THE AMERICAN WORKER

Home | Photos | About

STOP THE ACLU COALITION DIRECTOR SPEAKS OUT

Nedd Kareiva / Michael Westfall Interview

 

The ACLU files thousands of lawsuits each year. Many of the cases they involve themselves with are designed to profoundly redefine the moral fiber of our great nation.

As the Director of the Stop the ACLU Coalition, Nedd Kareiva is well versed with the workings of the ACLU. Mr. Kareiva is sounding the alarm and developing strategies nationwide to counter the ACLU.

I have invited Mr. Kareiva to participate in this interview to discuss his important work. 

Mr. Kareiva began the Stop the ACLU Coalition in August of 2004.  The coalition now operates in 50 states and many foreign countries. Mr. Kareiva has a degree in Biblical studies, and he has served as the associate director of the Christian Broadcasting Network's Chicago counseling center. 

 

 

MICHAEL WESTFALL:

I would like to welcome you to The American Conservative and thank you for your participation in this interview. You are the head of a very important coalition that is addressing a very powerful organization. Can you give us a little history of your background and tell us what inspired you to become active in this essential work?  

NEDD KAREIVA:

Michael, I am honored to be a contributor to The American Conservative.  Thank you for your trust and kind words for us.  It means a lot.

As you pointed out earlier, I am a Bible school graduate (1982), served as associate director of the 700 Club counseling center in the early to mid 80s.  From that point on, I worked in the courier industry as a driver and driver manager.  I was also in the real estate and mortgage businesses for almost 7 years and also worked with the city of Chicago for almost 4 years.  I was also a lay minister, follow up worker and singles director of a church I attended for over 9 years.

I initially got online in August of 2001.  A little over a year later, I began the web site (currently still active, though not updated) www.seatbeltchoice.com/home and activated the Seat Belt Choice Coalition.  I heard testimonials of people who were pulled over for simply not buckling up and read cases of people who were harmed by a seat belt.  I wanted to give such individuals a voice.  I was happy doing what I was doing, exposing the fraud of seat belt laws as enacted by government entities and providing a voice of support on the Internet for those who were injured by seat belts or victims of unnecessary tickets for simply not buckling up.  I also began to write a book on this issue, something I still plan to do, God willing

While actively monitoring the Internet for seat belt issues and stories and doing what I could to expose the fraud and lies, as a pro-life Christian, I always had an interest in cultural issues.  I began to find out the sources where I could go to get news on abortion, the homosexual agenda and other cultural items.  I had a deep hunger to get the latest on the news.  The Internet became a beautiful thing to me.

During the course of events, I would read items about the American Civil Liberties Union suing to remove a cross or a plaque of the 10 Commandments.  Early on, I identified the ACLU as an organization that constantly sued to sanitize America of religious symbols.  I never believed the ACLU was any good but also never knew the scope of how bad this organization was until I continued to read about these lawsuits.  I didn’t want to stop doing Seat Belt Choice.  But I was terribly troubled by the ACLU’s actions.

So while I was very content running my other site and interacting with visitors and supporters, I was quite concerned that there was no group taking on the ACLU directly.  I was aware of legal groups countering them in court but I could not find anyone taking them on in the public awareness arena.  I know certain organizations like Coral Ridge Ministries and Focus on the Family would make the ACLU part of their battle plans but none, to my knowledge, solely concentrated on the ACLU.  And though I was hesitant to take on another web site, I came to the conclusion that if it was meant to be, it’s up to me.

By early summer of 2004, I could no longer stomach these ACLU suits.  And though the domains of stoptheaclu.COM and .NET were taken, to my surprise, .ORG was not. As a result, I quickly purchased this domain.  And without much technical experience, I began the website in August of 2004.  And when World Net Daily did a story on us in November of that year, the flood of e-mails we got told me we were on to something.  I knew I would never be the same.  And from then, the Coalition started to take root.

MW:

Would you explain just what the Stop the ACLU Coalition goals are? 

NK:

In short, the goal of the Coalition is to put the ACLU out of business.  To do so, I believe there are three objectives that must be achieved (1) to create massive public awareness across America that the ACLU is not a civil rights organization but an advocacy group of evil and immorality that must be done away with, thus forcing the people to revolt against them (2) to get its donors, individual and corporate, and supporters to cease underwriting their existence because without money, the ACLU cannot exist and (3) to get the ACLU out of the public school system because one of their main objectives is to create a society of godless men and women.  And this will they do as long as they sue them and get school officials to adopt their agenda.

