilians in concentration camps because of their ethnic origin (i.e. the internment of the Nesei during WWII), etc., etc., etc.

Do think there are instances in which they have gotten into areas other than trying to restrict governmental power, and think they shouldn't have.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
They have only been interested in a few pieces of the BOR. If they truly wanted freedom they would have picked some cases to restrain government growth beyond what is a reasonable construction of limited government/enumerated powers, especially the incredible growth of the commerce power.

The fact they don't completely convinces me they are about social change, not freedom. They are fakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
There's truth to what you say. I do think that the ACLU is genuinely invested in protecting our civil liberties. At the same time, I think it is also inappropriately involved in social change - and it is in that context that it gets out of its league and involved in stuff that it has no business messing with.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
That's been their history since the commies started them.

In fact, the first time I came across their BS was a meeting I had with their Ohio Executive Director, Benson Wolman, when I was in college over 30 years ago.

Until he explained what they really were about, I was another young guy who thought they were for rights and personal freedom. I've never forgotten it.

They helped create a conservative which I am sure was not the intent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
Enjoy,
Lynch

Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
There's truth to what you say. I do think that the ACLU is genuinely invested in protecting our civil liberties. At the same time, I think it is also inappropriately involved in social change - and it is in that context that it gets out of its league and involved in stuff that it has no business messing with.
Historically... I don't know?

But currently, I think it's quite the opposite... they are genuinely invested in social change which by way of incidental chance or opporutnity positions them as a marketable, yet questionable champion of civil liberties.

Lynch
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
Custer said:
Good post, Lynch and good to see you.
Well met and good to see you as well.

Picked up the car... am officially $1600 lighter today.

Feels good though... life could be worse... much worse.

Lynch
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Lynch said:
Historically... I don't know?

But currently, I think it's quite the opposite... they are genuinely invested in social change which by way of incidental chance or opporutnity positions them as a marketable, yet questionable champion of civil liberties.

Lynch
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS ABOUT THE ORIGINS

By: Roderick T. Beaman

Probably like most other libertarians, I have come to this philosophy from the Right end of the political spectrum. Over the years, I have been very critical and, I must admit hostile, to The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). That said, our movement must welcome all to our cause. We have been receiving interest also, for quite a while, from the Left end of the spectrum.

Many libertarians have found reason to work with ACLU on certain issues and there is no doubt that there is firm common ground on which we stand. In those matters, we can join them. I have been having some exchanges with members of two libertarian e-groups and decided to do some more intense study of ACLU. I wish I could say that this mollified my feelings but it made it worse. What I found out about its origins horrified me. It was the political goal of many of the founders of ACLU to destroy this country and everything it stood for.

ACLU was founded on January 19, 1920. It grew out of a predecessor group, The National Civil Liberties Bureau which in turn had grown out of the American Union Against Militarism, and a soiree that was held in New York City and attended by just about every radical from the thriving New York scene of the time. The founders numbered over 60 but the bulk of the work was assumed by the following core:

Roger Nash Baldwin - the founding, long time, director of ACLU. Born to wealth, at the time of the founding, he was deeply involved in the communist movement. As late as 1935, he gave a speech stating that his political vision was communist. During the 1940s, Baldwin would participate in the purging of communists from ACLU, against a lot of opposition, and, in the 1950s, endorsed the work of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Norman Thomas - a Presbyterian minister and radical socialist who advocated the total abolition of capitalism. He was also a eugenicist who warned against the excessive reproduction of undesirables. Thomas was a six time Socialist Party presidential candidate. Also a committed pacifist, he joined Charles Lindbergh's American First Committee to keep us out of World War II. Then as now, politics made very strange bedfellows. He joined Baldwin in the 1940s purge of communists from ACLU.

John Haynes Holmes - a Unitarian minister, a pacifist, socialist and also a founder of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

L. Hollingsworth Wood - a Quaker, pacifist and a co-founder of the Urban League.. I could find nothing that indicated his politics.

John Nevin Sayre - an ordained Episcopal minister, Sayre was a pacifist and believed that Jesus Christ was also. I could discern no other political agenda. Sayre was likely the most sincere of ACLU's founders.

The following is a random selection of others who were among the founders:

Crystal Eastman - pacifist, socialist and feminist. She had been active as a supporter of the radical International Workers of the World (I.W.W.), a radical group with very strong ties to communism. She would have been in the core group but for an illness at the time of ACLU's inception.

Helen Keller - a communist. This astonished me. Libertarians have long maintained that you can't believe what you learn from government sponsored schools and Hollywood. Never was that better illustrated than in the case of Helen Keller. 'The Miracle Worker' told us that she was a great teacher and struggled after being left blind and deaf from a childhood fever. For that, she must be admired.

