Nedd Kareiva

Nedd Kareiva

Nedd Kareiva is a 45 year old man from Chicago who began the Stop the ACLU web site in August of 2004. His background is varied which includes a degree in Biblical studies. He once served as the associate director of the Christian Broadcasting Network's Chicago counseling center when such centers were operating in major cities across America. He also spent 6+ years in real estate and mortgages and also worked for the city of Chicago for 3 1/2 years. He served as the singles director in the 1990s for a church in southwest Chicago. He has a 9 year old son with Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism.

In addition, Nedd was a professional Scrabble player who played in many tournaments (and won a few) from across the Midwest for approximately 13 years, between 1992 & 2005. At one point, he was in the top 150 players in North America, according to the National Scrabble Association.

Nedd got involved in political issues back in the early 90s when his mother and late stepdad took an active position in the pro-life movement. They were pro-life activists and even went to jail for their stances. Thanks to them and a church willing to deal with issues, his political involvement began to set in motion.

When Nedd first got online in August of 2001, he knew things were in the moral arena were bad but not to the extent he soon found out. When he started reading information about what the ACLU was doing and supporting in America, he could not believe that there were people litigating for homosexual marriage, abortion without restrictions, removals of the 10 Commandments nationwide and banning all public prayer. He already set up a web site to deal with unconstitutional seat belt laws and was hesitant to begin another web site. However, while he saw that there were good legal groups willing to take on the ACLU, he saw little effort to tackle the ACLU in other ways and wanted to do something about it. He wanted to start a large public awareness campaign to expose the ACLU's agenda on a wide scale. On August 29th of 2004, he began the Stop the ACLU Coalition.

As of 10/2005, the Stop the ACLU Coalition has over 1500 members and supporters in its database with people from all 50 states and roughly a dozen foreign countries and looking to grow significantly more.

Nedd is a combination Libertarian/Constitutionalist who believes in strictly Constitutional government. He believes the government is intruding where it has no Constitutional authority to do so like public education, Medicare, prescription drugs, seat belt laws, our tax system and pork barrel spending. He also believe Washington is not addressing Constitutionally permitted avenues such as the protection of the unborn, the protection of religious speech under the 1st Amendment, the securing of our borders from illegals and terrorists, and the necessity of Congress to correct judicial errors and align our courts accordingly to Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. He believes taxpayer funding of the ACLU through our courts needs to be promptly addressed and rectified. More

Stop the ACLU Coalition

Stop The ACLU BlogBurst

Stop THE ACLU Newsletter

Defining moments in ACLU history

Nedd Kareiva
April 23, 2006

Words mean things, a former boss of mine used to tell me. Or do they?

If you're Bill Clinton, it's conditional. It could depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

And if you're the ACLU, words could mean anything. Read their press releases, listen to their lawyers and staff at the microphone and you would come away thinking that only they know the Constitution and good public policy for America. But you would also see how they make the evil, disgusting and gruesome to be palatable and innocuous.

When it comes to abortion, those of us who have been fighting to see it banned in America know the terms the pro-abortion crowd and their ACLU allies concocted decades ago to take the sting and stigma out of it. "Baby" was reduced to "fetus" to "product of conception." Killing an unborn child was reduced to "a woman's right to choose" or "a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor" or "a woman's right to privacy."

In March of 2004, lawsuits generated by the abortion industry and the ACLU in response to Congressional passage and President Bush's signature of a ban on partial birth abortion triggered what perhaps has been to date the most brutally fought cultural battle in America's courts. Incredibly graphic testimony erupted in New York, California and Nebraska where the cases were heard. Though this information needs to be read and digested to understand what abortion truly is, for the sake of readers perusing this piece, I will avoid the most of the gruesome details — except for the one word indelibly was placed in the minds of pro-life activists forever.

That one word is "disarticulate."

Most educated people know the word "articulate" to mean speaking distinctly and intelligibly. However, some may not know that an alternate definition identifies it, per Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "to unite by means of a joint."