There are other means by which we want to render the ACLU irrelevant in America but I am convinced that huge public awareness campaigns, drying up their financial support and removing their influence in our schools will ultimately bankrupt them.    

MW:

Many Americans have no idea of just how involved the ACLU is with the cultural issues. The ACLU has represented people and groups relative to abortion on demand, same sex marriage, pornography, gay Boy Scout leaders, NAMBLA, (the Man/Boy Love Association) and other similar issues.

If you want to negatively change the culture going forward, you rob school children of their faith and their sense of morality. This will change the culture. The ACLU states that they are neither for or against religion yet they work to remove the Christian faith from the public schools, even on the students free time.

Elsewhere they clearly target highly charged anti-biblical issues for their lawsuits, such as their legal action for the removal of 10 Commandment plaques and prayer in public areas.

Could you expand upon these issues for our readers and give an overview for what it all means for our culture going forward? 

NK:

Clearly these are issues every American needs to be concerned about, Michael.  As I originally stated, one of my purposes is to get the American people to no longer think of the ACLU as a civil liberties organization but a criminal libertine one.

The project we are introducing, as borne out in objective #3 above and addressed in more detail later in this interview, is one to neutralize and preferably abolish the influence of the ACLU in our public schools.  They have a stranglehold on the school system and school officials in many school districts across America, though heavily so on the East and West Coasts.  It is up to us to do what we can to stop it.  And the chief way of doing so will be getting the public and more specifically, the parents to take authority over the schools which they should since as taxpayers, they are funding them.  And if they can’t do so, then they need to get their children out.

While the ACLU indeed claims schools should be neutral about religion, it is very clear that they have targeted the Christian religion.  The suits against school officials to sanitize their schools of anything religious could fill up pages and pages.

One illustration where the ACLU’s silence was deafening concerned a junior high school in California in 2002 where a 7th grade class was being taught about Islam.  Students were instructed to adopt Muslim customs and wear Muslim garb.  Almost anyone would know if the Christian faith were substituted for the Muslim religion, a hornet’s nest of ACLU attorneys would descend on the school.  Parents complained about the class but the ACLU was nowhere to be found.  Even the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State couldn’t stay silent and condemned the class.  But not the ACLU.

More details about our efforts in the public schools will follow later in this interview.

But back to your question here.  We have to reach large segments of Americans who, as I noted, currently and primarily equate the ACLU with civil liberties.  The ACLU’s positions on abortion, same sex marriage, pornography, taking God out of everything, including the Pledge of Allegiance, and the fights to remove prayer and religious symbols are well known for people who will simply take the time to go online to read them.  The ACLU doesn’t hide them.  Their press releases make it quite clear, even if they obfuscate the terminology in the process.  A little due diligence will educate the average Internet news aficionado.  Simply going to Google, Yahoo or MSN’s search engines to seek out this information is half the battle.

What should outrage most Americans and what angers me the most about the ACLU is how they will sue to get their agenda enforced in America.  It does not matter to them how heavy the opposition is.  For example, when 139 out of 140 Virginia lawmakers voted to pass legislation two years ago to restrict teens from visiting nudist clubs without parental accompaniment, the ACLU sued to overturn it.  This is one example of where the ACLU is out of order with the bulk of Americans.

Also two years ago, citizens in the state of Michigan used a clause in their state constitution to overcome a gubernatorial veto on a bill passed by the legislature to ban partial birth abortion.  They went out and obtained a quota of resident signatures as required by their constitution.  When the revote took place, the partial birth bill passed the legislature again and automatically became law.  The ACLU sued the state on behalf of the abortion industry to thwart the will of the people.

In 2000, the citizens of Nebraska passed by a 70% margin a state marriage amendment that affirms marriage as between one man and one woman.  A group of homosexual activists used the ACLU to overturn state law.  After a lower court decision striking down the amendment, an appeals court overturned the lower court ruling and affirmed it.

The ACLU has filed similar suits in other marriage cases, virtually all of them being rejected.  But like all of their cases, they went to the courts to get their will approved.  Thankfully, most of these judges didn’t see it the ACLU’s way.

Last year, a federal judge approved an ACLU lawsuit against the Speaker of the House of the Indiana to stop prayer in their general assembly.  The House in a resolution voted unanimously to condemn the ACLU suit and to support a full court press to appeal the lower court decision.  And in a poll on the web site of the Indianapolis Star, 88% of the voters in that poll supported the legislature’s decision to fight the ACLU suit.  But the ACLU of Indiana didn’t care.  

