Communist History of the Most Dangerous Organization In America
Posted on August 17, 2005
Cross Posted from Gribbit’s Word
Roger Baldwin once stated:
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.
The Congressional Record of September 20, 1961 has a few interesting points to be made about the leadership of the American Civil Liberties Union and their Communist connections.
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.
SECTION 1
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.
What they are founded upon defines what they are. Their goal has not changed. Their history has only proven that they are experts at shielding themselves from prosecution. And I would say that they would be a pretty piss-poor collection of attorneys if they couldn’t shield themselves from prosecution.
But recently, they have been extremely opposed to the Patriot Act. And it requires one to wonder why.
They claim that it would interfere with the rights of Americans when in fact it would interfere with the abilities of terrorists to carry out their activities. By perverting the issue and turning it into a civil rights infringement, they are showing their desire to assist in terrorist operations against the United States.
Now it has come to light that the ACLU of Ohio (my home state) has refused money from the United Way because the ACLU has a difficulty in filling out a Counter Terrorism form required by the Patriot Act. Interesting. Especially since they also refused to accept money from the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation because they refused to give assurances that those monies would not be used in defense of terrorists.
Defending terrorists is the new crusade of the ACLU. They have dispatched an army of attorneys to Guantanamo Bay in hopes to argue cases for the terrorist being held there to secure protections under the Geneva Conventions (which they don’t qualify for) or the United States Constitution (which they also don’t qualify for).
It would seem to me, that aiding in the legal defense of terrorists who have declared war on the United States is a violation of Article III Section III of the United States Constitution.
- Clause 1:
- Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
- Clause 2:
- The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
And not only does the ACLU engage in protecting and aiding terrorist, but the child molesters at NAMBLA, Convicted Sex Offenders, pagans, wiccans, atheists, drug dealers, drug users, pornographers, child pornographers, Communists, Nazis, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and the list goes on and on.
How many times do you need to be slapped in the face before you get the idea that someone doesn’t like you? The ACLU has been slapping America in the face over 600 times a year since 1920. And we pay for them to do it.
If you believe that the ACLU receives no taxpayer money, you are on some of that dope that they want to make legal.
Every time the ACLU sues, it is a civil rights case. And if they should happen to win, they are eligible to receive taxpayer money to recover legal fees which would never have been billed to any client.
If they sue the City of Cleveland and win, the city can be forced to pay legal fees in addition to the damages awarded. Where does Cleveland get the money to pay? The taxpayers who work and live in Cleveland that’s where. And who suffers for this loss? The people who work and live in Cleveland that’s who.
Cities have to cut services when they lose these cases. Policemen get laid off, fire fighters get laid off, garbage collectors get laid off, the whole city loses.
And knowing that these cities know that if they should lose, they would have to cut services to their citizens, cities are less likely to actually allow the case to be heard in open court. So what happens? Cities capitulate to the will of the ACLU in fear of losing those fees.
If this isn’t terrorism then I don’t know what is.
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.
Thanks Basil
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
32 Responses to “Communist History of the Most Dangerous Organization In America”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Hey gang..Get ready to be pissed off. I just put up a quote from the head of the state of LA. ACLU.
He’s gone off the deep end. And you’re gonna love it. lol
RR
Fascinating. I am impressed with the facts backing up the claim.
Has anyone on this blog actually spent the time to refute the ACLU’s position on the Patriot Act? All I’ve seen are speculations as to their intentions. If you have written a post that illustrates why the ACLU is wrong in their position please point me to it.
Defending terrorists is the new crusade of the ACLU.
There is enormous complexity in the Guantanamo situation. First, it is important to understand that our War on Terror is indefinite. There will be no final victory similar to the War on Drugs or War on Poverty.
The U.S. has never dealt with the prospect of holding hundreds, perhaps eventually thousands, of prisoners of war or enemy combatants indefinitely. It is a situation that has never arisen and is therefore unsettled. Not only do we not have treaties or international accords to guide us but our own laws fall short. The government is making it up as they go and the problem is, when it comes to depriving a person of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it ruffles some feathers. It shouldn’t sit well with any of us.
