Mission ACLU: Search & destroy

By Nedd Kareiva

What common denominator does the ACLU have with the federal government?

You might scratch your head and think, particularly if you are one of my regular readers, "What could he possibly be talking about? The ACLU has nothing in common. From its opposition to the Boy Scouts using federal property for its jamborees to lawsuits favoring granting civil rights to terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and other places, how could the ACLU agree with the U.S. government on anything?" And you would have a point.

One answer you might come up with could be that both the ACLU and Washington have gotten too big and need to be cut down to size. Now that is an excellent conclusion if you came up with that one and definitely a subject for another day but not the answer I seek.

Give up? OK, here you go. Both are in wars of sorts. And both are for the survival of America. But one is in a military sense and the other in a moral and cultural sense.

By now, you likely can determine which one is which. Yes, some of you may think the U.S. government wants our destruction by its reticence to secure our borders from illegal immigration and its failure to condemn radical Islamic elements. However, it does not have intent to condemn the Christian faith and the values associated with — at least not with this current administration.

Thus that leaves the ACLU as the guilty party.

The most recent example is that of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Eastern Missouri against a school district in Doniphan, MO. Some woman, possibly non-existent (the ACLU is known to do this), was apparently disgruntled by Christian prayers and blessings and hence, litigation against this Bible beltway town near the Arkansas border.

As a result, the 99% of the audience not bothered by insertion of the Christian faith now will likely be denied any hearing of it in future assemblies if the ACLU's suit succeeds. A prayer and a blessing from one teacher's personal faith are not an endorsement of Christianity in the public schools but simply an acknowledgement of that individual's convictions. It did not order anyone to believe the Christian message or compel anyone to believe the prayer and blessing. It simply was the reflection of one person's heart.

The ACLU agenda: seek plaintiff (more if possible, disguise it if they none available), sue a school district or other public entity, obtain taxpayer dollars in the process and eliminate any religious exercises, particularly if they are of the Judeo-Christian faith.

One plaintiff sought, one suit filed, one judgment obtained, one religious community potentially devastated — mission accomplished by the ACLU.

A similar case occurred in Kentucky earlier this year when the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to deny Megan Chapman, graduation speaker at Russell High School in Southern Kentucky, to block prayer at her school graduation on behalf of one student (originally concealed but later revealed to be a Muslim, per this article), according to this story.

Nevertheless, the spontaneous reciting of the Lord's Prayer by vast majority of the students in attendance and the standing ovation given to Miss Chapman, not to mention the support from the community (per this piece), sent a strong message to the ACLU that they don't like their faith tampered with.

A yet similar case occurred in neighboring Tennessee about the same time, according to this story, also posted on our blog. Apparently, the school's ACLU adviser (hmmm, how many schools have one?) got wind of religion being used by the school valedictorian and got the ACLU to fax a letter to the school, saying God and Jesus couldn't be mentioned in the speech as pointed out here.

Talk about censorship, something the ACLU claims is opposes! But in typical ACLU fashion, they supported the same here as they did more recently for Brittany McComb.

Nevertheless, like in the Kentucky case, the Lord's Prayer was spontaneously spoken by most of the graduates to the delight of much of the community and dismay of the ACLU.

And poetic justice was served on the same day where the ACLU adviser's contract was not renewed.

But once again — one person sought, one suit filed, one judgment obtained (fortunately without money this time), one community affected — ACLU mission accomplished.

In other words, the tyranny of one.

Turning from prayer and faith to a display of the 10 Commandments, one person's so-called offense with this display in Oklahoma brought a suit otherwise not expected to have been filed (AKA, the ACLU lied), according to this article.

The individual in this case is described by the ACLU as a patriot and a veteran. He obviously doesn't care about what other patriots in the heavily religious state of Oklahoma have to say. It was only his feelings and his personal offense of seeing the 10 Commandments, showing no basis how he was harmed by its appearance.

Fortunately, Congress is finally addressing these "offenses" in the form of legislation currently considered in both the House and the U.S. Senate. And given a decisive defeat handed to the ACLU in Mercer County, KY, per this ruling (subsequently upheld by the full appeals court), we believe not only will the Oklahoma case be dismissed but also it will ultimately not bode well for the ACLU in future Decalogue suits. As such, we also believe this will be one part of its agenda that it will eventually abandon.

Again, one plaintiff sought, one suit filed, one community affected. Thankfully thus far, no judgment yet rendered but one waiting for the ACLU to obtain.

Perhaps no greater example of one man's mission to search and destroy concerns the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego. Though not directly an ACLU related suit (the attorney suing in this case is chairman of the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as an ACLU member), the case is typical of an ACLU suit, seeking one vulgar atheist to achieve in court what Ύths of the citizens of San Diego voted to oppose.

And one cross in the Mojave Desert near the Nevada state line is a target of the ACLU, suing on behalf of one former National Park Service worker.

