The Deadly Roots Of The ACLU

American Civil Liberties Union

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), nonpartisan organization devoted to the preservation and extension of the basic rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Founded (1920) by such prominent figures as Jane Addams, Helen Keller, Judah Magnus, and Norman Thomas, the ACLU grew out of earlier groups that had defended the rights of conscientious objectors during World War I

Helen Keller was a member of the Industrial Workers of the World. IWW was a radical anarchism union that was dedicated to the overthrow of government. The government drove it underground but it has recently reemerged.

Jane Addams

In 1919 Woodrow Wilson appointed A. Mitchell Palmeras his attorney general. Palmer had previously been associated with the progressive wing of the party and had supported women's suffrage and trade union rights. However, once in power, Palmer's views on civil rights changed dramatically. Worried by the revolution that had taken place in Russia, Palmer became convinced that Communist agents were planning to overthrow the American government. Palmer recruited John Edgar Hoover as his special assistant and together they used the Espionage Act (1917) and the Sedition Act (1918) to launch a campaign against radicals and left-wing organizations.

On 7th November, 1919, the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution, over 10,000 suspected communists and anarchists were arrested in what became known as the Palmer Raids. Palmer and Hoover found no evidence of a proposed revolution but large number of these suspects were held without trial for a long time. The vast majority were eventually released but Emma Goldman and 247 other people, were deported to Russia.

In January, 1920, another 6,000 were arrested and held without trial. Palmer and Hoover found no evidence of a proposed revolution but a large number of these suspects, many of them members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), continued to be held without trial. When Palmer announced that the communist revolution was likely to take place on 1st May, mass panic took place. In New York, five elected Socialists were expelled from the legislature.

Addams was appalled by the way people were being persecuted for their political beliefs and in 1920 joined with Roger Baldwin, Norman Thomas, Crystal Eastman, Paul Kellogg, Clarence Darrow, John Dewey, Abraham Muste, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and Upton Sinclair to form the American Civil Liberties Union.

Jane Addams was Quaker and also a socialist. She obviously has sympathies for both communist and anarchist. Norman Thomas was a leader of the Socialist party in the United States and condemned Soviet communism, He was also a advocate of evolutionary socialism. Roger Baldwin like Helen Keller was a member of IWW. Crystal Eastman was a radical socialist feminist that believed in free love.

The base of the ACLU seems firmly planted in socialism and anarchism.

Anarchism Is A Major Domestic Threat To The Freedom Of The United States

I wanted to show how the anarchist movement has become powerful in the Democratic Party and has even infiltrated the Republican party of the United States. To do this I am using a paper with the title Anarchism from the Lucy Parsons Project.

At the core of anarchist theory and practice lies a historic tendency to be free of the conditions, institutions and social aberrations which thwart the progress of human development. Anarchists view the state, their corporate masters, and the myriad of oppressors which result from these institutions as not only unnecessary, but counter-productive to human freedom and aspirations. Anarchists believe that most of society's inequities, violence and conflict stem from unequal power relations between rulers and ruled. Wars, social violence, widespread racism, poverty and oppression are all primarily the results of arbitrary social relations designed to serve the interests of the rich and powerful and their authoritarian institutions. Anarchists seek to identify these power imbalances and oppression and challenge their legitimacy. If they fail to serve the interests of human freedom and aspirations they should be considered illigitimate and abolished.

You can see that government and corporations are targets of the anarchist movement but so are religious organizations as they are considered an institution that thwarts the progress of human development by attempting to push morals or ethics on them.

Anarchism today has begun to encompass a broader analysis of power and inequality, realizing the importance of equal struggles on behalf of class, race, gender, sexual preference and orientation, and every form of oppression that enslaves humanity and keeps people from being free. Anarchism is diverse, broad and demands social and cultural freedom in every sphere of life. Anarchists now, and have always, envision advancing a future world built on principles of freedom, direct democracy, mutual aid, solidarity and equality without rulers or masters.

As you can see this report attributes many of the causes of the Democratic party as originating with originating with the anarchism movement.

National Association of Governors Supports The Right To Bear Arms

The following cites are from the article "Army says it won't cut National Guard, Reserve troops" by Drew Brown of Nightrider newspapers.