If a detainee at Guantanamo is not a prisoner of war, then what rules should apply? If they are to be held forever without some sort of proof of guilt, then how do we respond to countries who demand their citizen’s release? Are we willing to detain citizens of the Philipines indefinitely without formal charges? What if the Philipines thinks the detainee was at the wrong place at the wrong time but we think he’s guilty of terrorist acts? What then?
There are serious questions to be answered and the administration has dragged its feet and fed the flames of the ACLU. Holding a person for the duration of a war is one thing, holding them indefinitely is another. The only way to resolve these issues is through advocacy according to the rules and traditions of our legal system.
“What they are founded upon defines what they are. Their goal has not changed. Their history has only proven that they are experts at shielding themselves from prosecution.”
So by that rationale, that might make the United States a profitable slave colony of the UK. It’s just convenient for you to say that. In other arguments you would probably advocate a different position.
“If they sue the City of Cleveland and win, the city can be forced to pay legal fees in addition to the damages awarded. Where does Cleveland get the money to pay? The taxpayers who work and live in Cleveland that’s where. And who suffers for this loss? The people who work and live in Cleveland that’s who.”
Except in your example, it was the citizens of Cleveland’s civil rights that were being violated (because the city lost). So in the end, for their money, the citizens actually had their civil rights returned to them from the city which was trying to take them away.
I still cannot comprehend why people are SO trusting of our government to do the right thing. Like the POOR government gets OUR money stolen away from it by the EVIL ACLU — when in fact, it’s the government that’s taking your money away from you by force and spending it on things that actually violate your civil rights and you’re defending their right to do so.
I’ll admit the ACLU may do things that I don’t like, but I certainly don’t feel bad for any city, state or federal government that gets sued. That’s our right as citizens. God help us if it’s taken away because our government finds it inconvenient to doing business.
Democracy is inconvenient. Citizenry with rights is inconvenient. That’s why it works.
Somehow, we need that ‘just compensation’ fee to be struck from the books. Cut off the feed-bag and these vampires will shrivel.
a
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.
This alone is enough to make my stomach churn like Tequila in Milk. This “Fonda Savant” couldn’t even serve his country with dignity and integrity. His entire life agenda to spread socialism is even tainted by his pathetic servitude to the Armed Forces. His parents, siblings, and friends are all tarnished by his failure to support the flag of freedom he misuses to spread his ACLU dribble. Freedom of Speech (among other rights) is afforded by just by being a citizen of the U.S., but the opportunity to give back and earn that freedom is a great privilege this crapfaced loser didn’t even have the piousness self-respect or constitutional character to serve his country with honor.
Jane Fonda and the ACLU deserve this worm. Can I have a HooYah!
I got a lot to say but its not lettin me?
Mark S. …
“… and the problem is, when it comes to depriving a person of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it ruffles some feathers. It shouldn’t sit well with any of us.”
Depriving 3000 innocent people of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ruffled a lot of feathers and didn’t sit well with most Americans.
Unfortunately, many of the ‘blame America crowd’ believe that the foreign terrorists that committed these acts and those with like ideologies are intitled to ‘American Rights’ so easily denied Americans.
“If a detainee at Guantanamo is not a prisoner of war, then what rules should apply?”
The Geneva Conventions outline the differences in ‘POWs’ and ‘unlawful combatants’ and I believe you are well aware of what rules apply.
“Depriving 3000 innocent people of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ruffled a lot of feathers and didn’t sit well with most Americans.”
I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. I think what’s at issue is that you don’t trash your bill of rights or constitution so that you can throw the book at some people you don’t like. The reason why due process was invented was exactly because governments make mistakes . . . big ones that ruin people’s lives.
(See the english subway shooting for recent evidence.)
