ACLU - why is this controversial and not praised?

[ReverendHellh0und]

Well, they do support everyone's 1st amendement rights. They might not defend your right to own a gun, (just like they won't defend anyone's right to actually diddle children) but if you want to write a book about how to build your own illegal automatic rifle and get away with it, they will likely defend your right to do so.

It would be nice if they would defend all amedements like they do the 1st, but I suppose you can't have everything.

No they would not and have said as much on thier website.


it should be the American of some civil liberties union....

 

[Panache]

No they would not and have said as much on thier website.

Where have they said that? You have a source?

That really would be hypocritical of them if they wouldn't defend speech that pertains to gun ownership, but I won't believe it till I see it.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Where have they said that? You have a source?

That really would be hypocritical of them if they wouldn't defend speech that pertains to gun ownership, but I won't believe it till I see it.

"Nor does the ACLU believe that there is a significant civil liberties value
apart from the Second Amendment in an individual right to own or use firearms.
Interests of privacy and self-expression may be involved in any individual's
choice of activities or possessions, but these interests are attenuated where
the activity, or the object sought to be possessed, is inherently dangerous to
others. With respect to firearms, the ACLU believes that this quality of
dangerousness justifies legal regulation which substantially restricts the
individual's interest in freedom of choice (but see footnote 1)"


(footnote 1 begins here) When the Board adopted the June 1979 policy, it was
suggested that it was unclear as to whether or not the ACLU supported gun
control as a civil liberties matter, or simply did not oppose government
regulation on this issue. In order to clarify this question, the following
sentence was added to paragraph three of the policy as a footnote. "It is the
sense of this body, that the word 'justifies' in this policy means we will
affirmatively support gun control legislation."



They support gun control regulation. (even though they failed to rationalize it and removed it from their paperwork).


They are not a civil liberties organizaton.


Granted this did not answer your question directly, but I will look for it later,.

 

[Panache]

They support gun control regulation. (even though they failed to rationalize it and removed it from their paperwork).

I realize that they support gun control. And this:

With respect to firearms, the ACLU believes that this quality of
dangerousness justifies legal regulation which substantially restricts the
individual's interest in freedom of choice

suggests that they greatly underestimate how dangerous ideas can be.

I don't think they would hesitate to defend the first amendement rights of gun advocates though.

They are not a civil liberties organizaton.

No, they are a First Amendement organization, which is why I would be very surprised if they would limit their defense of the first amendement based on the content of the speech in question.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

How would that work?

To be against the 2nd yet defend someones 1st on the 2nd...


Historically has it ever happened?


I very much doubt it.

 

[Panache]

How would that work?

To be against the 2nd yet defend someones 1st on the 2nd...

Something about disagreeing with what someone says, but defending to the death their right to say it?

 

[The silenced majority]

The 2nd amendment serves as the People's reset button for government.

It is impossible to be in defense of the Constitution all the while siding with those who have neutered it.

 

[drb14]

The 2nd amendment serves as the People's reset button for government.

It is impossible to be in defense of the Constitution all the while siding with those who have neutered it.

Why do you think that, especially with respect to the latter half?

Without going back through the posts in this thread, I think the only reasons we've heard for people not supporting the ACLU are as follows:

1: The ACLU defended a person who excercised his 1st amendment rights in a disagreeable way; and

2: The ACLU doesn't like guns.

Those seems like particularly weak reasons to not support an organization that otherwise stands up for the right to say whatever we want, regardless of our message('s) content.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the above two rationales seem to be the essence of what we've seen here, and each seems somewhat disingenuous.

 

[The silenced majority]

Why do you think that, especially with respect to the latter half?

Without going back through the posts in this thread, I think the only reasons we've heard for people not supporting the ACLU are as follows:

1: The ACLU defended a person who excercised his 1st amendment rights in a disagreeable way; and

2: The ACLU doesn't like guns.

Those seems like particularly weak reasons to not support an organization that otherwise stands up for the right to say whatever we want, regardless of our message('s) content.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the above two rationales seem to be the essence of what we've seen here, and each seems somewhat disingenuous.

