Tennessee ACLU: The Left’s Biggest Hypocrite (Part 1 of 5)

Below is the latest newsletter from the Tennessee Council for Political Justice.

Newsletter #174 — Tennessee ACLU: The Left’s Biggest Hypocrite (part 1 of 5)

“The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights.”

Eisenhower on Communism, October 1952.

The TN ACLU would like you to believe that it fights equally for everyone’s religious freedoms, civil liberties and Constitutional rights. It doesn’t.

The ACLU would like you to believe that it’s work promotes the ideals of democracy and social justice. It doesn’t do that either.

The ACLU would like you to believe that it is nonpartisan, and advocates for individual rights. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

The ACLU’s work is about moving its socialist and communist DNA into the mainstream. It’s about the red-green alliance (the professional leftists and the Islamists), sharing a mutual goal of undermining the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western civilization. It’s about rejecting the individual initiative that drives capitalism in favor of collectivist redistribution of resources. It’s about partnering with groups willing to abuse and disassemble our Constitutional liberties to advance the leftist agenda. It’s about disenfranchising “the Establishment.”

It’s about socially advantaged elites showing solidarity with the “underprivileged” — that is, until they retire at the end of the day and drive their pricey hybrid cars to their children’s private school, then on to their expensive homes in privileged neighborhoods.

Socialists + Communists = ACLU

The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), was co-founded by Norman Thomas, William Foster and Roger Baldwin. These fathers of the new left, defining themselves as the “counterculture,” came to power in the 1960’s.

These men from Chicago came out of the Midwest labor movement — they were the progressives. They wanted to help the oppressed workers raise economic standards and working conditions.

Norman Thomas, a Presbyterian minister, was a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. He said,

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

William Foster, a Marxist, was the National Chairman of the Communist Party USA from 1945 to 1957. He said,

“The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body of forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on.”

Roger Baldwin was an admirer of Stalin’s government. He said:

“I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted.”

Baldwin accepted dictatorship and suppression of rights were necessary to achieve socialism.

These men formed an organization intended to destroy our country, and created an Orwellian vocabulary to subvert mainstream American thought.

“Multiculturalism,” “human rights,” “tolerance” and “social justice” form the jargon of the ACLU’s leftist ideology. They fuel their moral narcissism on the backs of the underdog and use minority rights as an excuse to substitute a socialist solution which has proven time and time again that it doesn’t work. The ideology is a master-slave relationship to keep the minority disenfranchised and emphasizes materialism as the answer to all our problems.

The ACLU and their fellow Alinsky travelers (discussed in later parts), have perfected the art of liberal bullying along with a proficiency in name-calling, propaganda and fact distortion to achieve their ultimate Communist goals.

4 thoughts on “Tennessee ACLU: The Left’s Biggest Hypocrite (Part 1 of 5)

  1. “Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Walter Nelles, Morris Ernst, Albert DeSilver, Arthur Garfield Hays, Helen Keller, Jane Addams, Felix Frankfurter, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn” are shown as the founders of the ACLU in the Wikipedia article “American Civil Liberties Union” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union).

    Messrs. Thomas and Foster don’t appear in this list. I do know, from reading earlier this year, that Morris Ernst was the attorney who successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that James Joyce’s novel Ulysses could be imported and published in the U.S.

    Probably everyone knows who Helen Keller was; her inspiring activity on behalf of disabled people (being deaf and blind herself) was legendary.

    Although I know who Jane Addams and Felix Frankfurter were, I don’t have in-depth understanding of their backgrounds.

    So this article gives us excellent information on Mr. Baldwin, a founder of the ACLU, but unless the Wikipedia article is missing some names, Messrs. Thomas and Foster were (perhaps?) “fellow travelers” 😉 with the rest of the group.

    Interestingly enough, the same Wikipedia article dissects the ACLU’s emphases decade by decade; it’s instructive to read that the ACLU or, more specifically, its predecessor organization, began by supporting First Amendment causes, i.e., anti-war (WWI) speech and conscientious objectors who were unwilling to serve in that war.