"Disarticulate" thus means "to disjoint." The word was used in all three court cases. The ACLU was counsel in the Nebraska case. To read more, click this link http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:lBH2JAmunL4J:www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/pba/Trialupdate4-2.pdf+disarticulate+ACLU+abortion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=12 (warning: barbaric in description — and of course, the act).

The term forever altered our cultural landscape. It is one seldom heard outside of this battle except perhaps in other medical circles. Whether the ACLU was responsible for introducing this term in the partial birth debate is open to conjecture but the fact the word was used in the testimony of Nebraska abortionists clearly ties the ACLU to it.

Thus the word "disarticulate" was a defining moment for the ACLU.

In debates over assisted suicide, the ACLU has innoculated the term by disguising it as "personal autonomy" and "bodily integrity" http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1996/23013prs19970626.html. A more recent term has been "personal end of life decisions" http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/23511prs20060117.html.

The fact the ACLU "hailed" this decision which was called "sweet" by the ACLU of Oregon's executive director is also noteworthy of its love affair with death which I wrote in an earlier piece http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kareiva/060202.

The ACLU's terminology is similar to that of groups like the Hemlock Society which was later named Compassion in Dying and then to Compassion and Choices.

You see, words mean things — except to groups like the ACLU.

Perhaps this is a good time to order your book The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, managing editor at World Net Daily. He points out how groups like the ACLU have camouflaged evil as something to be desired and not shunned.

OK, wait til you finish reading this piece before going ordering your copy.

Another area where the ACLU paints smiley faces over evil is in its defense and promotion of homosexual issues, including same sex marriage and adoption. You'll never hear the ACLU point out the dangerous practices of homosexuals of which you can read the truth on web sites like www.theroadtoemmaus.org.

But like abortion and euthanasia, the ACLU pushes the envelope by coding terms such as "fairness" and "equality" into its promotion of homosexual rights.

You would think the ACLU hadn't read the Declaration of Independence in which it says "All men (and women) are created equal." Our Founding Fathers didn't single out homosexuals but the ACLU apparently reads into it that they did.

The ACLU is airing their 10 part series, the Freedom Files, on satellite TV. In an episode earlier this month, according to their web page http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/24946prs20060407.html, the ACLU highlighted several couples supposedly harmed by government discrimination against them in relationship to wills and adoption.

The facts are not in doubt here. The ACLU has chosen to go this route because it hasn't been successful in persuading the American public to adopt same sex marriage. Though the ACLU has won a few scant cases in liberal enclaves on the East & West Coasts, they have been decisively defeated at the ballot box when the people have spoken. Therefore, the ACLU wants to paint a pretty picture of same sex couples to recreate a new moral infrastructure.

Like the dangers of abortion and the barbaric means of effecting one, the ACLU glosses over the issue of homosexuality. They never acknowledged that those entering those relationships have chosen to do so and will never remind you that it's all about sex. They will never tell you that those couples in the Freedom Files may have had their physical (and perhaps emotional) pains because of their unnatural relationship. They will never tell you it's all about sex.

But the term homosexuality is all about one's sexual propensity for someone of the same sex.

Executive director, Anthony Romero, a practicing homosexual himself, cloaks these families as "concerned parents and loving partners." The abhorrent sexual practices historically classified as unnatural and which the likes of Romero perform are absent in the ACLU's platform.

So when the likes of the ACLU say it's not about sex but about loving relationsihps being denied, the reality is that it's all about sex.

You see, words mean something.

And there are other cases of the ACLU cloaking evil into good (or at least legit) such as making pornography, even child porn, all about the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech and free from censure. But there is one area the ACLU boldly yet absurdly believes is true and does not obfuscate. And that is in the area of sex education in schools.

Ah, another defining moment in ACLU history.

A recent decision by the Rhode Island Dept. of Education to halt a program from a group known as the Heritage of Rhode Island was as a result of the ACLU opposition to abstinence education in the public schools http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/24721prs20060322.html.

The word "harmful" to describe sexual abstinence outside of marriage, as noted in the title at the top of the web page, plus the word "unsafe" near the bottom of the page has to leave one's head scratching.