The Army has no plans to cut National Guard and Army Reserve troops, senior Army officials said Thursday, responding to complaints from governors and members of Congress that the Army's restructuring plan would weaken those forces.
In the 2007 budget plan that President Bush will send to Congress next week, the Army proposes funding 333,000 troops for the National Guard and 189,000 for the Army Reserve, the current totals. That's 17,000 fewer Guardsmen and 16,000 fewer Reserves than Congress has authorized.

I believe the ideal of reducing the national guard and army reserve troops is foolish as citizen-soldiers are more likely to be loyal to the needs of the citizen and less loyal to the structure of military control.

The National Association of Governors lobbied the Pentagon against reductions. The National Guard has provided almost 50 percent of the combat troops in Iraq, plus peacekeepers in the Balkans and the Sinai and 90 percent of the troops on the ground after Hurricane Katrina, the governors association said in a letter Jan. 19 to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"We need more Guard troops at this time, not less," the letter said. "Given their performance at this time in our history, it is inconceivable that anyone would seriously consider a reduction in the National Guard force structure."

I agree with the National Association of Governors in this case though they are most likely concerned with the power of the state while I am more concerned with the power of the individual.

U.S. Constitution Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The signers of the Bill of Rights understood all too well how important to a citizen the right to bear arms is. Sad as it is to say the one with the biggest guns is often the one calling the shots. If you remove guns from the people then it becomes much simpler for the government to dominate them. You will find that rarely did a slave revolt succeed for this reason.

The Second Amendment And The Need For Community Militias

The Second Amendment is a very important Amendment because it gives power to the people to enable them to fight a corrupt government. It is also the Amendment our government hates the most as an armed people have the ability to overthrow the government. I am not saying that there are not good reasons to disarm the public because there are. An drunk or insane person caring a gun is a danger to us all. Well armed gangsters make the street dangerous for the average citizen. Firearm accidents kill many innocent victims. Murderers who commit there crimes because of overwhelming emotions may not do so if a gun in not readily at hand. So it is obvious the firearm regulation of some sort is necessary.

The basic truth is that governments tend to be despotic either because those in power desire to stay in power and do not leave it up to the vagaries of human behavior to keep them there. They play every trick such as stacking the judiciary with judges that will favor them and their point of view, forbidding political speech, redrawing district lines, and every other dirty trick they can get away with. An armed people is a threat that always hangs over them and helps to keep them in check. Guns have saved lives because like the government they keep criminals cautious and a cautious criminal is one that thinks twice before committing a crime. Guns give the victim a better chance to fight off a victimizer. So it is obvious that firearms off every type need to be readily available for citizens to train with and use,

One suggestion to the dilemma of gun ownership that I believe my work is a town militia. Militia were attended for citizen defense work and did not make very good soldiers as they were organized on a small unit basis. The small unit owed loyalty to the town in which the members lived and that was the extent of their loyalty. In centralizing the military power of that state by introducing national guard the state government has succeeded in removing that power from the individual to some extent. Still the National Guard is composed of citizen-soldiers who’s primary job is not military and so the people still retain some of the power they had before though that power is more diluted as it is on a state v, community basis. We also have to be on the lookout for attempts by the federal government to weaken the national guard and strengthen the full time military. A full time military is isolated from the general citizenry and can become alienated because of this. The government can use this alienation to cement the loyalty of the military to them instead of to the people they serve.

A militia will allow the community to train members on gun use and safety. It can make more advanced weapons available to the general public if the need presents itself, while keeping them out of the hands of those who would misuse them. It allows perspective gun users to be screened for stability. It trains average individuals to work together in order that they will be available in a general catastrophe like Katrina.

Religion Freedom v. Political Correctness And The Government

DENMARK warned its citizens in the Middle East to be cautious amid anger in Muslim countries over newspaper caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

There was a picture in a Chicago mall a few years ago that pictured Jesus and Satan sitting at a table, and eating human body parts. The complaint was that it was not kept from the sight of children. Unlike the Muslims in the above story Christian did not take the attack on their religion seriously.

Asked for his private opinion, he replied: "I personally have such a respect for people's religious belief that I personally never would have depicted Muhammad, Jesus or any other religious character in a way that could offend other people."

That is a change in tune of the government. It gives you the ideal that perhaps violence does accomplish what it is aimed at. The Liberals are always saying it does not. The practice, if you sit down and don’t protest the government will often ignore you. On the other hand if you show a tendency to display violence and disturb the peace they will pull out the stops to diplomatically please you.