Seeing as the ACLU has feverishly worked to overturn the will of the people via the courts on these moral issues, I believe the time is come for Congress and state lawmakers to examine laws on their books to see if there might be a case for citizens to file class action suits against the ACLU violating the civil rights of the voter or perhaps even the elected representatives of the people.  If not, I’m convinced that legislation is needed for Americans to sue the ACLU when the group files litigation to overturn citizen enacted laws and amendments.  The ACLU must not be allowed to thwart the will of the voters without facing severe repercussions.  We anticipate a discussion of this matter with certain lawyers and lawmakers to see if there is currently any merit to such litigation and whether such legislation can be passed.    
 
MW:

What types of activities does the Stop the ACLU Coalition participate in? What kinds of information do you make available? 

NK:

Our top “activity”, if you will, besides our new initiative in the public schools, is getting Stop the ACLU state coordinators in every state. In order to be effective, we must have strong leadership.  We need someone in every state to know what the ACLU is all about, what positions they take, what cases they are taking on in that person’s state and to develop a strategy of exposing the ACLU’s agenda in that state.  This could take many forms but depending on what the ACLU may be doing, here are a few ways we currently look to counter their agenda:

1.    Protest at state ACLU’s headquarters or if they are having a dinner or other event, to provide picketers who will expose the ACLU and provide information to passersby on what the organization is all about.

2.    When an issue of morality is about to have a negative effect, we will rally churches and people of faith together by mailings and phone calls and organizing public awareness campaigns.

3.    When the ACLU “rides into town” to a college or some other public venue to conduct a public forum, the Coalition wants to, whenever possible, to provide a speaker to counter the ACLU’s side.

4.    Conducting seminars at churches and other places to inform the public what the ACLU is all about, how this organization is having an adverse effect on them and what they can do to thwart it.

5.    Talking about the Coalition and the ACLU on radio stations across America and online and sharing our vision this way.  And one of our goals is to get on a major TV show where the host publicly expresses his or her disdain for the ACLU.  And one such show is Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor hosted by Bill O’Reilly.  And if readers would like to see us on his show, they should e-mail Bill at oreilly@foxnews.com and express their sentiments.

As for information we make available, we provide on our website, through the articles written, analyses of various ACLU lawsuits, some of which you will not find on other sites.  We want the people who come to our site to know that they should support the good legal groups like the Alliance Defense Fund and the American Center for Law & Justice who take on the ACLU in court.  We want them to be able to access petitions and information that they can deliver to their elected officials to neutralize the ACLU effect on America.  And most importantly, they can play a role in directly confronting the ACLU in their communities by joining us as a state or county coordinator, mailing our letters to churches, handing out flyers, picketing ACLU activities, researching ACLU cases and other ways, including our pending new school project. 

MW:

The ACLU states they are neither liberal nor conservative and that their clients are neither a person nor an organization, but the Bill of Rights. Are they being confusingly deceptive? Have they redefined the Bill of Rights to suit their own purposes? 

NK:

Those are good questions, Michael, and have many sides to them.  As to being neither liberal nor conservative, perhaps we should change the term “liberal” to progressive and “conservative” to originalist.  Liberal views change with the times, thus the term “progressive”; conservative views do not change with time, thus the term “originalist”. 

One prime example of a “progressive” or liberal doctrine that clearly did not exist in centuries past was same sex marriage.  It is true that homosexuality was practiced in society prior to the last 3 or 4 decades.  Its earliest appearance was in the book of Genesis with Sodom and Gomorrah and has continued up to our day.  But the majority of society never publicly embraced this behavior.  It was shunned and scorned and such individuals were still “in the closet”.  And no one ever mentioned “marriage” among homosexuals.

But this new “phenomenon” has reared its ugly head, thanks to the likes of certain militant homosexual activist groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.  And to achieve so-called “marriage”, these groups developed an alliance with the ACLU and Lambda Legal to do something the public never supported, fight for the “right” of two men or two women to marry each other.

While the ACLU has been unsuccessful, with very few exceptions, in foisting this aspect of their agenda on the people through our courts, it cannot be disputed that this “marriage” position they have taken is indeed liberal or “progressive”.  It’s certainly not conservative or “originalist” as this did not exist in centuries past.     

