« Back online | Home | The Frisco Kid online »
July 05, 2006
Stop the Stop the ACLU Coalition
[ UPDATE: Jay updated his post.
Glenn Greenwald gives an impassioned tour of " The thug and intimidation tactics of the Far Right," but doesn't mention any leftwing bloggers doing the same. I wish I could respect him too. ]
Once in a while I am reminded of why I insist on calling myself a liberal hawk. I mean "classical liberal values", which is increasingly not what "liberal" means anymore, and why I am no longer a member of the ACLU. I support their original mission (just as I supported Amnesty International's original mission), but every organization is susceptible to mission creep and bias.
But, while some conservatives also believe in a strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause, on this issue the label "liberal" still fits me the best, and here I make common cause with many fellow Jews with whom I disagree on the Iraq War, the 2nd Amendment, and many other issues.
The Stop the ACLU Coalition exemplifies the kind of conservative who makes me call myself a liberal. Its latest project is called "Expose the ACLU Plaintiff," and yes, it's just what you think it is.
When an individual, group or even church (yes, there are churches that support the ACLU) is using the ACLU (or similar groups like Americans United, People for the (Anti) American Way, Freedom from Religion Foundation and American Atheists) to facilitate removal of a cross, the 10 Commandments or other religious symbols or the ceasing of prayer from a school or government entity, we want the community to know about it.
The proud first use of this campaign, on March 6th of this year, was to harass the Dobrich family, formerly of Indian River, DE. The Dobriches moved to Wilmington to escape threats from their neighbors, because they were one of two families (the other choosing anonymity) to challenge pervasive bias at their children's school. (More background here.) Patriot Boy - among many bloggers who jumped on this story - has a screen shot of the original post. (Scroll down to the middle of Patriot Boy's post.)
(Here's the current page. The proprietor Nedd Kareiva says he made "some minor corrections" to the page (i.e. removing the Dobrich family's street address and phone number) "not as a direct result of your e-mails but because I believe it was the right thing to do. However, there will be no more changes.")
Other bloggers who don't show the best face of conservatism are rallying around Nedd. Jay of the Stop the ACLU blog wants you to know that it is a separate entity from the Stop the ACLU Coalition. But he doesn't disapprove of Nedd's campaign:
. . . we reject any and all race/religion/ethnicity-based personal attacks on anyone, with special protection due children. Second, we reject physical violence on individuals and incitement of the same.But he doesn't reject the tactic of revealing people's personal information; about Nedd in particular he only says:
We support each others main cause of exposing the dangerous agenda of the ACLU, but obviously use different methods. I can’t control what Nedd does, and he doesn’t control what I do.
Then he tries to play the anti-race card:
The cry of racism/anti-Semitism is the last refuge of a Leftist scoundrel on the verge of losing an argument. . . . . Nedd is half Jewish himself, so the point is moot with their cries of racism.
We don't let "half-Jewish" or nominally Jewish anti-Israel campaigners off the hook with that excuse, Nedd doesn't get a pass either.
I do call it antisemitism to advocate targeting a Jewish family for harassment because they attempted to challenge explicit bias in the public school system. Again, this is the same tactic the far Left uses, that dismisses any Jew-baiting that doesn't lead directly to gas chambers.
Right on the Right is also spinning as fast as he can:
All this outrage is because one family targeted by Nedd’s new campaign is Jewish. The Lefties throw out the fact that Nedd is actually half-Jewish, and they throw out the fact that the family’s religion has NOTHING to do with Nedd’s decision.Let's review Nedd's project description:
When an individual, group or even church (yes, there are churches that support the ACLU) is using the ACLU (or similar groups like Americans United, People for the (Anti) American Way, Freedom from Religion Foundation and American Atheists) to facilitate removal of a cross, the 10 Commandments or other religious symbols or the ceasing of prayer from a school or government entity, we want the community to know about it.The Dobriches are on record as not objecting to religion per se in the school system:
In a statement issued through her attorneys and quoted by the Delaware Wave, plaintiff Mona Dobrich, the mother of district students -- and plaintiffs -- Samantha and Alexander, said: "We are not trying to remove God from the schools or the public square. We simply don't think it is right for the district to impose a particular religious view on impressionable students."
So "the family’s religion has NOTHING to do with Nedd’s decision." Right.