Can you prove that everyone in Gitmo is guilty of a crime? Do you know who exactly is in Gitmo? Do you just call everyone in Gitmo a terrorist because your government tells you that they are and you want to be on their side?
It’s scary how much faith people have in our government to just do the right thing all the time. They always do the easiest thing. It’s been shown time after time after time. That’s why there are checks and balances, and that’s why you should be sceptical of anyone who suggests that they should be thrown away in favor of being “expeditious.”
****Note****
Gribbit does not address anyone who fails to provide a working link to their own webpage. Comments made to Gribbit’s Word with no such links are deleted immediately.
Jay has a policy not to do this, BUT, that doesn’t mean that we have to address these idiot trolls. No link, No dialog.
das,
The filter on the comment’s page is catching something in your comment that it shouldn’t be and sending it to moderation. Please only submit it one time and I’ll approve your comment.
Loboinok –
Okay, if the ACLU didn’t provide legal representation to Guantanamo detainees, do you really think that would be the end of the issue? Do you really think no one else would come along and say, “Wait a minute, are you sure all these guys are guilty?”
If U.S. law doesn’t apply to detained enemy combatants, then what law would apply? Cuban law? Afghanistan law? International law? Which would you prefer? Do you think we can detain citizens of other countries for an indefinite period without diplomatic consequences?
It makes us look a lot better to have our own citizens fighting for the detainees rights then letting the issue linger on until it becomes a serious domestic and diplomatic problem.
It is best to settle this matter sooner rather than later.
“Do you really think no one else would come along and say, “Wait a minute, are you sure all these guys are guilty?”
Incredible as it may sound to you… I don’t need anyone to tell me what is legal or illegal, what is right or wrong, what is permissable and not permissable.
I support my Government to the extent that they allow me to. I vote for them according to their character and integrity. If they let me down…I vote them out! But I hire them to do the job they are elected to do… I don’t then, tell them how to do it.
If you KNOW how this Country can best be served…RUN FOR OFFICE!
The same can be said for the Military. You can’t assign someone the responsibilty to carry out what is best for this Country and THEN micro-manage it!
We have too many experts that don’t know what the Hell is going on and too many Chiefs and not enough Indians!
“If U.S. law doesn’t apply to detained enemy combatants, then what law would apply?”
You need to understand this laurence… They are ‘UNLAWFUL’ combatants…quit refering to them according to what you think they are and refer to them according to what they are classified…if you are going to be ‘legalistic’ be consistant!
“It’s scary how much faith people have in our government to just do the right thing all the time.”
I agree! And it’s equally scary that people would pay for and vote in a Government that they don’t trust!
My statement from earlier goes, “We Do Not Have To Address These Idiot Trolls. No Link No Dialog.”
Here’s the main point, Lobo is right on target. In a time of war, you cannot put your enemies captured on the battlefield (legal or illegal combatants) on trial. This is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and International Law. However, you are under no obligation to release anyone captured (legal or illegal combatants) until the ending of hostilities. Thus preventing them from taking up arms again.
Do us a favor Trolls, get your own forum and post a link, OR SHUT THE (CENSOR) UP!!
And Mark S, use a mail guard again, and I delete your comment.
“You need to understand this laurence”
I didn’t make that comment. Relax.
“Incredible as it may sound to you… I don’t need anyone to tell me what is legal or illegal, what is right or wrong, what is permissable and not permissable.”
It seems that you have no interest in Democracy at all. There are plenty of “leaders” out there who would definitely agree with the statement you made above: Castro, Stalin, etc. What you’ve said here is the basis for dictatorship and the antithesis of Democracy.
“I agree! And it’s equally scary that people would pay for and vote in a Government that they don’t trust!”
The system is set up in a manner that ought to empower the citizenry. It’s your job as a citizen to be sceptical of your elected officials and the political process. Are you supposed to elect people, ignore them for their term and then stick it to them at the next election? I think our founding fathers would be very disappointed in that view.
