The ACLU’s Communist, Atheist Roots

The ACLU’s Communist, Atheist Roots

December 16th, 2010

Dr. Paul Kengor,

The ACLU seems unusually active right now. What  gives? Maybe it’s   the Christmas season, which always seems to spring the  ACLU into high   gear, making it more miserable than usual.

I tried to ignore the latest round of ACLU legal  challenges against   religious Americans, but they became too much. The  surge has been   remarkably ecumenical, not singling out Protestant or  Catholic   interests.

First, I got an email from Mat Staver’s group,  Liberty Counsel,   highlighting a bunch of ACLU lawsuits. Then I read a  page-one,   top-of-the-fold headline in the National Catholic Register,    “Catholic Hospitals Under New Attack by ACLU,” regarding an ACLU    request to compel Catholic hospitals to do abortions. Next was an email    from a colleague at Coral Ridge Ministries, forwarding a Washington Times article. Then came another email from yet another Christian group on lawsuits somewhere in Florida. And on and on.

That was just a sampling of this year’s Christmas  cheer, courtesy of   the American Civil Liberties Union. At least the ACLU  always finds a   way to unite Protestants and Catholics.

In the interest of faith and charity, I’d like to  add my own   ecumenical offering—a history lesson. It concerns some  fascinating   material I recently published on the ACLU’s early founders,  especially   three core figures: Roger Baldwin, Harry Ward, and Corliss  Lamont. I   can only provide a snapshot here, but you’ll get the picture.

First, Roger Baldwin: Baldwin was the founder of the  ACLU, so far to   the Left that he was hounded by the Justice Department  of the   progressive’s progressive, Woodrow Wilson. Perhaps it was a faith    thing. Wilson was a progressive, but he was also a devout Christian,    and Roger Baldwin was anything but that.

Baldwin was an atheist. He was also a onetime Communist, who, among other ignoble gestures, wrote a horrible 1928 book called Liberty Under the Soviets….

Read more.

Old College Pal: Obama Has “Continuing Commitment to Marxist Ideology”

Old College Pal: Obama Has “Continuing Commitment to Marxist Ideology”

December 10th, 2010

Dr. Paul Kengor, American Thinker

…John Drew was a  contemporary  of Obama at Occidental College and a Marxist himself.  In  fact, Drew  was a well-known campus communist when Obama was introduced  to him as  “one of us.”  “Obama was already an ardent Marxist when I met  in the  fall of 1980,” said Drew, going on the record.
Drew  is certainly  cognizant of the gravity of his statement.  “I know it’s  incendiary to  say this,” he adds, but Obama “was basically a  Marxist-Leninist.”  He  noted how Obama, in Dreams from My Father,  stated that when he  got to college, he attended “socialist conferences”  and “hung out”  with Marxist professors.  But what Obama did not explain  or clarify,  says Dr. Drew, is that Obama “was in 100 percent, total  agreement with  these Marxist professors.”
I  asked Drew where,  precisely, he believes Obama stands today.  Of  course, Drew no longer  knows Obama, and his main goal in reaching out to  me was to clarify  where Obama stood at Occidental, which is information  that cannot be  ignored.  That said, he did tell me this: “There are a  lot of brands of  Marxism.  That was one of the key ingredients of my  argument with the  young Barack Obama.  I see evidence of [a] continuing  commitment to  Marxist ideology every time President Obama traces the  furor of the  public to underlying economic conditions and inevitable  changes taking  place in society. In the Marxist model, the economy is  the driving  force behind change in the other spheres of society.”
Drew  shared those  thoughts with me last spring. More recently, however, we  had an even  more illuminating conversation when I had the opportunity to  interview  Drew while I was guest-hosting the Glen Meakem Program,   a terrific radio-talk show broadcast from Pittsburgh.  Here are edited   excerpts of what Drew told me on the air on October 16, 2010:
Drew: As far as  I can tell, I’m the only person in Obama’s extended circle of  friends  who is willing to speak out and verify that he was a  Marxist-Leninist  in his sophomore year of college from 1980 to 1981.  I  met him because I  graduated from Occidental College in 1979, and I was  back at  Occidental visiting a girlfriend.
Kengor: Was Occidental known for radical-left politics?  Would that have been an attraction to Obama?
Drew:  It was  considered the Moscow of southern California when I was there.   There  were a lot of Marxist professors, many of whom I got to know  pretty  well. … What I know absolutely for sure — and this is where I  really  sought you out and I really wanted to be helpful in terms of the   historic record — was to verify that Barack Obama was definitely a   Marxist and that it was very unusual for a sophomore at Occidental to be   as radical or as ideologically attuned as young Barack Obama was….

Read more.

Obama Call for ‘International Order’ Raises Questions About U.S. Sovereignty

Obama Call for ‘International Order’ Raises Questions About U.S. Sovereignty

May 25th, 2010


 Obama’s New World Order raises some red flags

President Obama is facing criticism for his declaration over the weekend that he would seek a new “international order,” with some questioning how much U.S. sovereignty the administration is willing to cede in exchange for more global cooperation.

Obama, delivering the commencement speech Saturday at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, said that “stronger international standards and institutions” and stronger alliances can “resolve” challenges ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to climate change to economic decline.

“Our adversaries would like to see America sap its strength by overextending our power,” Obama said. “So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation.”

The president added that efforts by America’s armed forces need to be “complemented” with greater diplomatic engagement “from grand capitals to dangerous outposts,” more humanitarian assistance to needy nations, better communications among intelligence agencies, first responders to act after earthquakes, storms and disease and “law enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad, and protect us at home.”

“America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of cooperation; we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice — so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don’t,” he told the graduating class at the military academy.

Read More:

Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth

Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth

October 27, 2008 · 23 Comments

I cannot even believe this.  First of all, I heard the fact that Obama thought the Constitution was flawed being discussed on MSNBC of all places.  Most shocking since they are his biggest media cheering section.  Even more glaring are the words that Obama uttered in a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM and here they are with my emphasis:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.  But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

 And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Keep in mind that Barack Obama has been a law professor on the Constitution.  This is a document he has spent alot of time studying and yet he completely misses the point.  Our Founding Fathers said that we are indowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.  Those are automatic and the Constitution and other founding documents merely defined those rights so that the government could never take those away.  It is not a document of “negative liberties”.  The Constitution protects us from a tyrannical government.  Only someone who wants to lead a tyrannical government would say the above words.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Declaration speaks of has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.  And the courts are not meant to be radical.  Keep that in mind as you consider that Obama may get the chance to appoint three Supreme Court justices and countless local judges.  And keep in mind that the Warren Court has been the most liberal court this country ever had.

Obama’s spokesman Bill Burton had this to say, “In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It’s just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign.”  It truly is amazing how gullible the Obama campaign thinks Americans are by constantly calling truth that shines the light on a Marxist Obama “distractions”.  This is everything!  The economy, the wars, abortion…none of that matters if we lose our freedom.  What an Obama presidency will change those words to is: The economy becomes redistribution of wealth, wars become Martial Law here in America with boots on our streets and terrorists able to destroy us and abortion becomes Eugenics where only the best get to live.  Liberals love to compare President Bush to Hitler.  They’ve got the wrong man.