More tap-dancing from Jay:
. . . the anti-STACLU interlopers have some serious factual problems that completely compromise the purpose behind this attempted E-lynching. Assuming the original reports are accurate, the mother and son apparently moved as early as late 2004. How could the 2006 publication of the address the father maintains have “driven” the family from their home in 2004 or played any role at all?This is disingenuous. The Dobriches moved because they were being threatened by their community. Nedd doesn't care that they moved, he wants you to keep harassing them. Otherwise why make this the inaugural case of his new project in March 2006, and publish one of their addresses and phone numbers?
The "anti-STACLU interlopers" - as he calls them - took issue with the entire campaign. (And .... "interlopers"? Jay, I do not think that word means what you think it means. And "E-lynching" is hyperbole worthy of Andrew Sullivan.)
Then Jay throws the ball back into the lefty bloggers' court. Yes, they do the same thing and yes, they are being hypocritical by criticizing him. So what? He doesn't condemn the tactic when it's used by his side. He doesn't take a principled stand at all. A pox on all their houses.
I wish there was an ACLU I could respect. And I wish I could respect these critics of the ACLU.
RELATED: Political label discussion. A lot like the one at the 4th of July picnic I was at. We agreed on almost everything except what to call ourselves. =:-P
Judith | 07/05/06 at 09:06 PM | Categories: - Antisemitism watch
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/5161
Blogs which link to Stop the Stop the ACLU Coalition:
» Ezzie's Blog Roundup, 7/6/2006: It's been a while from SerandEz
Meanwhile, she wrote an excellent post tonight at JBlogosphere regarding the complaints that HH leans to the right. We'd all like it to be representative of all J-bloggers, left and right, so please, check out the post. While you're there, we'd appre... [Read More]
Tracked on July 6, 2006 05:46 AM
» On the side of the ACLU from Solomonia
There's a disturbing story circulating that makes me grateful that the label of "conservative" has become the "big tent" it has in recent years, because I'm sure I'm not adopting the stereotypical "conservative" line on this one. I actually agree... [Read More]
Tracked on July 6, 2006 09:17 AM
» You Learn Something New Every Day from Confederate Yankee
Strangely enough, I always assumed that the folks who ran the most widely read political blog on the Internet has a better understanding of domain names than Ted Stevens. Update: I wrote this post simply because I found it amusing... [Read More]
Tracked on July 6, 2006 10:22 AM
» A pox on both their houses from The Politburo Diktat
Kesher Talk: Stop the Stop the ACLU Coalition
Glenn Greenwald gives an impassioned tour of ” The thug and intimidation tactics of the Far Right,” but doesn’t mention any leftwing bloggers doing the same. I wish I could respect him too... [Read More]
Tracked on July 6, 2006 08:18 PM
Comments
Touche! I'll come out with a stronger message. Kudos to this post.
Thank you, Jay, that means a lot to me. We all get defensive about issues we care about, and it certainly helps me to be principled when I have other examples to look up to.
Let me know when your post is up and I'll put a link at the top of this post.
Judith Weiss | July 6, 2006 01:40 AM
I do call it antisemitism to advocate targeting a Jewish family for harassment because they attempted to challenge explicit bias in the public school system.
For this to be anti-semetic, you would have to believe that Nedd would not have made a personal attack these people if they were not Jewish. Do you believe that?
Ms. Weiss, Jay from StoptheACLU.com is being disingenuous to the point of lying, in claiming there are two distinct entities involved. From his own posting at his own blog, my emphasis:
Stop The ACLU.Com is the official blog of Stop The ACLU.Org. Our goal is to bring public awareness to the radical agenda of the American Civil Liberties Union. We are a grass roots effort to organize and get the general public actively involved in a campaign to stop the radical agenda of the ACLU, and the secular cleansing of America. You can get involved, and share your ideas with us by joining our Discussion Forum or our Blogburst Team. All you have to do is email me at Jay@stoptheaclu.com!
We also want you to join the coalition [i.e., StoptheACLU.org - ed. Mona], which will be the active arm of our organization, organizing protests, letter campaigns, etc.
Mona
| July 6, 2006 10:13 AM
As another ex ACLU (tho still on the mail list), I have to say this is one disgusting story.
I can find absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what is alleged here in Delaware, and the civil intimidation, and hideous dawa one might find elswhere on this planet.