The ACLU has also termed abstinence as dangerous as noted in the title of this web page http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/20117prs20050921.html. The director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project (again, the cloaking of abortion as reproductive freedom), Louise Melling, says the teaching of abstinence puts the health and safety of students at risk. She also states http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12740prs20041201.html when government abstinence programs do not teach on contraceptives, condoms and abortion, they are "censoring life saving information."

How come the ACLU can't camouflage the abstinence issue the way they do abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and pornography? At least they tell us the truth of what they believe but is there anything more absurd than saying that abstinence is dangerous and teaching on condoms and contraceptives is life saving?

Someone needs to give Ms. Melling the smelling salts. Or could they be the Melling Salts?

To any ACLU backers reading this article, I ask you this question: is this organization worthy of your support? Even if you support abortion on demand, homosexual marriage and euthanasia, I'm sure you would agree that, as Rush Limbaugh terms it, "abstinence works every time it's tried." Does an organization calling abstinence harmful deserve your money? An adolescent going thru puberty can figure this one out better than the ACLU.

The ACLU claims religion is part of abstinence teaching in public schools and must be banned. Well heck, atheist parents could send their children to a public school and urge abstinence be taught to their daughters to keep them from getting pregnant. You don't need to teach about God and the Bible to know the facts about the birds and the bees — unless you believe the ACLU is wiser and the rest of us are lamebrains.

"Disarticulate" and "harmful and dangerous" abstinence programs, two of the more defining moments in ACLU history. And now it's time consign the ACLU to history.

Readers, you are dismissed. Now go order the aforementioned book, undoubtedly harmful and dangerous to your health.

(Back)

*****

Farming out America's Conscience

by Nedd Kareiva

Fresh off of his lawsuits to strip "under God" out from the Pledge of Allegiance (one a defeat, another pending in court), California atheist Michael Newdow has now turned to, echoing the famous Star Trek phrase, "go where no man has gone before" - suing to remove "In God we Trust" off our coins and bills.

To most of us, this is quite laughable. Poll numbers already show well in excess of 80% support for "under God" in the Pledge and even higher numbers (over 90%) to keep our trusty motto on our money. Support comes from both major political parties and encompasses all races and creeds. Outrage at Newdow's actions likely has the same numbers as well.

So why all the fuss?

Now if you just read that last sentence, perhaps your hair stood on end, particularly if you are a regular reader of my columns. You might think I'm not outraged by Newdow's actions. You might assume I flipped my lid - or worse.

Actually, I haven't. I know this lawsuit is going nowhere except that some taxpayer money will be used to put Mr. Newdow in his place. Even the ACLU doesn't want to take up this case.

But for all we care, we may as well remove "In God we Trust" from our currency. America's conscience, which up to the last 40 years conveyed a strong trust in God, has now largely been sold out. It has been done individually, corporately and governmentally. It has been done by both major political parties. Some of it has been done willingly, some of it has been done thru coercion, some of it has been done for avarice and of course, much of it is done for the almighty buck.

One of the biggest news items to make the headlines in recent months with regards to conscience concerns pharmacists who are unwilling to distribute the morning after bill and other birth control "medications". The usual suspects - Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL & the ACLU - want these pharmacists to farm out their consciences (to the devil) to succumb to their agendas.

Sadly, many Americans without giving thoughtful consideration are unwittingly on the side of the above stooges of political correctness. These Americans are being joined by corporate forces like Walgreens and government such as here in my home state of Illinois where our governor, Rod Blagojevich, issued an order earlier this year for all druggists to issue contraceptives without question, comment or consideration of conscience.

A number of pro-life pharmacists have filed suit against the governor and complaints against Walgreens. They offered 4 of them who reside near the Missouri state line to transfer their jobs to the Show Me state where one's conscience is welcome (unlike Illinois) and where one abortion clinic recently shut down.

How nice of Walgreens to freely relocate these folks! But why not, with all its corporate power, join the pharmacists and stand up to the governor and the abortion lobby?