No, I flat out believe (with good reason) that the ACLU was founded to be a transmission belt for the Communist agenda to "de-moralize" America. This would explain their disregard for the 2nd and 10th amendments even while some believe them to be defenders of the conststution...

I'm willing to take this to private debate, if there are any takers out there.

 

[drb14]

No, I flat out believe (with good reason) that the ACLU was founded to be a transmission belt for the Communist agenda to "de-moralize" America. This would explain their disregard for the 2nd and 10th amendments even while some believe them to be defenders of the conststution...

I'm willing to take this to private debate, if there are any takers out there.

Personally, I don't wish to debate the goodness/badness of the ACLU so much as I would really like to understand whence those who view it negatively are coming and why they hold the views they do, if that makes sense.

To me, at any rate, the 2 reasons I mentioned in the above post didn't, honestly, seem that persuasive. What you brought up, though, could be more so.

So if you're willing to discuss this further, here are some questions I would like answered:

1. What is your belief based on, exactly?
2. If true about the founding of the organization, is that relevant to the ACLU today? How so and to what degree in your mind?
3. Are you saying that the aim of the ACLU, today or in the past, is not to protect rights under the I Amendment (the expression of unpopular ideas), but rather is to promote the actual unpopular activities (nambla, flag burning, &c)?
4. How exactly does defending one right to the exclusion of others affect your view? (you stated that the II Amendment is the reset button, i believe) Does the NRA's focus on the II Amendment, to the exclusion of virtually all others give you a negative view of that organization? What is the destinction?

 

[Alex]

The idiots who wrote about the molestation were just as complicit in encouraging and aiding the conspiracy to commit the crime. Last I checked, conspiracy was still a crime.



I don't have to support it. The law already makes them complicit with a conspiracy charge.



No, I have a problem with the ACLU despite your attempt to make it otherwise.



No. What I do see is a very transparent attempt at applying the recently fashionable debate tactic of calling into question my patriotism or "Americanism". I see through it and refuse to acknowledge the quagmire you are trying to trap me in.

Now if you would like to address what I say and not what you editorialize from what I say, then we can continue. But if it is your intention to pull cheap tricks to call me "unAmerican", I can just disregard anything you have to say from here on.

Just a technical note here. "Conspriracy" is not what NAMBLA is doing. That would require knowledge of the actual crime.

Conspiracy: 1: an agreement between two or more people to commit an act prohibited by law or to commit a lawful act by means prohibited by law

Source: http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=bb/bbd0a7207fb654aa6a1ef06e21a9a0f1

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Something about disagreeing with what someone says, but defending to the death their right to say it?

Again is there any case history?

 

[drb14]

Again is there any case history?

This is kind of interesting.

However, the 2nd Amendment issue and the ACLU seems to be a red herring.
I would really like to see how it is not, if you honestly believe it is not.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

This is kind of interesting.

However, the 2nd Amendment issue and the ACLU seems to be a red herring.
I would really like to see how it is not, if you honestly believe it is not.

Very interesting. Was this sanctioned by the ACLU or was this a separate state "ACLU"?

 

[Mach]

No, I flat out believe (with good reason) that the ACLU was founded to be a transmission belt for the Communist agenda to "de-moralize" America. This would explain their disregard for the 2nd and 10th amendments even while some believe them to be defenders of the conststution...

That's quite a post. Let's analyze the insanity, or evil, that has been typed here.

-> The ACLU was founded to be the transmission belt for the communist agend to de-moralize America.

The evidence for this, is that they defend equally, without discrimination, the first ammendment rights of American citizens? My belief is that a good person would use good reasoning and conclude that the ACLU helps defend individual freedoms, by definition. You instead absurdly claim they are "demoralizing" america, because THEY don't do XYZ.

Wait, let me show you the implications of your faulty, evil reasoning.

Silent Majority writes:
No, I flat out believe (with good reason) that the ACLU was founded to be a transmission belt for the Communist agenda to "de-moralize" America. This would explain their disregard for the 2nd and 10th amendments even while some believe them to be defenders of the conststution...