    1920s: Free Speech. In this decade, the ACLU defended clients from both the left and right wings of American political activity.

    1930s: Unionizing, Native American rights (Native children could no longer be kidnapped and forcibly sent to English-language-only schools). The ACLU both defended and led attacks against the American Communist Party in this decade. The ACLU also initially opposed the National Labor Relations Act, which gave rise to the NLRB, because of its fears that the Act would give too much power to the government (a classic conservative position).

    1940s: The ACLU Board voted communists and other supporters of totalitarian states OFF from its composition. (In 1968, though, this resolution was rescinded, and Elizabeth Gurley Brown, who had been involved with the Wobblies and supported Uncle Joe, was posthumously reinstated. Bleah.) The ACLU was also the only country-wide organization opposed to the internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans.

    1950s: After experiences with the House Unamerican Activities Committee (HUAC) and Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the ACLU Board turned the other way. The anti-communist members, unhappy with the cases/causes the others wanted to support, resigned en masse in late 1954/early 1955 (Wiki isn’t clear; sorry).

    I think most of us are familiar with the ACLU’s story from the ’60s forward; if not, the Wiki article gives chapter, verse, and references.

    It’s educational to note that, at least during its early years, the ACLU really *did* support civil liberties from many points on the political spectrum. The most recent case I can think of where the ACLU supported a right-wing or even reactionary cause was National Socialist Party of America vs. Village of Skokie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie; also known as Smith vs. Collin), wherein the American Nazi Party wanted to parade in Skokie, largely populated then by Jews, many of whom were Holocaust survivors. The city wouldn’t grant a parade permit. The Nazis prevailed, and held their parade. That was in 1977, some 38 years ago. I wouldn’t want to jump to conclusions, though; in 1990 the ACLU defended Oliver North. However, since I’m unfamiliar (i.e., totally ignorant) of the issues in that case, I can’t say whether this was a right-wing, left-wing, or “other” political spectrum case.

    As a First Amendment supporter, nay–virtually a First Amendment absolutist–I find some of the ACLU’s “modern” viewpoints objectionable. The ACLU has taken positions that violate at least my understanding of the First Amendment–and the understanding of others (see https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-lawsuit-seeks-access-lawful-information-internet-library-patrons-eastern-washington?redirect=technology-and-liberty/aclu-lawsuit-seeks-access-lawful-information-internet-library-patrons-eastern ). The ACLU/2nd Amendment Foundation prevailed, much to the unhappiness of many, including me.

    OTOH, the ACLU has opposed the Patriot Act, so I have to give them credit for that one.

  2. I’m wondering whether my “virtually a First Amendment absolutist” stance enhances or disqualifies me from Classic Liberal status.

    Agreed: Crying “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is unlawful in that it may lead directly to physical injury of fellow theatre-goers.

    Agreed: The revolting, harmful, and destructive activity known as “child pornography” is and should be unlawful; the participants are to young to give legal consent to having their pictures taken or to understand what they are doing, or the intended use of their images.

    And yes: this means that, while I support the right of (yuck) pornographers to make pornography by and for consenting adults, I REALLY SUPPORT the right of the rest of us not to purchase said…ah…”junk.” Thus, when the Feminists against Pornography first appeared in the (I think?) late ’80s/early ’90s, I did not rush out and join them. After all, once you start decrying certain images as “pornography,” what’s to stop others from calling *your* images pornographic? (See current news discussions re. mothers feeding their babies in the way Nature equipped us.)


    • That should be “FALSELY crying fire in a crowded theatre”.

      Those who want to silence “Islamophobic” speech often use the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre fallacy to justify their attempts to suppress us. But there are no free-speech limits to crying out a warning when the danger is real.

      If the theatre really is on fire, then yell as loud as you can.

      • I stand corrected; good edit! Thank you. Yes, falsely crying FIRE! is the exception–definitely let people know about a clear and present danger.

        Hmm. Which is mostly the point of this website, I do believe.

        Thank you again.

Comments are closed.