When it comes to being deceptive, the ACLU is the master of it.  And one book I recommend your readers get is The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, managing editor of World Net Daily.  This book truly shows illustrations how evil was sold into good by disguising and retranslating various vocabulary terms,

We see how homosexual marriage is redefined as an “alternative lifestyle” and to deny someone the right to “marry” someone of their own gender amounts to “unfairness”.  Abortion is disguised as “a woman’s right to control her own body”.  Pornography is considered “free speech” or “_expression” under the 1st Amendment.  Denying the right to view porn is called “censorship”.  And perhaps the most egregious and bastardized _expression the likes of the ACLU have sold as a bill of goods to America, and to be, as you put it, confusingly deceptive is the phrase “separation of church and state”.

The ACLU and similar groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), People for the (Anti) American Way and Freedom From Religion Foundation have chanted the mantra “separation of church and state” to the point many Americans believe it exists.  And such reminds me of the saying that if you keep repeating a lie over and over, people will eventually believe it.  And the public has bought this one, lock, stock and barrel.  But they don’t know that this phrase is located nowhere in the Constitution, which contains the Bill of Rights, which is composed of the first 10 Amendments.

In my opinion, the ACLU wouldn’t know the Bill of Rights if it bit them.  They have successfully conveyed to large segments of Americans that under the 1st Amendment, religion is to be excluded from the schoolhouse.  They may admit that a student has a right to pray but not a teacher or school official.  Such a claim is utterly absurd as it states “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  There is no provision that excludes public school teachers, administrators or for that matter, any government official in any part of government.

The translation is very simple.  Congress cannot establish a national religion BUT neither can it prohibit the free exercise of one’s moral conscience.  In the ACLU’s eyes, a public official’s _expression of his or her faith is to be checked at the door of any government facility.  That is clearly as bogus as a $9 bill.  The Founding Fathers would be aghast that this is being perpetuated throughout America at the behest of the ACLU.

The 2nd Amendment is another one the ACLU has distorted, though it is not as well widely known.  The ACLU would have you believe that only the militia or military have the right to own guns.  But a simple understanding of this amendment, along with the practice of our Founding Fathers, shows the ACLU’s position is antithetical to the Constitution and of course, gun right supporters. 

Gun control is by and large a liberal position, or progressive, considering this in another “evolved” concept.  The ACLU adopts this position in violation of the Bill of Rights it claims to support.

About 3 years ago shortly after I began the aforementioned Seat Belt Choice site, an ACLU supporter wrote me at my other website to say he received a seat belt ticket.  He contacted the local ACLU chapter and told him the ACLU doesn’t defend seat belt tickets.  And herein lies the 4th Amendment which the ACLU chose not to defend – “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall NOT be violated. 

While there are many people who believe one should wear a seat belt, many of these same folks believe it is inappropriate, if not unreasonable, to stop a car because an occupant was unbuckled.  As such, if the ACLU was really concerned about civil rights violations under its name, it should come to the aid of such individuals under the 4th Amendment.  However, when an organization is more concerned stopping public officials and Americans from praying and exercising and displaying religious _expression than fighting for what is arguably a civil right (the decision to determine what safety measures one should or should not take, in this case, seat belt use), that should tell you what goals the ACLU has in mind for us and America.

MW:

What is the real agenda of the ACLU? Can you give our readers some insight as to why the ACLU is traveling down the path that they have chosen?

NK:

I am convinced the ACLU is fulfilling the Communist agenda that I outlined in my piece The ACLU & Communism: What’s the Difference.  I would encourage your readers to go to my website at www.stoptheaclu.org and scroll down to this item.  It is rather long but after reading it, they will go away with the knowledge that the ACLU is a front for Communism.  They may not see it in terms of old Soviet Union Communism but in what I would consider the new Communism that is infinitely more dangerous, radical Islam.

The ACLU wants to litigate to create a godless society without restrictions.  To see what they have sued to prevent or support is frightening.  To sue to ensure that all abortion is available without restriction, including the barbaric “procedure” of partial birth abortion, is chilling.  To say marriage should be between anyone and any numbers of people, is to create a society of all relationships being equal, thus leading to chaos.  To claim that any form of pornography should be available to anyone without any restrictions is dangerous since sexual abuse and other crimes often emanate from the viewing of such.  To support unrestricted and illegal immigration for anyone outside our borders is promoting anarchy.

I tend to trend Libertarian in my views.  I believe the primary purpose of government is to protect the American people from terrorism and crime.  I also believe the government must protect the unborn.  But beyond those principles and those laid out in the Bill of Rights, I believe government should largely stay out of our lives. 