But during the early 1920s, she wrote and spoke flatteringly about the two competing and emerging German variations of socialism, the national socialism of Adolf Hitler and international revolutionary socialism, or communism.

Radicalized at Radcliffe, she addressed others, as she was often addressed, as 'Comrade'. Ironically, under the eugenics of German National Socialism, Keller would likely have been judged as flawed and exterminated for having been so vulnerable to have been left damaged by her illness.

Elizabeth Flynn Gurley - a communist, she later became chairman of CPUSA.

Felix Frankfurter - a social reformer, became interested in ACLU when pacifists and socialists were being harassed by the government. Frankfurter would later be appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was known for judicial restraint and deference to the legislative and executive branches, which may have endeared him to FDR who had already steamrollered congress into obeisance. Later, this attitude would irritate liberals who looked to the courts for the furtherance of their causes.

John Dewey - radical socialist educator who believed that the function of the educational system was to train future agents for the goals of the state. His educational theories dominate our system today.

Clarence Darrow - lionized by Hollywood in 'Inherit The Wind' and the Left for defending teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution. I could find nothing about his politics other than that he was a social reformer. He was an agnostic.

Jane Addams - social activist, feminist, and pacifist. She was also a founder of the NAACP.

Upton Sinclair - socialist and author of many novels. He began his career by writing ethnic jokes and mini-novels. 'The Jungle' , a full novel, was an expose of disgusting conditions in the Chicago meat packing industry. It led to the Pure Food and Drug Act which established the FDA. Not even his supporters maintain that he produced anything of literary value. His stories were long on sensationalism and short on character and plot.

A. J. Muste - at the time, a communist who was committed to revolutionary politics. He later later became a Christian pacifist after a trip to the Soviet Union and a meeting with Leon Trotsky. Many associates maintained though that he never completely abandoned his attachment to Marxism.

Harry F. Ward - a lifetime communist, he authored "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit," two pro-Communist books.

Albert DeSilver - radical socialist attorney who had worked with the I.W.W. He willed his entire fortune to ACLU.

This is the cast of characters; in a steering committee of five, one communist, two socialists and three pacifists. In a random selection of eleven additional members, four communists, five radical socialists, two pacifists, two feminists and two social reformers. It's not difficult to discern an ideologic tilt to the organization.

And it got worse afterwards. By the 1940s, so many ACLU members were communists and members of other radical and communist organizations that Roger Baldwin grew alarmed at the attention that American security agencies were focusing on it. Aided by others, such as Norman Thomas, he led a purge of communists from the top leadership.

It was indeed unfortunate that pacifists had to make common cause with communists and others at the time because their movement was forever tainted by it. Many communists agitated for pacifism to facilitate communist insurgencies across the world. For them it was a means to the end of accomplishing their Nirvana, the total subjugation of humanity to the communist jackboot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
"And it got worse afterwards. By the 1940s, so many ACLU members were communists and members of other radical and communist organizations that Roger Baldwin grew alarmed at the attention that American security agencies were focusing on it. Aided by others, such as Norman Thomas, he led a purge of communists from the top leadership.

Ahhh... now I see.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." ~ Norman Thomas, former leader of the Socialist Party in the United States

Lynch
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
A lot of folks were seduced by communism before its true colors could no longer be hidden after the signing of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact in 1939.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
A lot of folks were seduced by communism before its true colors could no longer be hidden after the signing of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact in 1939.
They are still seduced. Just have better PR.


The American Civil Liberties Union presents itself as the protector of the Constitution and the individual and that its agenda is nonpartisan. Its record shows otherwise.

ACLU's website is informative; its lists of causes eye opening. Criminal justice, drug policy and privacy right cases, especially electronic privacy rights, are all valid constitutional concerns that should interest libertarians. Most of the others raise eyebrows and give pauses.

Capital punishment is a debatable topic but its elimination can be accomplished just as well on an individual state basis. By the wording of the Constitution, it is evident that the Founding Fathers accepted it. ACLU, of course, regards itself as superior to the Founding Fathers.

The website goes on to list rights such as disability, homosexual, prisoner, reproductive, and women's, as well as religious liberty, along with racial equality and HIV issues as among its concerns. Almost without exception these issues either expand the role of the federal government in some aspect of our lives or are assaults upon our traditional values, and often both.

