Wherefore Art Thou ACLU? Only Certain Civil Liberties Need Apply

FEBRUARY 13, 2012 Wherefore Art Thou ACLU? Only Certain Civil Liberties Need Apply. By Charles C. W. Cooke

The American Civil Liberties Union is something of a wildcard. Marked by caprice, it can be occasionally thrilling, but it is more often frustrating, inconsistent, and ramshackle. On issues of speech, the organization can be an ally of limited government — it recently played a key role in the gutting of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform bill, siding with Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission and winning a signal victory for the First Amendment — but, more often than it joins the chorus for liberty, it remains dumb. If, to paraphrase an old saying, 90 percent of defending the Constitution is just showing up, then the ALCU is an incorrigible part-timer.

The ACLU’s stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Given its record, however, one would be forgiven for concluding that its copy of our charter is incomplete. Unfortunately, the ACLU appears to base its actions on the text of a tattered and torn document, from which the Second and Tenth Amendments are missing entirely, the Fourth was re-written in 1973, and the words “more or less” are appended to each paragraph along with an explicit invitation to interpret the document as broadly as humanly possible.

Like the Supreme Court, the ACLU is as easily judged by its sins of omission as by the active positions it takes. Certain cases that one would assume to be within its sphere of interest are met with a deafening silence.

ACLU was founded by a communist to destroy us from within. They have made the law a joke and “rights” a joke.

They have destroyed the meaning of Inalienable right-—and now we have laws which find a “right” to “privacy” when there is no such thing when you are doing evil.

They also promote special rights for some—unconstitutional and they protect Atheists right to indoctrinate our children and destory our God=given rights to even mention God in the schools. Unconstitutional.

There is no “separation of state and church” in our Constitution and mentioning God by teachers is not establishing a “church”. Such Marxist twisting of language like they always do-—and putting words like “homosexual” with Marriage.....disgusting impossibility—such a bizarre and silly concept-—but they have brainwashed generations of children with it to destroy logical thinking and normalize illogical concepts.

Cognitive dissonance-—teach children lies so they will be unable to think...their foundation of reality will be all screwed up -—where up is down.

ACLU was founded by a communist to destroy us from within

There's your "sin of omission" on Cooke's part—failing to mention Roger Nash Baldwin and his cohorts. All of the ACLU's actions right up to the present moment can be explained in light of its history. (No accident that they were founded shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution, too.) Even Wikipedia confesses that most of the ACLU's cases were advanced by the CPUSA, and says that their one of their primary focuses from the 1960s onward was an "effort to enforce separation of church and state"—something not in the US Constitution, but in the USSR's constitution.

I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union.... I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal.

— Roger Nash Baldwin, 1935

the ACLU’s Alicia Gay criticized the “powerful lobbying arm of the Catholic Church” for creating much ado about nothing, and then, for good measure, chastised the Church’s bishops for their perceived failure to talk about “women’s health.” Gay flatly denied that the measure violated the First Amendment, contending that “the fundamental promise of religious liberty in this country doesn’t create a right to impose those views on others, including ignoring civil rights laws or denying critical health care.”

If my plumber contracts syphilis and comes to me and ask me to pay for his cure am I denying him health care if I refuse to pay for his visits to the doctor and his medication?

Let’s face it we are all responsible for our own lives. Simply because I employ (purchase a person’s labor) a person does not make me responsible for their every need.

If as a part of their wages I agree to provide a health insurance plan I will as a necessary part of providing that plan have to put limits on that plan to control cost. If the plan is unacceptable they can refuse the plan or seek employment else where.

The Catholic church is not denying anyone their access to needed health care they are simply refusing to pay for services that they deem sacrilegious and immoral (is that redundant).

Any employee of a Catholic organization should be aware that they are working for a religious institution with a moral code. If any part of this moral code is diametrically opposed in some way to their own, they should seek employment elsewhere. If they need to purchase contraceptives then they should figure that cost in to their budget knowing that their heath care plan will not cover those cost or they should begin looking for employment elsewhere that will have a health care plan that does cover those services.

One thing that this controversy should teach the public is that socialize medicine does not fit the unique society that is the Unite States. A free society does not dictate a one size fits all heath care market or any other market place. We are all free to choose what ever we are looking to buy. The more choices we have the better off we are, the more likely we are to find a bargain that fits our needs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.