What irks me is the attitude shown here of “poor government officials have to be scrutinized and justify everything little thing they do.” That’s the way our system works: if you think it’s bad, then perhaps you should run for office on a “power to the government” platform and see how far it gets you.
You’re not supposed to trust your government: if anything is ‘un-American’, trusting your government is it.
I believe in the power of democracy, I don’t believe that the elected officials of this country are somehow infallible and “need to be trusted.” There is way too much at stake for that.
Thought that I was kidding didn’t you troll.
The contributors to this blog are the only one’s that see this address. And it isn’t even that I wish to email you. The fact is, you hide. Anonymous comments in my opinion are cowardly. No link, no active email, and you don’t have a right to speak. It is like not registering to vote. If you don’t register, you don’t vote.
Perhaps he’ll learn. Keeps using a mailguard. Change your email to a real email address, and perhaps I’ll debate you. But you’d better include a link to your blog or website. I do.
So if I created a blog but never posted to it that would suffice? Or would you then insist that I post at least once? Perhaps you’d insist I posted once a day? Once a week? I’d understand if my previous posts were rude or contained personal attacks but, as they contained neither, I think your prerequisites for debate are merely a pretense to avoid a reasoned debate where you’d actually have to make solid arguments with factual support.
At this point I am not interested in debating with you as you have shown no interest in it and would rather throw a tantrum over arbitrary rules you have created that, in your mind, somehow indicate I’m not a crackpot. You may have disclosed your blog but I fail to see how that lends any authority, credibility, or truth to the substance of your arguments.
I will refrain from commenting on your posts in the future.
I’m going to leave this comment of yours to prove a point.
You are bound and deturmined to remain anonymous. If you are unwilling to put out your thoughts for others to dump all over like you like to do here, then no. I have a problem with you. You are apparently illiterate. What part of this don’t you understand. You like to troll other people’s blogs and crap all over their thoughts. We put our minds to work to develop these blogs and websites. You just come on the scene and say what you think is right. well you aren’t.
Get your own blog, post to it, stop hiding behind a mailguard. Because these are classic troll tools.
The next step just for you is drawings. We do have a cartoonist I think that he may be able to work on something just to benefit you comic book readers.
Post a comment again behind a mail guard please. I’m just itching to slap an IP ban on today.
I have relented to your demands.
I hope we can now have the type of level-headed discussion I was hoping for in the first place. Would you please respond to my initial comment regarding the post entitled, “Communist History of the Most Dangerous Organization In America”?
Thank you.
That’s a step, now how about dropping that mailguard.
I’m not in a good mood troll, the IP ban is next.
Nice, telling half truths, why should I expect anything less from a liberal troll.
I don’t have a problem with people who hold different ideas, I have a problem with people who crap all over other people’s thoughts without having the stones of their own to put their thoughts out there to be crapped on.
Marc you are my example troll. I’m in a crappy mood and you are the target of the week. I am going to run you out. I’ve done it before, I’ll do it again.
Now, straighten up, fly right, and tell the truth, Or you’re gone.
And anyone else who wants to play these anonymous games, I’ll do it to you too.
Settle down kids. First of all, Laurence comparing Lobo’s comments to that of Stalin is crazy.
Second. As long as Mark debates in a civilized fashion, I don’t mind entertaining him. If you don’t want to Gribbit, just ignore him. Same goes for you Mark, if the dialouge gets to the point that you hijack the subject, which I believe was supposed to be the communist founding of the ACLU, but somehow got changed to Gitmo detainees…just stop.
There is a post where that debate is much more appropriate.
Fire me. But I’m going head to head with this one.
This article takes me back some years. When I was in high school (not a public one), we studied this same material about the ACLU. The origins of the ACLU have Communist ties. Seems clear to me, anyway.
And, as far as I’m concerned, almost all of the doings of the ACLU today undermine American principles. My reaction when I hear that the ACLU has rushed in: I’m on the opposite side. That is the ACLU’s reputation now, and it’s not just political conservatives who feel that way, either.