Mach Writes:
No, I flat out believe (with good reason) that Starbucks was founded to be the transmission belt for the Communist agenda to "de-moralize" America. This would explain their disregard for the 2nd and 10th amendments even while some believe them to be defenders of the conststution.

So, because the ACLU defends certain freedoms, because they don't ALSO defend OTHER freedoms, they are by definition communists? You, my friend, are then a communist. Everyone would be a communist by that absurd definition.

-Mach

 

[The silenced majority]

To me, at any rate, the 2 reasons I mentioned in the above post didn't, honestly, seem that persuasive. What you brought up, though, could be more so.

So if you're willing to discuss this further, here are some questions I would like answered:

1. What is your belief based on, exactly?

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.

Continued...

 

[The silenced majority]

2. If true about the founding of the organization, is that relevant to the ACLU today? How so and to what degree in your mind?

“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.” California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, 1948 report

The ACLU was founded to protect Communist subversives who were set upon undermining American Government, liberty, freedom & eventually capitalism.

It is impossible for me to comprehend how an organization such as the ACLU which was founded as a covert way to transmit Marxist ideals would somehow today be a neutral organization bent on preserving the Constitution.

3. Are you saying that the aim of the ACLU, today or in the past, is not to protect rights under the I Amendment (the expression of unpopular ideas), but rather is to promote the actual unpopular activities (nambla, flag burning, &c)?

The ACLU's true goal was to protect unpopular ideas that were designed to undermine Western society & de-Christianize the West. This was the over-arching goal of Marxist philosophers who didn't see the peasant assume their role in the new Marxist order as Marx himself had postulated they would with the arrival of the "great world war" (WWI).

Cultural Marxism

4. How exactly does defending one right to the exclusion of others affect your view? (you stated that the II Amendment is the reset button, i believe) Does the NRA's focus on the II Amendment, to the exclusion of virtually all others give you a negative view of that organization? What is the destinction?

My contention about the ACLU in regards to the 2nd and 10th amendments is pretty simple. These 2 and other amendments were designed so we wouldn't need a group like the ACLU to use tax-payer funds to defend one portion of our Constitutional rights (while conveniently working against others)..

The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

 

[Mach]

The ACLU's true goal was to protect unpopular ideas that were designed to undermine Western society & de-Christianize the West.

You mean a society formed under an intentionally secular government? So by helping to maintain its secular foundation, they are destroying it? I don't see the reasoning here.

My contention about the ACLU in regards to the 2nd and 10th amendments is pretty simple. These 2 and other amendments were designed so we wouldn't need a group like the ACLU to use tax-payer funds to defend one portion of our Constitutional rights (while conveniently working against others)..

So because the ACLU does not inspect cargo coming in from Africa, we should be upset with them? What planet does this make sense on? Seriously, if you want to start and promote an organization that defends the 2nd and 10th ammednments, do so. Actually, I think the NRA is the defacto 2nd ammendment organization, and the 10th, I think states often battle this out in the supreme court. Not sure what the issue is with the 10th, or how it relates to the ACLU defending peoples 1st ammendment rights. Nice tangent though.

-mach

 

[The silenced majority]

You mean a society formed under an intentionally secular government? So by helping to maintain its secular foundation, they are destroying it? I don't see the reasoning here.

The quotes I provided above should be able to lead any rational person to believe that the ACLU wasn't founded to defend the foundation of our society.

So because the ACLU does not inspect cargo coming in from Africa, we should be upset with them? What planet does this make sense on? Seriously, if you want to start and promote an organization that defends the 2nd and 10th ammednments, do so. Actually, I think the NRA is the defacto 2nd ammendment organization, and the 10th, I think states often battle this out in the supreme court. Not sure what the issue is with the 10th, or how it relates to the ACLU defending peoples 1st ammendment rights. Nice tangent though.

My contention is with those who foolishly believe that the ACLU defends the Constitution. They only defend parts of the Constitution that are convenient to the Marxist ideeology of undermining the enduring moral order of the West.

Secondly, does the NRA use it's position of advocating the 2nd amendment as a pulpit to question or even seek the repeal of other Constitutional rights like the ACLU does?