'Rights of the poor' is another of their issues. Translated it means welfare rights. In the 1960s, when several states instituted residency requirements for welfare benefits, ACLU sued to overturn them and won. The relationship between a residency requirement and a constitutional issue is very weak, indeed. Characteristically, ACLU displays no concern for the working stiff who has to support these benefits through his taxes.

Taxpayer rights? In fact, ACLU doesn't even mention taxpayer rights on its home page. Ask the average American by what he feels more threatened, the IRS or a cross on a town emblem, what does anyone think his answer will be? But let one misanthropic publicity seeker protest the inclusion of a religious symbol on a town flag, especially anything remotely suggesting Christianity, and ACLU files suit.

Racial equality and disability rights are two of the biggest levers the government uses today to insinuate itself into the minutiae of human interaction and the economic process. ACLU sees no problem with using them against business.

Under its 'ISSUES' column, ACLU also has no links for the following issues - weapons rights, property rights, states' rights and gold backed currency, fiat money and inflation being the most insidious form of wealth confiscation by the government. All of these are crucial to the rights of the individual and an ultimate check upon the power of the federal government yet ACLU sees no danger.

ACLU solicits no weapons ownership cases despite the single most blanket declaration of a citizen right in the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms. When compared to the extent to which it distorts the First Amendment in its assault on religion, it makes one wonder how it can keep a straight face. ACLU actually endorses gun control. Weapons rights of the people is the single ultimate check upon the power of the government, allowing as it does for the possible overthrow, acknowledged by even that ultimate liberal, Hubert Humphrey.

One of the most important provisions of the First Amendment is the right of the citizens to petition the government for the redress of grievances. For years, Bob Schulz's We The People organization has been trying to compel the federal government to demonstrate how, legally, income taxes apply to the people, in general. It is their position that there is no statutory requirement to file returns and pay taxes. No matter what you think of their case, it would seem that an organization like ACLU, that claims it defends the Constitution to protect the people, would want to join the effort to compel the government to answer the petition but you'd be wrong. I submit the reason is simple. The income tax is a bedrock of communist and socialist principles.

The assault on property rights by all levels of government, through zoning and land use laws, have met with little opposition by ACLU. Indeed, its members seem to applaud them. It did file a brief in support of private property rights in Poletown, Michigan. The town was seeking to condemn some housing to allow it to be taken over by a developer to produce higher tax yielding properties. The case has now been decided against the town by the Michigan Supreme Court. But in almost all other cases in the country, including Kelo vs. City of New London, ACLU has largely sat on the sidelines. In Kelo vs. City of New London, the City wants to do the same. ACLU is silent on this and has been silent in a similar proposal in Rhode Island. One can only conclude that ACLU sees no threat to liberty in loss of property rights that thread through the entire Constitution.

ACLU's website shows no concern for the Tenth Amendment, also a crucial piece of the federal concept. It has been the goal of every totalitarian government of the twentieth century to destroy the autonomy of local governments.

Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist presidential candidate and Earl Browder, Chairman of the Communist Party of The United States of America, both realized that their economic goals were accomplished in this country without eliminating free speech. One of the Rothschilds once remarked that if he could control the economy of a country, the people could keep their free speech. ACLU has never seen any danger inherent in the assaults upon of free enterprise that have characterized every presidency since Franklin Roosevelt's. Indeed, its causes echo the communist agenda espoused by none other than Karl Marx.

To her credit, Nadine Strosser, current national director, has said that ACLU should review its position on guns rights and property rights, yet its position remains unchanged and those two points are far from all that should concern libertarians with a regard for the entire Constitution. There is an explanation, and I submit only one.

If you assume that ACLU is a communist/socialist tool, all is explained. Hatred of God and religion, confiscation of weapons, destruction of private property rights, silence in capitalism between consenting adults and all the rest of its platform are explicable through communism/socialism, the complete subjugation of the people to the government. ACLU qualifies as 'useful idiots' in Lenin's lexicography. I further submit, this is the only explanation.

While there is reason to hope that ACLU can change, I submit that there are far better ways for libertarians to expend their efforts than in trying to make common cause with this organization.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Does anyone here honestly think we would still be able to own any guns in this country if we did not have a BOR's. Can you freely own a gun in Canada, England or Australia? In my opinion the only problem with the BOR is it did not go far enough to protect citizens from an out of control government.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Sure. We fought the wrong battles. No one paid attention to the basic thrust of the Constitution.

Even with the BOR, there is not much precedent under the 9th and 10 amendments and what little there is is recent and mostly limited to abortion and reproductive rights type cases.

The first amendment was directed at Congress but was eventaully applied to stop the states from limitied free speech.

What has the 2nd amendment not been accorded this result? Why can the states ban or regulate guns?
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top