Gribbit,
I know what you mean by wanting the URL’s and emails of commenters. But one of the best tips I ever got was an “anonymous” one. Not from a lefty, I admit.
I’m going to let loose on the “communism is the goal” and the historical evidence because I am also somewhat irritated by trolls in my comments section and I totally can relate to Gribbit right now. As far as someone hiding and trolling and saying stuff on every post–it’s really not necessary. It’s negative attention seeking. Ok enough of the troll talk.
When ACLU’s founder Baldwin died at the age of 97 in 1981, he was deified in the obits by the NYT, Wapo and AP.
The establishment media’s coverup artists forgot some stuff in writing his obits, for one thing, when he wrote in 1935, “Communism is the goal.”
That was part of the message in his college reunion yearbook that year. Here’s the rest: “I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the ACLU. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
When one can locate the long buried archives of original ACLu founding docs, it becomes evident the organization and its founder weren’t shy about revealing their true agenda.
“Those of us who champion civil liberties in the US and who at the same time support the proletarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union are charges with inconsistency and insincerity,” said Baldwin in an article written for Soviet Russia Today in September 1934. “If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class strugle…it’s only because those liberties help create a more hospitable atmosphere for the working-class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world…When that power of the working class is once achieved, it has been only in the Soviet Union. I am for mantaining it by any means whatever…We want to loo like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, to talk a great deal about the Constitution.”
Far from being even-handed in applying the protections of the law universally, Baldwin did not even believe there was any need for a civil rights advocate in the Soviet Union. There, he explained, the workers are already in charge. Moscow had reached the goal. That’s where Bladwin and the ACLU set out to take America.
During WWII, the illustrious columnist Walter Lippman wrote that “the directors of the [ACLU] have missed one opportunity after another to show that they really stand for what they profess, that they care for civil libery as such [and] not merely because it is a convenience for communists.”
When union leaders of Trotskyite persuasion were convicted under the Smith Act, the ACLU cheered. But when the Communist Party leaders were convicted under the same act, the ACLU vehemently protested.
How did the AP miss this historical benchmark? Baldwin’s ACLU did not protest when the government sought to regulate the AP as a “common carrier” lacking the protection of the First Amendment.
Baldwin officially left the commie party in the 1940’s, but many historians realize it was more a strategic move than an ideological split.
Baldwin explained it this way: “We liberals thought we were using the communists for our ends, and the [Hitler-Stalin] pact showed us they were using us for Russia’s.
He never backed away from his socialist beliefs. And the ACLU never abandoned its founder’s radical socialism.
Dr. Harry Ward, first chairman of the ACLU, had a record of over 200 communist front-affiliations and citations listed by the House Committee of Un-American Activities. Ward was the author of “Soviet Democracy” and “Soviet Spirit”, two pro-communist books that reveal his admiration for the Soviet system.
Dozens of others involved in the leadership roles in the ACLu have been card carrying members of the Communist Party or active in various front groups.
Some believe the main activity of the group in its early years was defending the party, as illustrated earlier.
The California Senate Fact Finding Committe on Un American Activities in 1948 found that “The aclue may be definitely defined 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.”
The House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities in the US made similar findings: “It is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLu is to protect communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the US government.”
Today, the ACLU is vigilant at championing the special rights of AIDS victims, taxpayer-supported artists, death-row inmates, minor children, homosexuals, illegal aliens, terrorists, and abortionists.
We know the ACLU best through its annual tradition of striking into the hearts of anyone, anywhere, who dares commemorate Christmas in a public place. That’s because the ACLu is not so much a champion of civil rights as its officials and members like to say. It is more an organization at war with God.
In fact, its this ongoing war with God–any mention of God, any recognition of God, any expression of faith in God-that most accurately characterizes the organization’s soul.
But doesn’t that fit right in with the idea that communism needs to eliminate the God and make Government the replacement for God?
That was pretty damn GOOD Cao!!!
Want to bet that only one in ten will get it?
Very nice blog.