[mo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Me? Let's see:

Destroy ACLU



For a few. Is that limiting freedom?

You want to "destroy" a perfectly legal advocacy group? Rather than just oppose it? Well, it sounds as if you would like to limit freedom, then.

[CreepingDeth]

Nope. It's an organization filled with ties directly to the communist party and soviet Russia way back when. It is likely that it could be in violation of Rico statutes. They are not legitimate.

[PacHead]

[CreepingDeth]

I bought that one for my binder a couple weeks ago.

PacHead, check PMs.

[mo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Nope. It's an organization filled with ties directly to the communist party and soviet Russia way back when. It is likely that it could be in violation of Rico statutes. They are not legitimate.

Nope. Unsupported by anything remotely resembling a fact. Do you have anything other than the impassioned typing of a 14-year-old in his parents' knotty-pine paneled basement? Thanks.

(By the way: in the U.S., we don't "destroy" political organizations. The Communist Party itself is legal. It's part of the whole freedom thing we have going here. Welcome aboard!)

[CreepingDeth]

Not if they violate existing laws. The ACLU presents themselves as non-partisan, but it seems funny the only people they go out of their way to defend are pervs, murderers, etc.
And since its creation, the ACLU has had ties to Communism. There have been hundreds of connections between them.

[mo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Not if they violate existing laws. The ACLU presents themselves as non-partisan, but it seems funny the only people they go out of their way to defend are pervs, murderers, etc.
And since its creation, the ACLU has had ties to Communism. There have been hundreds of connections between them.

Sorry, no facts yet. What existing laws are you saying they have violated? Please speak up. Also, I'm interested in your documentation of their ties to "communism." Since there are hundreds of connections, you'll be able to provide lots of examples to back up your statements here. And then you'll explain why it's against "existing laws" to advocate communism if that's what you want to do.

Unless, of course, it's your little sister's turn to use the computer now.

[CreepingDeth]

Rico statutes.

In 1920 a small group of communist-leaning attorneys that included Roosevelt acquaintance Felix Frankfurter and Clarence Darrow formed a group called the American Civil Liberties Union specifically to promote social justice for the underdog in the America�providing the "underdog" was fighting the stereotyped white, Anglo-Saxon Christian norms. In other words, the group was formed to fight for socialism by attacking the precepts of the U.S. Constitution and fomenting changes in how the Constitution was interpreted.

Five years after the group was formed, they had secured only a handful of clients from the Red Raids of the early 1920s, but no meaningful publicity to let the nation know that they even existed. About that time Tennessee passed the nation's first Creation Law mandating that schools in Tennessee were banned from teaching any classes that implied there was any substance to Charles Darwin's theories of evolution.

Within days of that legislation being signed into law, the fledgling ACLU began running classified ads in the newspapers in Tennessee seeking a school teacher who would be willing, for $100, to challenge the law by teaching evolution in his or her classroom. Several school teachers answered the ads. Among them was John Thomas Scopes [1901-1970], a 24-year old freckled faced teacher who taught at Dayton High School. A few days after Scopes answered the ad, three ACLU attorneys ascended on Dayton, Tennessee and interviewed Scopes over soft drinks at Robinson's Drug Store on Main Street in Dayton.

On May 25, 1925 Scopes entered the history of the United States. Opening a copy of Hunter's Civic Biology in front of his science class, Scopes began expounding the Darwinian theory that man evolved from the lower forms of life.

Dayton was stunned.

Within a few days a grand jury was assembled and Scopes was indicted for violating the Creation Law. This, by the way, was the first crime in history in which the defense of the offender was planned before the crime was committed.

William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State prosecuted Scopes. Clarence Darrow, Dudley Field Moore and Arthur Garfield Hays defended Scopes for the ACLU's first trial. Darrow made certain, from the time Scopes was arrested, that the national media knew there was a showboat trial happening in sleepy, rural Dayton, Tennessee. (If you have a copy of my first book, THE BAFFLED CHRISTIAN'S HANDBOOK, the birth of the ACLU and the Scopes Trial is adequately covered in it.)

The ACLU, which has had a communist mindset since its birth gained an aura of legitimacy when the globalists began their covert operations in the United States to erode the underpinnings of democracy in America by attacking Christianity which was viewed by the one worlders as the foundation of patriotism.

In a previous email on this subject, I mentioned that the first attempt to build a wall of separation occurred in the 19th century, so the attempt to create this wall of separation between Church and State is not 30 years old, it started in the 1878 case Reynolds v United States. The separation issue resurfaced in 1925 with Pierce v Society Sisters and again in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education, and the following year in McCollum v Board of Education These cases solidified the high courts position that a wall of separation exists that prohibits any religious exercise or displays of religiosity on any local, county, State or federal property. (That wall of separation does not seem to exist, however, if your religion is Wicca, New Age or Islam.)

What is most interesting about the 1st Amendment is that neither the Congress nor the courts can constitutionally ban the free exercise of one's religion anywhere. Nor can they legally ban free speech providing that speech is not inflammatory. However, the U.S. government no longer views free speech or the free exercise of religious liberty as it is granted under the Constitution, but rather, it is construed under the UN Declaration of Human Rights. (This time refer to WHATEVER HAPPENED TO AMERICA?, pg. 464), The 1st Amendment begins: "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Note the restrictions here are placed on the government, not the people. Now look at Article 13 of the Covenant on Human Rights: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations that are prescribed by law..." Not, now the onus is placed on the people. This reflects the difference between true liberty which protects the rights of the individual and socialist democracy which safeguards the rights of the community against the individual.

Yesterday I sent out an email to some of you in which I referred to the fact that Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor attended a seminar sponsored by the globalist jurists in the World Court that was focused on co-mingling international law with American law in order to codify UN laws in the United States. While the subtle substitution of Article 13 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights for the first half of the 1st Amendment took place in 1947 and 1948, the adoption and incorporation of UN and EU law by federal courts in the United States is an ongoing process as the courts seek new avenues to promote social justice by destroying the rule of law in America."

http://www.internet-grocer.net/aclu.htm
Anyone remember that trial in history?

ACLU Record
Timeline
ACLU CPUSA link
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...erties%20Union
Not that their Christian hating record is enough.

[MindFad]

Soylent Green is people!

[CreepingDeth]

Isn't that a really old movie with Heston in it?

[badidea]

Favorite politician:

Joschka Fischer