Yet when the ACLU continually sues the government in favor of radical Islam and illegal immigration, let alone to produce the above vices, I truly am frightened for our future.  The government has an obligation to protect its citizens from evil.  The protection of unborn children from the slaughter of abortion is, I believe, a legitimate function of government.  The ACLU by its lawsuits says it is not. 

When reasonable restrictions are enacted by cities and towns to restrict pornography and adult cabarets and the likes of the ACLU sue to allow unrestricted practice of such, it sends a subtle message that crime and sexual abuse of women are legitimate.  Such is frightening. 

I believe anarchy is indeed one of the goals of the ACLU – all practices and actions of anyone are good and must not be stifled.  If anyone doubts that, why does the ACLU relentlessly sue to remove the 10 Commandments, which is the foundation for moral law?  The ACLU says it’s OK to kill the unborn, to dishonor parents by saying they have no right to tell their teens they can’t have an abortion or participate in a so-called Gay/Straight Alliance, and that it’s OK to commit adultery with your neighbor’s spouse – all directly in opposition to the Decalogue.  Can anyone argue that these examples serve to demonstrate the ACLU’s position of creating a godless society?

The ACLU gets lots of funding from foundations like Rockefeller, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, Packard and others.  They also get plenty of money from Hollywood and their rich celebrities, not to mention many wealthy law firms across America who will do their bidding in the courtrooms.  Abortionists and pornographers like Larry Flynt of Hustler, not to mention militant homosexual groups, also contribute to the ACLU.

And since money frequently drives public policy, is it not hard to see how the ACLU fits into the scheme of all the above groups and organizations.

I also believe one other goal of the ACLU is to infiltrate and control the private sector as well as the churches.  This is very dangerous as it means the government and government institutions are not solely their target. We’ve seen the ACLU sue Catholic Charities of California and gain a judgment against them for not providing contraceptive coverage for employees.  They are suing a Catholic school in New York for dismissing a pregnant teacher.  They sued a chain of Southern grocers for terminating a cross dresser.  They sued a Jewish university for denying two lesbians coed housing.  And Georgia’s ACLU is suing Wal-Mart for going after someone allegedly infringing one of its trademarks.

In the state of Maryland, the ACLU has managed to enlist a group of liberal ministers to be part of their current lawsuit against the state’s traditional marriage laws.  They have co-opted with liberal denominations to defend their positions in favor of abortion, same sex marriage and evolution.  And ACLU’s chapters often meet at ultra liberal Unitarian-Universalist Churches across America, though many people do not consider the UUC a religious entity or organization.

While the ACLU largely ignores Congress and state legislatures to achieve its agenda, they have been known to work their way thru them as well.  One such example, which has affected American businesses, is their support of sexual orientation laws.  The ACLU of Illinois, California and Oregon, for example, has influenced state legislators to pass laws protecting cross dressers, transsexuals, homosexuals and other sexually misguided and perverse people from discrimination in employment, even among Christian businesses and Christian churches.  Such have caused angst among those whose moral values oppose these behaviors but who hesitate to challenge them for fear of severe financial penalties and even jail time.      

When a group like the ACLU can not only gain influence in government through our courts but also infiltrate the private sector and churches, it sends a dangerous message to America.  And if we look at one of the goals of Communism, that being the control of businesses, it’s not a stretch to see the ACLU involved.

MW:

How involved is the ACLU in public school issues like the forced teaching of evolution, sex education that includes teachings on abortion, and creating special alliances that bring Gay and Straight children together?

NK:

We have seen this occur in schools across America, though more so heavily in states like Massachusetts, New York, California, Oregon and Washington state.  One of the goals of Communism, as I identified in my article referred to earlier, is to gain control of the schools.  And that the ACLU has done with unfortunate success.

Since evolution, abortion, so-called comprehensive sex education and so-called Gay/Straight Alliances fly in the face of Christian values and even among not so religious Americans, the ACLU has taken these issues and used laws to their advantage in the public schools.

One of the problems with abolishing or preventing Gay/Straight Alliances (GSA) is due to the so-called Equal Access law.  This basically states that if one after-school club is permitted to meet, so must a GSA.  The ACLU has used this law to bully schools located in conservative areas or with traditional values administrators to accept these clubs or face expensive taxpayer-funded litigation if they don’t.  And if a school decides to ban a GSA or similarly named club altogether, they will face the ACLU in court as well.  And schools in Georgia and North Carolina have experienced this.

The way to resolve this issue is to reform the law so that GSA’s are considered as sex clubs and health risks.  There is plenty of evidence that these clubs are not just about meeting and discussing bullying matters but about promoting homosexuality and gathering at locations where the practice of such behavior occurs.  The ACLU will deny this until they’re blue in the face but that is indeed why they exist. 

