Regardless of what black Americans think, the police departments that protect and serve their communities should be defunded immediately. At least that is the latest propaganda being peddled in a bizarre new campaign by the far-left American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a radical organization literally founded by members of the Communist Party USA.

According to the ACLU’s new campaign, American police are and always have been racist yahoos brutally oppressing minority communities. Reforms, investigations, firings, and other policy changes will not suffice. Instead, America’s thousands of local police departments must be defunded as soon as possible, with the “savings” being “invested” into priorities established by the ACLU.

In a series of videos purporting to document the last “100 years of history” surrounding policing in America, the far-left group argues that “policing still acts as an occupying force in communities of color.” And so, instead of public funding for police to investigate, punish, and prevent crime, that money should go to “black and brown communities,” the organization said.

A petition that goes with the campaign, which has been signed by almost 150,000 people as of this writing, displays hatred and dishonesty toward America’s police officers — many of whom put their lives on the line to protect their communities. And yet, from the ACLU’s rhetoric, American cops might as well be a pack of wild invaders led by Genghis Khan.

“The policing institutions in our country are deeply entrenched in racism and brutality, and we cannot allow it to continue,” the petition reads. “These inherently systemic issues require immediate and permanent solutions. That requires a bold reimagining of the role police play in our society: It is time to divest from law enforcement and reinvest in the Black and Brown communities [sic] they unjustly target.”

As usual, “defunding police” hysteria by guilt-ridden white liberals and agenda-driven hate-mongers such as those running the ACLU is portrayed as merely a benevolent effort to “help” black people who supposedly cannot help themselves. The narrative is very much akin to liberal campaigns to “save the whales” or “save the baby seals.”

Ironically, though, polling data show that black Americans are overwhelming against defunding the police departments that protect their communities from violent criminals. In fact, according to a Gallup survey released in August 2020 — right at the height of the media and “Black Lives Matter” demonization campaign against supposedly “racist” police — more than eight in ten black Americans wanted the same or a greater police presence.

In short, despite its supposed devotion to “democracy,” the ACLU’s radical agenda to defund police would require ignoring the wishes of the very black Americans it pretends to be concerned about. In fact, the scheme would require that a tiny, fringe minority of radicals be allowed to impose unpopular policy on the rest of the community using undemocratic means.

The ACLU’s “sweeping three-part formula” includes, among other elements, handcuffing the police, “prohibiting” them from enforcing laws against crimes that the ACLU determines are “non-dangerous” using fines or arrest. The money saved by eviscerating police will be “reinvested” into unspecified “alternatives to policing” that will supposedly help communities “thrive.”

Finally, for those “rare instances in which police officers do interact with community members” under the new policing regime, the ACLU proposes to implement “common-sense, iron-clad legal constraints” against police and “protections” for those law-enforcement interacts with. Of course, the U.S. Constitution and all 50 state constitutions already contain such protections.

To advance its dangerous anti-police narrative, the ACLU uses deception, lies, and half-truths. The very first video is based on a fraudulent narrative, painting Rodney King — a wife beater who pleaded guilty to armed robbery — as an innocent victim of racist cops. The fact that he charged at police while intoxicated after a dangerous high-speed chase reaching almost 120 mph is never mentioned.

Even the quote from the official LA commission report about the incident is used in a deceptive manner. When the narrator cited the commission’s mention of “racism and bias within the Los Angeles Police Department,” he failed mention that it was based on a survey that found just one fourth of officers in the department thought racism or bias existed at all in the department. In other words, more than 75 percent of officers did not believe racism existed.

But this was never about racism. The communist movement in the United States — backed for generations by the mass-murdering regime enslaving the Soviet Union — has been waging war on American police for almost a century now. In fact, in an official 1961 report headlined “Communist Plot Against the Free World Police,” the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate outlined the nature of the threat.

Among other concerns, it was revealed that communist agents across the West were working to undermine local police so that law-enforcement could be nationalized and federalized. Communists directed by Soviet intelligence had a special focus on the United States. The Judiciary Committee also detailed some of the methods, including formation of mobs to attack police and then demonizing the officers.

Considering the history of the ACLU, its latest salvo in its war on America’s police should come as no surprise. Among the charter members of the ACLU at its founding were numerous senior Communist Party officials including Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Louis Budenz, and even eventual Communist Party USA General-Secretary William Z. Foster.

ACLU Executive Director Roger Baldwin, who led the group from 1920 to 1950 and visited the USSR twice, was proud of his communist leanings. “I am for socialism,” he famously wrote. “I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal…. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal.”

American officials have known this for decades. In 1948, the California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities released a report on it. “The ACLU may be definitely classified as a Communist front or transmission belt organization,” the committee said on page 107 of its 1948 report. “At least 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of Communists who come in conflict with the law.”

Stripping American communities of their police forces would be a recipe for chaos, especially in minority communities. But the American people, including black Americans, have made it abundantly clear that they are vehemently opposed to such an idiotic plan.

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Written by L. Brent Bozell III

Washington Post book critic Ron Charles made a confession the other day. “I banned a book,” he wrote. “Or at least I helped get it banned, which makes Banned Books Week a little awkward for me this year. Like celebrating Arbor Day by cutting down a tree.”