Unfortunately, the answer to that is Walgreens has sold itself to the forces of darkness and political correctness. The chain, which in some parts of Chicago has stores within a mile or two of others and is seen with the same frequency as Burger King or McDonalds, has also bowed its corporate knee to the homosexual agenda. It has provided a 6 figure sum of money to the Gay Games here in Chicago next summer and has retained a sponsorship for the event as well.

It's tough to understand how a pharmacy chain, a once respected bastion of trust here in its home state of Illinois, now partners with groups whose chosen lifestyle has led countless individuals to early graves, thanks to AIDS and other deadly sexually transmitted diseases. It participated in Chicago's "Gay Pride" parade this summer for the first time. And on top of that, Walgreens, the pharmaceutical powerhouse that it is, chose to supply drug users with free needles, thanks to a mindless law that passed in this state a couple years ago, instead of going to court to overturn it.

Political correctness gone amok? For sure. Aligned with the government in some way? Possibly.

Walgreens is a prime example of a company that has farmed out its conscience for the sake of political expediency and a few bucks in the process. And with the force of Illinois government determined to make the state's pharmacists complicit with providing birth control against their consciences, we are on a slippery slope towards having no morals or conscience.

Walgreens is not an isolated case of its conscience being corrupted. It has extended to the religious community which is even more disturbing. Last year, the ACLU used California law in a suit against Catholic Charities in the state, forcing them to provide contraceptive insurance to their employees. The ACLU compelled a religious charity to go against its moral conscience. The California Supreme Court upheld the law and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider it.

To further illustrate the dumbing down or farming out of its conscience, Catholic Charities of Boston has agreed to make adoption services on an equal basis to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, based on state law. Despite the priests' sexual abuse scandal which has cost the Boston Archdiocese millions of dollars and its the church's belief that homosexual adoption is a form of child abuse, Catholic Charities caved in to the state, much to the dismay of true Catholics wanting them to stand up and fight the law.

I guess in the only state where same sex marriage is the law of the land, what else did we expect?

Though it seems corporate and individual America is abandoning its morals in droves (perhaps part of the reason saying "Merry Christmas" has become politically incorrect), there are still some folks willing to stand their ground. That is encouraging. But with the forces of government and corporate America selling out to a political agenda, the numbers of people resisting are declining.

Most Christians, moral Jews and other principled conservatives have no problem cooperating and participating with government and corporate America in their ideas and plans. Like me, they only ask for a very few things like not subsidizing or promoting the homosexual and abortion agendas to their consciences and allow them to opt out if the government or companies insist on participating in such activities. They only want to keep their consciences pure.

But alas, few companies and governments are willing to accommodate those like me.

Regretfully, much of government and corporate America is not only willing to sell its conscience out but wants to take others along in the process or bankrupt them if they refuse. An example of such included a Seattle area businesswoman who respectfully refused to print wedding invitations to two homosexuals a couple years ago. Instead of going to another printer, the two men sued. The city government, along with the homosexual activists and the ACLU, proceeded to put this lady out of business and indoctrinate her conscience with an agenda she was uncomfortable with.

A recent example of what might happen here in the U.S. soon, thanks to either the ACLU or some liberal government, occurred in Canada earlier this year and was decided last week by a so-called human rights commission. The Knights of Columbus, an extension of the Catholic Church, was asked to rent its hall in a small British Columbia town to two lesbians wanting their "wedding reception" there. They contracted out their space before realizing who the women were.

Once the Knights realized what they did, they apologized to these women, paid for another facility for them and even paid to have their new "wedding invitations" in exchange for simply releasing them from the contract. The women refused to do so and ultimately this "court" ordered the Knights to pay each of them $1000, despite their previous generous gestures.

There are countless companies and city and state governments subsidizing the abortion and homosexual agendas and it is causing America to escalate its moral decline. To get a glimpse of who supports the abortion industry and specifically Planned Parenthood, visit LDI International at www.fightpp.org. And to see who supports the homosexual agenda, visit the Human Rights Campaign website at www.hrc.org and click "Corporate Equality Index".