This school district needs to distinguish between the presence of god in our conscience while we are in school and the PROSELETYZING for a separate religion in the same place.
These complete morons are a case study in fools of the christian right. The people who yelled 'take off your yarmulke', and the board of this district exemplify what is WRONG with mentioning jesus in school and it is THEY who make it compulsory to remove this from school and govt, NOT people with a different belief set. If they had any sense their own sensibilities, and Jesus like desire to put on the other's shoe, would make it very clear to them where they are treading.
Instead just like arrogant salafis, religious supremism prevails in their own mind to the point of driving out their own neighbors.
HIDEOUS !
epaminondas | July 6, 2006 11:42 AM
Look, I never said we were not connected. I only stated we were seperate things. I can't control what Nedd does. I updated MY post, not Kenders which I'm sure many will be offended by. MY post says that I will try to convince Nedd to change his mind about using this particular method.
"For this to be anti-semetic, you would have to believe that Nedd would not have made a personal attack these people if they were not Jewish."
I take your point. But he is defending official crosses in public schools. That says that Jewish (and other non-Christian) sensibilities don't matter. (It is also clearly counter to the establishment clause.)
In this case the plaintiff was a Jewish family, and there was nothing from Ned that showed he at least understood their POV.
Judith Weiss | July 6, 2006 03:12 PM
As I point out in my own (frequently updated) post on the matter, Nedd Kareiva attacks them for wanting to “impose their atheism” on the community. Evidently, he thought that the family was an atheist family, not a Jewish family — or he was lying here in order to portray the family as worse. Either way, I think he should be accused of anti-atheist bigotry rather than anti-Semitic or racial bigotry.
Some of the Christians in the community, though, can justifiably be accused of anti-Semitism.
Austin Cline | July 7, 2006 01:30 PM
Kudos to you, Judith. This is the first non-Democratic website I've seen to actually criticize StoptheACLU's vicious methods--all the heavy hitters on the right (Instapundit, Powerline) are still trying to defend it.
I do have a question, though. "Then Jay throws the ball back into the lefty bloggers' court. Yes, they do the same thing…"
You kind of make it sound like both sides are equal, and that liberals use these tactics as much as conseravatives do.
I know Glenn Greenwald (the leading critic of StopTheACLU) certainly doesn't post home addresses or phone numbers with phrases like "hunt them down," as conservative blogger Rocco DiPippo did to a photographer freelancing for the NYTimes travel section. I can think of only one prominent liberal blogger who used this tactic (Jesus' General on Michelle Malkin)--and he removed the information & apologized pretty shortly thereafter. And that was *after* Malkin had encouraged a hate & harassment campaign against three students. Do you have any other examples of prominent lefty bloggers posting home phone numbers & encouraging harassment?
Greg M. | July 7, 2006 06:17 PM
"all the heavy hitters on the right (Instapundit, Powerline) are still trying to defend it."
I read Insta and Powerline every day and I have seen nothing defending it. Can you supply a link?
"You kind of make it sound like both sides are equal, and that liberals use these tactics as much as conseravatives do."
Yes they do. Maybe even more. I never said Glenn Greenwald does. This example is from this week. Jeff's blog is offline now.
Malkin only posted public contact information that had been on flyers and such, so JG's response took it to another level.
In 2004 an Indy site posted names of local residents who had donated to the Bush campaign and suggested picketing their businesses and homes. There were the protests outside Cheney's home and Code Pink outside Walter Reed Hospital where soldiers are recuperating. That is targeting individuals in their private spaces. There have been others too, if I remember I'll post them.
Judith Weiss | July 7, 2006 08:54 PM
Umm...I don't usually post on blogs but having done lots of indpenedent research on this whole issue I'd have to say that it is totally unbelievable that someone would defend this guy with a comment that "he is half jewish."
A google search of his name brings up this quote: "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.
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." you can read more here: http://www.restoringamerica.org/Editorials/Kareiva/nedd_kareiva.htm)
He most certainly identifies himself as a Christian fundamentalist. I also thought (although now I can't find the link) that the address/phone he posted was the family's new number. Regardless it is a despicable thing for anyone to do. Seriously, have our politics become that childish that the only way we have to get our point across is by shameless personal attacks?
Tanya | July 14, 2006 03:05 AM