I am sure that the only reason that the people of the United States have been deprived of their religious rights is that they have showed an unwillingness to defend those rights. The politically correct crowd will point fun at those expressing religious beliefs and the government will suppress it in any way they can such as deciding lawsuits against those defying the ban, firing them from their job, and jailing them. The question is how sincere is your faith in God and in the freedom this country is upon. The people of all religions must get together and put aside their differences. The must defy those who are oppressing them and if commanded not to pray, they pray. If some are thrown in jail or killed others rise up to take their place.

If another religion is ridiculed, we know that ours could as well be the one in the chopping block. This puts us in the position of having to defend religions we do not believe in, but it is the rights that God grants all people that we are truly defending. Each person worships God as her/his conscious dictates and though God gives us the right to convince them to change we do not have the right to force them to change by violence or by ostracizing them.

Some hope seems to be emerging. Christians rose against the Book of Daniel television series and spoke in the defense of Christian the political correct zealots suffered defeats. We have to remember that a few victories does not win the war. The war for freedom will never be over until this world passes away, so in order to be free we must be on the watch out for tyrants of all sorts.

Abstinance, Be Faithful, Condom Use, Is A Right To Life Issue

Excerpts are from the Associated Press article "Religious Groups Get Chunk of AIDS Money" by Rita Beamish

President Bush's $15 billion effort to fight AIDS has handed out nearly one-quarter of its grants to religious groups, and officials are aggressively pursuing new church partners that often emphasize disease prevention through abstinence and fidelity over condom use.

The Separation of Church and State groups hate this but it makes a smart move. Using people that are committed to an ideal because of ideology sounds better than those that are committed because of money. Lets look at what this really states. It states religious groups urge individuals primarily not to have sex outside of marriage and secondarily to use a condom when having sex.

Conservative Christian allies of the president are pressing the U.S. foreign aid agency to give fewer dollars to groups that distribute condoms or work with prostitutes. The Bush administration provided more than 560 million condoms abroad last year, compared with some 350 million in 2001.

I wonder how many condoms were distributed in previous administrations. I can see where conservative Christians are coming from and the people have to be won over to that ideal. My question is how do you handle the situation until you win the people over.

"The notion that because people have always received aid money that they'll get money needs to end," Deputy U.S. global AIDS coordinator Mark Dybul said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The only way to have sustainable programs is to have programs that are wholly owned in terms of management personnel at the local level."

I also like the decentralization practiced by the Bush administration. I am sure it was part of the cause of the Katrina incident as the federal government waited for the local governments to take the lead and the local governments waited for the federal governments to take the lead. Somehow our government will have to get on the same page. I favor Bush’s ideal because the local governments and organizations should have more knowledge about their jurisdiction.

For prevention, Bush embraces the "ABC" strategy: abstinence before marriage, being faithful to one partner, and condoms targeted for high-risk activity. The Republican-led Congress mandated that one-third of prevention money be reserved for abstinence and fidelity.

Condom promotion to anyone must include abstinence and fidelity messages, U.S. guidelines say, but those preaching abstinence do not have to provide condom education.

The abstinence emphasis, say some longtime AIDS volunteers, has led to a confusing message and added to the stigma of condom use in parts of Africa. Village volunteers in Swaziland maintain a supply of free condoms but say they have few takers.

The question is whether or not abstinence education is working. The Condom promotion is only necessary when the abstinence and fidelity messages fail.

"For years now we have been trying to tell our daughters that they should finish their education and train in a profession before they get married. Otherwise they have few options if they find themselves separated from their husbands for some reason," Apunyo said.

I disagree with the message to tell anyone to wait to get married. Inadvertently you are also telling them they can only advance themselves outside of marriage. I have seen many married people get an education and train in a new job. You can teach them to use condoms inside the marriage to reduce the chance of a child if they want but even mother’s can get educated..

Secular activists say it is not realistic to expect all teenagers to abstain from sex and that teenagers also should be taught how to protect themselves.

Abstinence is teaching teenagers to protect themselves. My general opinion is if a teenager is old enough to have sex without their parents consent then they are old enough to get married with their parents consent. Teenage marriages do end in divorce more often than those of adults but non-marital sexual relationships are significantly more unstable. Parents, can help their child decide if the marriage is a good one.