A troubling case occurred in Boyd County, KY a couple years ago.  A few students at the high school wanted to organize a GSA and the school balked.  The ACLU sued and got a judge to not only permit the club but to have a so-called tolerance training film students could not opt out of.  However, this did not sit well with this religiously conservative community.  Ministers and citizens mobilized to make their voices known how they felt about the ACLU and the homosexual agenda and nearly half the student body walked out after the ruling.  The ACLU was not happy about it and threatened school officials if they didn’t rectify it.

The troubling aspect was that this training was not about so-called tolerance but the acceptance of homosexuality.  The Alliance Defense Fund is now litigating the case against the school regarding the training on behalf of a few parents.

The ACLU has worked to eliminate the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools, claiming such is an endorsement of religion.  They litigated a high profile case in the Dover, PA school district last year and have been involved in other states, including Kansas, all making this claim.  To say that such teaching is tantamount to an endorsement of religion is not only a stretch but really amounts to censorship.  Accordingly, if the ACLU opposes teaching creation but supports the transmission of pornography, two deductions can be made (1) the ACLU supports a secular atheist agenda and (2) the ACLU supports one-sided curricula. 

It also flies in the face of its support of comprehensive sex education.  The ACLU doesn’t seem to have a problem with abstinence being taught with condom-based education but it opposes creation being taught with evolution.  Where’s the consistency?

So the answer to your question is that the ACLU is very involved in infiltrating our public schools, heavily on the East and West Coasts and will continue to do so until enough parents and school officials speak out and take a stance against the ACLU.

MW:

Is your coalition launching efforts that will weaken the ACLU’s influence in the public school system? Could you explain? 

NK:

The timing of your question is most interesting, Michael.  Since we believe that it is absolutely essential to decimate the ACLU’s influence in public schools and one of our three goals is to do just that, we just began a new project (briefly addressed earlier) that we hope will have such an effect.

Across the country, there is a spirited debate as to whether to remove students from public schools and put them in private or religious schools or home school them, or to keep them in the schools, making the claim that since the taxpayers pay for their existence, they should fight to take them back.  Both claims have merits.

However, in terms of dealing with the ACLU, we believe that whenever possible, parents should pull their children out.  We strongly support this effort especially in California where the ACLU has infested school curricula across the state with comprehensive sex education and the homosexual agenda, as well as Massachusetts.  A bill recently signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger dictates that colleges which accept federal aid must embrace a wide variety of sexually bizarre behaviors.  The troubling aspect of it is that there was no exemption made for Christian and other religious institutions.      

The signing of this bill, along with previously passed legislation endorsing aberrant sexual behaviors, does not bode well for people of faith and is an indicator of things to come concerning our schools.  And organizations like the ACLU will zero on them like an infestation of termites and take action if something is out of line.

One of our faithful supporters, Mission America, recently instituted a risk assessment program for public schools across the country to determine which schools and districts are promoting the homosexual agenda and aberrant sex programs.  The Coalition will soon introduce similar efforts to ascertain the ACLU’s involvement in three areas - the homosexual agenda, comprehensive sex education and evolution.  However, we may look at any current or past ties with the Boy Scouts, which, as many of your readers know, have faced onslaughts of ACLU legal attacks for rejecting atheist and homosexual Scoutmasters.  

We are looking for serious individuals to get involved in this effort.  We do not have all the specifics of how we will go about it and even when we do, we will of necessity have to limit what we say online about our strategies in order to keep the opposition (the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, GLSEN, etc.) from fully knowing what we endeavor to do.

However, one item we will work on putting together is a database of parents of public school children.  They will sign a form of commitment to mobilize on a moment’s notice if an ACLU issue arises (most likely promoting homosexuality or comprehensive sex education) in the school.  We will consider various options of action if such happens, including the possibility of permanently removing that child from the school

Those who are interested in participating in this project or who want to do online research as to locating problem school districts and ACLU agendas should contact me at info@stoptheaclu.org for an application and interview.

It is important for people to get involved in this effort.  Groups like GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) along with the ACLU have descended on our schools to promote the sexual garbage they are promoting in the name of tolerance.  And what is frightening is that these groups have not only penetrated the public school system but private and religious schools as well.  To illustrate that, one only need to visit the web site of GLSEN’s Day of Silence 2005 (2006 was not posted online) to see a small, yet significant number of non-public schools that participated in this annual propaganda.