When seeing the list of abortion supporters (a comprehensive list must be paid and ordered thru postal mail) and the companies and corporations who are 100% with HRC (from 13 in 2002 to 101 in 2005), it isn't hard to see how America's moral conscience has rapidly been farmed out to a political agenda. Healthy and moral people have been sacrificed to an agenda that is not only considered unhealthy and immoral but one where greed and an insatiable lust for money dominate. Walgreens just happens to be a big participant in it.

What is the answer? Unfortunately, there is no one key to stopping the promotion of immorality in the work place and government at the rate it has risen to today. Boycotts do have an effect and are encouraged but when it comes to items that we all need like computers, Microsoft and virtually every major computer company in America is 100% in lockstep with HRC. Writing letters may also help (e-mails usually get deleted) but once a company has shaped its corporate policy on moral matters, particularly homosexual ones, unearthing such policy is like pushing a dead elephant.

And when it comes to government, getting pro-homosexual and pro-abortion policy makers and personnel out of a job is paramount as well as ensuring that states do not contract services with such groups. But this will happen only if We the People take this very seriously.

Farming out our conscience reminds me of the words of Founding Father John Adams "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". If only we took heed!

Our greatest CEO in the 20th century, President Reagan, once stated "If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under". Could he have coined that phrase (pun intended) prophetically with where Mr. Newdow and the his ilk have taken us?

It's worth pondering. More importantly, it's worth addressing. Most importantly, now.

(Back)

*****

Time to euthanize Roe

Nedd Kareiva
March 13, 2006

Leslee Unruh is someone you should know. She has received harassing and threatening calls and e-mails at all times of the day and night. She has had clothes hangers placed in her mailbox with eggs splattered across her home. Her chiropractor husband has found dead animals deposited on his business property.

Joshua Heldreth is also someone you should know. He was arrested for simply bringing a cup of water to a facility he was not permitted to enter. This 10 year old was found guilty in court and ordered to perform 25 hours of community service and write an apology.

What do the above events have in common? Both individuals were in the spotlight in two historic cultural dramas over the last 12 months.

What do the above events have dissimilarly? The respondents reactions.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Joshua, here was a courageous child who chose to shine the spotlight on the starvation death of Terri Schiavo. He was heartbroken that a 41 year old woman, via a court order effective March 18th, 2005, had gone a full week sans food or water. A week later on Good Friday, Josh stepped on the property of the Pinellas County hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida to deliver a drink to Mrs. Schiavo. However, he was prevented by city police from doing so and subsequently arrested for trespassing.

13 days after the court order, Terri died from dehydration and starvation.

During this crisis which will go down as an indelible stain in U.S. history, conservatives, pro-lifers and Americans of all stripes and political parties descended on this Florida facility, praying, singing and holding signs. Citizens from all 50 states and people from around the world were frantically calling, writing, faxing and e-mailing state lawmakers, Congress, Gov. Bush, President Bush and our courts to save Terri's life. It went down as one of America's biggest landmark protests.

And Joshua's name made news in much of the media for doing what he did, shining the light of truth as to what really was happening to Terri.

However, in spite of one of the intensest, most passionate events in our history, Americans showed Herculean restraint from going ballistic on those who arguably contributed to Terri's death — Terri's husband Michael, attorney George Felos, hospice personnel, the courts, the police guarding the facility and the ACLU of Florida. Although violence is shunned by virtually all of the pro-life, pro-family community (and rightly so), it would have been understandable had someone actually entered the facility and specifically Terri's room and physically rescued her.

Of course, that should have been the job of Jeb Bush and his administration but we'll leave that go for now.

Fast forward almost a year later to when South Dakota's elected officials, in bipartisan fashion, passed a complete ban on abortion in the state, save for the life of the mother. Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota literally made the rounds and last week signed the first such state ban America.

And did I say that the sponsor of the ban in the Dakota Senate, Julie Bartling, is a Democrat?

