Think about it a minute.

Compare the concept of democracy – where individuals may speak and act and express their faith according to their own understandings – with theocracy, where an elite few dictate what all individuals can and cannot say, do or express concerning their beliefs.

Think Iran.

Think Ahmadinejad and his coterie of Islamist extremists, exercising total control over the oil giant nation, funding and arming Hezbollah, orchestrating much of the inhuman violence in Iraq, promoting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and terrorist murder around the world, actively and defiantly preparing nuclear capability while at the same time maintaining an absolute dictatorship over the religious practices – even expressed public opinions – of Iran's millions of citizens.

Not a pretty picture, is it?

Now think ACLU.

Think a relatively small, but highly organized group of lawyers, rather extravagantly funded by ultraliberal donors, overtly defending and promoting activities and "progressive" judges' rulings that are very offensive to the majority of Americans. Think of a little group who portray themselves as "defenders" of civil liberties, who increasingly and arrogantly intimidate elected officials into defying the expressed wishes of the majority and thereby deprive them of civil liberties!

Think an elitist coterie who twist and redefine the expressed intentions of the framers of the Constitution in order to defend anarchists, pedophiles, sworn enemies of our nation, aberrant sexual practices, blasphemies of all kinds and attacks on our hallowed institutions – and who at the same time proceed against every kind of public expression of faith or religion, always misappropriating a phrase not even in our Constitution, "separation of church and state."

Think an unregulated, self-appointed group who openly intend to control and dictate not only what individual citizens can do and say, whenever they choose, but who infiltrate our courts so they can legislate from the judicial bench – and even tell our democratically elected representatives what they must do! Think a renegade group openly hostile, not only to Christianity in particular, but to long cherished Judeo-Christian principles in general, unarguably principles on which our society was founded. Think a group determined to erase any and every reference to God, the Bible or Christian teaching – even voluntary public prayer in any non-church venue – from American life!

Think theocratic dictatorship.

"Wait," you may say, "theocracy denotes religion. The ACLU is opposed to religion and religious expression! How can they be associated with theocracy?"

I'll tell you.

A couple of years ago, I wrote and recorded a song "Under God," a history lesson set to music explaining how and why those words are in our Pledge of Allegiance. It quickly went way up in the Billboard single chart, signifying the way most Americans feel about those words. I was almost immediately on CNN's Crossfire show, confronting Michael Newdow, the militant atheist who is determined to get those words out of our Pledge and to take "In God We Trust" off our currency. He's been validated by the corrupted 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, mildly rebuffed by our U.S. Supreme Court and is regrouping – with ACLU support – to attack those traditions again.

He had the cunning to quote only the first part of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but neglected to quote the rest, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I called his attention to it.

Then I said, "Michael, you know that your atheism is a religion; it's a faith system on which you stake your life, based on the premise that God doesn't exist – a premise you can't prove. Our faith is based on the premise that God does exist, and the evidence is literally everywhere. You know that atheism is in itself a religion, don't you?"

And he agreed it is! But then he added, "But I'm not trying to force my belief on anybody else; you are."

And I responded, "You're not trying to force your beliefs on us? You don't like the words 'under God,' and even though you don't have to say them yourself, you're determined to take away the privilege the vast majority of Americans have enjoyed since 1954? And to make it "illegal" for school kids to say the Pledge if it contains two words you don't like? What do you call that?"

He really didn't have an answer; he kept trying to claim "under God" is somehow " unconstitutional," a violation of his liberties, while he's determined to deprive vast millions of theirs.

I call it an attempt to establish one concept of religion over all others and to silence any alternatives.

Wonder how he got the very influential 9th Circuit Court to agree with his preposterous position? Guess what: A prominent judge on that bench, Stephen Roy Reinhardt, is married to Ramona Ripston – who just "happens" to be the executive director of the Southern California ACLU!

And why do you suppose our esteemed Supreme Court only mildly rebuffed Newdow when he petitioned them to uphold the decision he'd already obtained from the 9th Circuit? Guess what again: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, appointed by Jimmy Carter and considered the most liberal U.S. Supreme Court member by far, previously was the chief litigator for the ACLU's Women's Rights Project! And in that capacity, she argued in front of the Supreme Court numerous times, even winning cases that reversed court precedents in the area of gender equity. Could the ACLU ask for anything better than that? Sort of like embedding your own fox in the hen house!

Friend, there's a lot more to be said on this subject, about this fifth column in our midst. And I'm intending to keep saying a lot of it right here, in this space. For this offering, though, I'll defer to the father of our country, George Washington, in his farewell address, Sept.19, 1796:

The name of American must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits, and political Principles. …

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.