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

The quotes I provided above should be able to lead any rational person to believe that the ACLU wasn't founded to defend the foundation of our society.



My contention is with those who foolishly believe that the ACLU defends the Constitution. They only defend parts of the Constitution that are convenient to the Marxist ideeology of undermining the enduring moral order of the West.

Secondly, does the NRA use it's position of advocating the 2nd amendment as a pulpit to question or even seek the repeal of other Constitutional rights like the ACLU does?

Repeal of which rights again? They seem to be pro-freedom of everything- not exactly Communist. Your "logic" confuses me.

 

[Caine]

2. If true about the founding of the organization, is that relevant to the ACLU today? How so and to what degree in your mind?

“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.” California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, 1948 report

The ACLU was founded to protect Communist subversives who were set upon undermining American Government, liberty, freedom & eventually capitalism.

It is impossible for me to comprehend how an organization such as the ACLU which was founded as a covert way to transmit Marxist ideals would somehow today be a neutral organization bent on preserving the Constitution.

Im confused on how this is an answer to #2 of the original post.....

I'd like to see #2 answered because it seems that the "Founding" of the ACLU is the only point anyone who is against the ACLU ever seems to argue.

 

[The silenced majority]

Im confused on how this is an answer to #2 of the original post.....

I'd like to see #2 answered because it seems that the "Founding" of the ACLU is the only point anyone who is against the ACLU ever seems to argue.

They were founded to protect Communists' cover who had infiltrated various American institutions with the goal of undermining the social fabric of our nation. That's been proved.

For what reason should I believe that their actions today are pure and unmotivated by the same dogmatic ideology, when an overwhelming majority of their cases involve some way of bringing suit against various aspects of traditional American & Western culture?

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

“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.” California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, 1948 report

The ACLU was founded to protect Communist subversives who were set upon undermining American Government, liberty, freedom & eventually capitalism.

It is impossible for me to comprehend how an organization such as the ACLU which was founded as a covert way to transmit Marxist ideals would somehow today be a neutral organization bent on preserving the Constitution.

Because Communist subversives today have no money, power or goals?

In 1948, the "Red Scare" was in full throttle. In many states Communism was nearly banned entirely. 32 out of the 48 had official loyalty oaths at the peak of the Red Scare (closed off to Communists, of course). Truman, who oversaw the beginning of the House Un-American Activities Committee, was the President. The National Security Act had been passed in 1947 (allowing the CIA to attack Communism everywhere in secret).

The civil liberties of Communists were threatened. Who but the ACLU was supposed to defend them?

 

[Mach]

For what reason should I believe that their actions today are pure and unmotivated by the same dogmatic ideology, when an overwhelming majority of their cases involve some way of bringing suit against various aspects of traditional American & Western culture?

Because they are defending individuals rights, per the constitution, would be my first guess. From what I understand, even though that was from the 60's, cultural influence is not against the law, is it? Should you not be 100% protecting and for their freedoms in that regard? If not, then we can see who is the anti-freedom, pro-tyranny person here. And it's not the ACLU.

As to what traditional American & Western culture is, it's my understanding it's about protecting and maximizing individual freedoms. What do you believe it is? Isn't western government based in large part on greek politics and writings?

-Mach

 

[The silenced majority]

Because Communist subversives today have no money, power or goals?

In 1948, the "Red Scare" was in full throttle. In many states Communism was nearly banned entirely. 32 out of the 48 had official loyalty oaths at the peak of the Red Scare (closed off to Communists, of course). Truman, who oversaw the beginning of the House Un-American Activities Committee, was the President. The National Security Act had been passed in 1947 (allowing the CIA to attack Communism everywhere in secret).

The civil liberties of Communists were threatened. Who but the ACLU was supposed to defend them?

I never said that Communists didn't deserve equal protection under the law. All I'm saying is that the ACLU was founded by Communists for Communists. And this unholy alliance has contrived a way to legally use the Constitution & our courts to advance their Marxist agenda of eliminating American culture cloaked as battling for "civil rights".