Unlike the incredibly peaceful protests in Florida, however, the same could not be said of the pro-abortion souls who went ballistic on Mrs. Unruh, the director of a crisis pregnancy center in Sioux Falls. It didn't matter that she had no power to vote for the ban. Instead of picketing lawmakers who did so and because there is higher protection of public servants than private individuals, the likes of Planned Parenthood and NARAL chose an easy target in the Unruhs to do the damage they did, not only tangibly to the Unruh's properties but politically to the pro-abortion cause that is their sacred cow and symbolically to the political process they despise.

When push comes to shove, the evidence is clear who is peaceful when the political process (even rightly so) doesn't go their way and who is disrespectful and even violent.

Yes, there are a tiny handful of mavericks who take matters into their hands on occasion at abortion mills and those who work there. However, they greatly pale in comparison to the many intolerant individuals on the left who rip up and deface pro-life signs and posters and even instigate fisticuffs to get their points across. The posters with aborted children like Baby Malachi really stir up the emotions of the left.

Reminds me of the saying "no good deed ever goes unpunished."

Funny, I can't ever recall a time where pro-lifers snatched and tore up those carrying Planned Parenthood's "Keep Abortion Legal" and "Save Roe" signs, among others.

Time to pull the plug on Roe. Better yet, time to euthanize Roe. And do it now.

For those of you who think Roe is good, let me ask you about the signs containing the images of aborted children. Is this what you support? Would you support doing this to your pregnant dog or cat? What you do think what happen if Americans found out the local veterinarian was doing it? Would you protest? Or would you say that you support the right to do this to your dog or cat?

If you say yes to the last question, I guarantee that PETA will be knocking on your door, perhaps literally. And if the local vet is doing it, I assure you that PETA, if not the community he or she lives in, will run him or her out of town, that is if the state hasn't taken action to do so first.

And if the state catches up with that person, there is almost likely a jail cell waiting for him or her. And if there is a jail cell waiting for vets who would do such things, what excuses can you Roe supporters provide that like punishment shouldn't be provided for abortionists?

So why do you Roe backers support doing this to your fellow human beings? I don't buy your arguments like "can't afford a child now" or "have to finish school first" or that you're too young. What's that saying — "you make your own bed, you lie in it"? Grow up! Take responsibility for your actions! And yes, there are plenty of us willing to help such mothers in distress to either have the child or assist in giving him or her up for adoption.

Roe lovers, please don't give me your rape exceptions. While those are arguably traumatic, they don't erase the fact that a child is inside such women. Women who have experienced rape need a ton of love and support but they need not kill that child. The woman who goes thru with such a pregnancy and either keeps the child or surrenders him or her for adoption is much stronger mentally and likely has a higher degree of character than the one choosing to undergo a second trauma, that of having her body invaded a second time by a stranger.

Your incest exceptions don't fly either. While almost assuredly that children born out of incest should not be retained, it is neither permissible to kill that innocent being. There are plenty of Americans who would jump at the chance to adopt such children. And like the rape case, such pregnant women should get all the help and love they need. There is no need to kill, ever.

For those of you who think we're not ready to overturn Roe, I understand and respect your arguments. But my responses: (1) One abortion is one abortion too many. (2) Is 45 million abortions not enough? (3) If not now, when?

When the pro-abortion lobby becomes unglued as seen by the actions done to the Unruhs instead of exhibiting peaceful demonstrations, something largely unknown to abortion supporters, we know we're doing the right thing. It's really no different than militant homosexual activists defacing billboards containing pictures of former homosexuals or sending boxes of condoms or phallic symbols to organizations backing state marriage amendments.

Lawmakers in other states should take note and follow South Dakota's example. Almost a dozen others have introduced legislation to do just that. The rest of America's states should as well, even if such may be near impossible to obtain. Each state needs to get at least one legislator in both their upper and lower chambers to introduce such legislation and fight for an up or down vote to pass it.

It's time to stick the fork in the abortion industry and not the knife in the women. If the fork won't do, the euthanizing needle will more than serve the purpose.

(Back)

*****

Send mail to CompanyWebmaster with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright © 2006 CompanyLongName

Send mail to CompanyWebmaster with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2006 CompanyLongName