The ACLU will deny that they are involved in controlling private and religious schools, however, since they sue public schools that wish to thwart GLSEN’s agenda and given these other schools’ support of GLSEN, we believe there are elements of the ACLU in these non-public schools as well.  And a small but important part of our project will be undertaking an effort to determine any traces of the ACLU in them.

We hope your readers will join us in this effort. 

MW:

PERA, (the Public _Expression of Religion Act), is directed at the likes of the ACLU to curb them from obtaining taxpayer money relative to their participation in cases, such as the removal of religious symbols and plaques of the 10 Commandments. All of the ACLU lawsuits are very expensive to our nation. Are taxpayers not only paying for the attorneys who fight these ACLU lawsuits, but are American taxpayers in some cases also being forced to pay the ACLU for their legal costs? Could you explain more about this issue and this bill? 

NK:

Taxpayers are indeed shelling out major bucks to the ACLU and their affiliated attorneys when a 10 Commandments case or religious symbols case comes before the courts as well as legal costs incurred.  We have to remember that when a city, county or state pays the likes of the ACLU or AU for legal fees, they are not paying them out of their own pockets.  They do so with our tax dollars which is offensive to majorities of Americans.

There are people out there who oppose religious displays on public property the same way there are people who support abortion on demand.  But what divides these people from others more radical is that these folks believe that taxpayer money should not be used to fight these cultural wars.  They believe that individuals should pay their own way to litigate.  They may support, albeit reluctantly, taxpayer dollars to fight the suits.  But they don’t support the taxpayers covering the litigators’ costs.

There is no other area of law permitting individuals or groups to sue simply because someone was offended by seeing something.  Lawsuits have always been prefaced on the condition that in order to obtain court ordered relief, the affected individual has to prove tangible harm from someone. No atheist or agnostic can prove such hurt by displays of crosses and the 10 Commandments.  They may not like what they see but such does not qualify for removal from public view.

A significant court decision occurred in December of 2005 when the 6th District Court of Appeals ruled against the ACLU in Mercer County, KY vs. ACLU.  This ruling is considered a bellwether for other cases concerning displays of the 10 Commandments.  This court told the ACLU that their arguments for sanitizing America of the Decalogue and crosses “had grown tiresome” and that “the 1st Amendment does not demand a wall of separation of church and state.  We believe this ruling may have set in motion for Congress to take up PERA for a vote.  

What the PERA bill does (HB 2679, sponsored by Congressman John Hostettler and SB 3696, sponsored by U.S. Senator Sam Brownback) is take the profit motive out of suing to remove our precious religious symbols.  It is far from a perfect bill.  A better bill would be to include a “loser pays” clause so that if the likes of the ACLU wanted to take up a case like this, they would have to agree to reimburse (preferably with an additional penalty) the government entity they have sued for legal costs incurred.  An even better bill would be to reform suits around the Establishment Clause to prevent the likes of the ACLU from suing to begin with, an idea originated by Mat Staver of the public interest law firm, Liberty Counsel.  Since there is indeed no other area of law whereby visual offense can translate into a lawsuit, reforming this area of law should be a no-brainer.

But the current bill is a good start.  And it’s important to remember that although the likes of the ACLU are howling about this legislation, the fact is the money they will otherwise lose if PERA becomes law is relatively insignificant.  They ACLU will still be collecting support from their foundations, Hollywood and their estimated 500,000+ donors.

The reason the ACLU has been able to collect attorney fees in these cases is due to the Civil Rights of Act of 1976.  The legislation was designed for poor people and those considered having little or no political clout to sue a government entity if they believed their civil rights were violated.  It was never created for the likes of the ACLU to sue to remove religious displays.  But the ACLU exploited an area in the legislation to greatly expand its already seemingly bottomless pockets and in the process, sterilize America from the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

The Stop the ACLU Coalition fully backs this legislation.

MW:

All of us that raise these moral and cultural issues receive an enormous amount of irreverent criticism and verbal assaults on the web from the supporters of those we discuss. What do you make of these people?

NK:

As the founder and director of the Coalition and this website, I have dealt with many of these people.  Many of them like to say the ACLU would defend me if my civil rights were violated.  Some of them like to point out a list of 30-40 cases whereby the ACLU defended Christians.  Those cases are most definitely true but they have to be weighed against the many cases where the ACLU has wreaked legal havoc against people of faith. And when you consider that the ACLU files approximately 6000 suits a year, those cases where Christians were supposedly defended, the numbers are extremely miniscule, like 1/1000th of 1%, if that.