Fortunately, thanks to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who issued a stay on a judge's order to fine the city of San Diego $5000 a day for not removing the Soledad cross by August 1st, and subsequent Congressional approval awaiting the president's signature, the cross is mercifully going nowhere.

Similar action is needed on Mojave cross as well. And who can forget the tiny cross on the LA County seal, which the ACLU sued to remove, against the citizens' will?

Once more — one plaintiff sought, one suit filed, one judgment issued, one community affected — ACLU mission accomplished, at least for now.

The question to be asked is how long do we have to tolerate the ACLU's actions. And the answer is as long as we sit back and do nothing. True, we can't prevent the ACLU from filing their suits. But we can turn the tide on this organization with the help of the vast majority of Americans raising massive public awareness.

A cornerstone of my articles is providing a means of taking action with what I outline. And this one is no exception.

Legal firms like the Alliance Defense Fund, the American Center for Law & Justice and the Thomas More Law Center are taking it to the ACLU in court and winning a good percentage of the time. And that is excellent news for patriotic Americans. However, the battles to turn the tide against the ACLU is in the court of public opinion, providing public awareness as to the ACLU's search and destroy missions. The American people must view the ACLU beyond the typical civil rights understanding many of them have. Until they do, we will at best make minute progress and at worst spin our wheels.

Hence again, my fellow readers, I encourage you to take action by telling your friends, family, coworkers and others about the true nature of the ACLU.

The ACLU will ignore massive majorities of Americans to achieve its agenda thru one or two plaintiffs if they can pull it off. But the ACLU is not so dumb that it will occasionally realize that taking a certain position will trigger massive outrage and opposition.

When no one came forward to be represented as a plaintiff in the wake of a threat of a suit from the ACLU of Arkansas for a religious alter call given by a student at a 2005 graduation ceremony, there is little doubt the ACLU took notice of it. They could have filed suit on behalf of a phantom plaintiff but it's rather safe to say they knew such would not sit well in this fairly religious community. As a result, no litigation ensued.

In 2004 when atheist Michael Newdow filed suit to remove "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance at a California school district where his daughter attends school, the ACLU filed a friend of the court brief at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court, however, unanimously rejected his suit, saying he had no standing to sue.

However, Newdow refiled his case in 2005, gaining a judge's injunction but in the process garnered national outrage, prompting the judge to stay his own order. And unlike the previous court brief in support of Newdow, the ACLU filed none in the second suit. A near exhaustive search on Google and the ACLU's web site turned up no press release or other item linking the ACLU and Newdow together. Polls showed favoring keeping "under God" in the Pledge to have been in excess of 90%. The ACLU likely knew this issue was a loser for them and kept quiet.

Newdow subsequently filed suits against the White House and Congress to remove "In God We Trust" as our national motto and off American currency. Like with the pledge, however, Internet searches on the ACLU's web site and elsewhere turned up empty. For the ACLU to line up with America's most unpopular atheist would be bad PR for them and create a national view that they are out to remove God from everything in public and private life. Such a perception would cause the ACLU's membership to radically plummet, especially among those who see the ACLU as a civil liberties group and not the atheist and radically immoral organization that it is.

If the ACLU can read the political tealeaves, so can we. Their search and destroy mission can be destroyed — without the bunker busters. It simply takes an understanding of what the ACLU stands for (the info on the Internet and especially their own web site is crystal clear), what its goals are, and raising massive and sustained public awareness to those who assume the ACLU is strictly civil liberties (a dubious claim at best).

In other words, as bunker busters destroy terrorist cells in Iraq and Afghanistan, knowledge busters can help destroy the ACLU's reign of legal terror on cities, counties, states, schools and public officials and help reduce their membership rolls. Though the task is daunting, it is not insurmountable — if we are focused, motivated and willing to roll up our sleeves and do it for the long haul.

The ACLU is losing in courts and in public opinion on its suits to remove the 10 Commandments and religious symbols. They are being hammered on efforts to overturn marriage amendments and statutes and keep voters from having their say on it at the ballot box. Though they appear to be winning in courts in some respect to public and school prayer, they're losing appeal in the public eye. Vast majorities of Republicans and Democrats see eye to eye on these issues. The unanimous U.S. Senate vote to transfer Mt. Soledad to the auspices of the federal government is a good indicator that opposition to certain ACLU issues is bipartisan. The unanimous vote of the Indiana State House to fight an ACLU suit banning prayer in the legislature is also another strong sign.

Readers, I hope I persuaded you that we can end the ACLU's search and destroy mission. It's up to you to take action. To further do so, visit the Stop the ACLU web site at www.stoptheaclu.org. And in the words of former President Clinton, do it for the children. And do it today.

One Bible, one cross, one prayer, one posting of the 10 Commandments and no ACLU. To quote the late Jackie Gleason "How sweet it is."

Or could be.

© Nedd Kareiva