The book is titled “The Trigger: The Lie That Changed the World — Who Really Did It and Why.” It’s an 898-page paperback. The author, David Icke, is a longtime conspiracy kook from Britain. The publisher is also David Icke. This book is the latest example of 9/11 trutherism. In this version, the “satanic” Israeli government did it, in addition to its role in international drug running and assassinating John F. Kennedy. Charles called it “harebrained word vomit.”

He wrote to Barnes & Noble inquiring about a photo a reader sent him that showed Icke’s book on a “New Releases in Paperback 20% off” table. A day later, a spokesperson told him, “After being alerted to the content, we are removing the book from all stores.”

When asked more broadly about the national bookstore chain’s selection process involving “hate speech” purveyors, the spokesperson added, “We work to never allow content with hate speech in our stores, and in cases when something slips through, we take quick and resolute action to remove it.”

This would thrill most liberal hearts, but Charles asks the obvious question: How will Barnes & Noble determine what is “hate speech”? And is “quick and resolute action” always the wisest course?

In the spirit of Banned Books Week, Charles wonders how hard liberals would fight to defend free speech, even for a book they consider abhorrent. Would they still fight today as the American Civil Liberties Union fought for the right of neo-Nazis to march down the street in Skokie, Illinois?

There’s no need to wonder.

Charles noted that the American Library Association has a new list of Top 10 Most Challenged Books in libraries, and “the list is dominated by books that draw censure for their positive portrayal of LGBTQIA+ relationships,” such as David Levithan‘s 2013 “young adult” novel, “Two Boys Kissing.”

The book chronicles Harry and Craig, two 17-year-olds who are about to participate in a 32-hour kissing marathon to set a new Guinness World Record. It has a broader theme about the dreadful toll of AIDS. Libraries and bookstores promote these tomes in Banned Books Week displays and events.

This is where Charles admirably puts his free-speech advocacy to the test:

“I can’t help noticing that no liberal tastes were harmed in the making of this list. It costs us nothing to celebrate these banned books. The whole campaign is pungent with self-satisfaction, a chance for us enlightened liberals to remind each other that we are freedom fighters.”

The American Library Association is unlikely to promote its own courage in making “harebrained word vomit” about 9/11 available in libraries. This underlines why Banned Books Week often feels like Favorite Books Week. It would be fascinating to know just how many American libraries are stocking the latest David Icke book so we could see how often it is protested by people won’t don’t want to aid the spread of his crackpottery.

Troublemakers with time on their hands could have fun compiling a list of books that libraries choose not to stock. We could host a splashy celebration of Books Librarians Hate Week. They should acknowledge that some noxious books and ideas are worth protesting or ignoring.

But you cannot celebrate free speech except for that which you want to ban.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at creators.com.

On Friday afternoon, the Illinois State Senate Executive Committee heard testimony on Senator Heather Steans‘ “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act” (HB 4963).  With nine Democrats and 6 Republicans on this committee, the bill easily passed out of the committee by a vote of 8 to 5.  

The hearing included emotionally manipulative testimonies from a self-identifying lesbian mom and a PFLAG parent, two liberal clergy members, and Laura E. Berk,  Professor of Psychology at Illinois State University.  Testifying in favor of natural marriage include Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Rev. Bob Vanden Bosch and Ralph Rivera on behalf of Illinois Family Institute.

Background

The homosexual lobby, which includes Equality Illinois and the Civil Rights Agenda, are working overtime in an attempt to secure support of 60 state representatives for their marriage redefinition bill. Other politicians and groups assisting in passing the measure include Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Governor Patrick Quinn, Lt. Governor Shelia Simon, Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Stonewall Democrats, and Illinois Log Cabin Republicans.

For the past four General Assembly sessions (8 years), a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman has been introduced. And each year, Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) has refused to move it to a committee to be debated and voted on. If this amendment were to come before the entire General Assembly, we are confident that it would receive the two-thirds vote needed to pass. And once passed by the General Assembly, it would be placed on a ballot referendum in the next state wide election forIllinois voters to decide.

We cannot afford to ignore this situation! Illinois citizens can send a strong message by calling, emailing and/or visiting your state lawmakers in support of natural marriage.

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state lawmakers, please do it now!  Click HERE to let them know what you think.

Please forward this article to your family and friends in Illinois.

By Karla Dial, World Magazine

American Civil Liberties Union was in federal court in October to argue that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must never again contract with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) – unless the religious organization checks its faith at the door and changes its policies.

The organization has contracted with HHS since 2006 in its work with sex trafficking victims. However, the government canceled the contract earlier this month, saying it gives “strong preference” to groups willing to make referrals “for the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.”

The ACLU noted in a press release that USCCB prohibits subcontractors “from using any federal funds to provide or refer for contraception, condoms and abortion care solely because of USCCB’s religious beliefs.” Even though the contract has already been dropped this year, “the ACLU seeks a judgment to ensure that taxpayer dollars are never misused to impose religious restrictions on vulnerable trafficking victims that receive U.S. aid.”

However, longstanding federal law already prevents the government from discriminating against faith-based groups who don’t want to use taxpayer dollars to support abortion. Legislation currently pending in Congress would strengthen that language, and give groups that feel the government has discriminated against them a method to seek justice.