Most of these critics are individuals who refuse to hear about the radical cases the ACLU has taken on.  When I bring up the NAMBLA case, for example, which is still in the courts, these people are often resigned to admitting the ACLU shouldn’t have taken it.  Yet they will somehow find a way to tout how the ACLU defends everyone.  Well, the ACLU doesn’t defend everyone and it is impossible for that organization to substantiate that claim. 

The NAMBLA case is most interesting, however, because it is rather graphic, I won’t delve into it.  Readers who want to know more should Google this information. However, the ACLU states on one of its web pages that while they don’t support the actions of NAMBLA, they call their advocacy of sex between adults and boys “robust free speech”.  This can easily be explained by pointing out that encouraging individuals to break the law is not a protected form of free speech.

Another way we deal with these ACLU supporters is by pointing out some of the more absurd positions and statements of the ACLU.  For example, the ACLU has stated on various web pages that promoting abstinence education in public schools is “harmful” and “dangerous”.  That one is hard for ACLU supporters to debunk and most of the time when one of their supporters is asked to defend that, they don’t bother to reply.  The reason is that they can’t.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  A high school student can adequately refute that example.

One more nutty statement from the ACLU’s website is telling parents they shouldn’t be notified if they have a daughter who wants to obtain an abortion.  Statements like these not only show how absurd the ACLU’s claims are but they demonstrate their contempt for the traditional family.  Unfortunately, however, many of the ACLU’s supporters embrace this position.  Fortunately, the majority of Americans don’t, even those who support abortion.

Overall, ACLU backers who criticize and attack what we stand for cannot articulate a good case for their organization.  We’ve been called everything in the book but virtually no one can counter what we tied the ACLU to.

MW:

You and your coalition have stepped into the public eye to address one of America’s most controversial organizations. It has taken an amazing amount of backbone, effort and moral conviction to do so. Where would you like to take Stop the ACLU going forward?

Also are there any other points, issues or comments that you would like to make or address? 

NK:

Thank you, Michael, for your support of what we are doing.  I’m deeply honored for you taking the time to interview me.  However, for me, taking on the ACLU is a no-brainer, despite its vast resources.  The ACLU is as radical as they come.  Their statements and positions would be laughable if they didn’t have the money and support that they have. As such, the organization is extremely dangerous.  But despite the odds, I believe the ACLU can be conquered.  If David can do so to Goliath, so can we to them.  I believe nothing is impossible with God if the people get behind us and mobilize.

One thing I am passionate about is the truth.  I will never compromise or sell it out.  The ACLU stands for everything that is evil, unhealthy and ungodly.  They want abortion and pornography without restrictions.  They want same sex marriage and to push the unhealthy and unnatural homosexual lifestyle on young impressionable children.  They want our Judeo-Christian principles eradicated in our schools and government.  They want to see public (and even private) expressions of religion to be extinct.  They want our borders to be porous and illegal aliens to come thru unabated.  They want to undermine our national security by providing legal counsel to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and challenge our government’s right to obtain intelligence to thwart them. 

    

And we’re not going to sit by and do nothing while they push this trash.  We’re going to picket them at their offices and events they appear.  We’re going to push for legislation like PERA to reduce and hopefully eliminate their influence in society.  We’re going to debate them at public forums.  We’re working hard to convince their supporters that the ACLU is not a civil rights organization but an advocacy group for evil.  We’re working hard to pry their financial supporters away.  We’re continuing to support the law firms defeating them in court.  We’re going to remove their influence in our public schools.

 

In short, we’re going to do everything lawful and tangible that we can to end the existence of the ACLU.  And we need the help of patriotic Americans across the fruited plain to do it.  And if you are inclined to help us, either by working with us or by donating to us, we would be honored to hear from you today.  We desperately need your support to achieve these objectives.

Thank you and God bless you and God bless America.

MW:

 Nedd, I want to thank you so much for participating in this interview. Your answers will speak volumes to those who want to know about you and the importance of the Stop the ACLU Coalition.

…………………………………………………………………………….

 

STOP THE ACLU ADDRESS & CONTACT INFO

Stop the ACLU Coalition
6000 S. Central, #8
Chicago, IL  60638

www.stoptheaclu.org
info@stoptheaclu.org

 

 


 


 

LABOR PHOTOS | ABOUTFAITH


COPYRIGHT 2005 - 2013 | WEB SITE EDITOR FRITZ WAKEFIELD | OCTOBER 15, 2005