Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judicial voodoo vs. the cross
WND ^ | April 15, 2005 | Rees Lloyd

Posted on 04/15/2005 4:52:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

A federal judge in Riverside, Calif., has issued orders for the destruction of the solitary Roman cross at the Mojave Desert World War I Veterans Memorial.

The court ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union to nullify an act of Congress last year sponsored by Congressman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., which authorized a land exchange which would place the cross site on private land and in private hands in a land exchange.

The ACLU contended the land exchange was a "sham" to evade the court's injunctive order to destroy the cross, first issued in 2002. The court has so found and, significantly, ordered the legislative branch – Congress – not to carry out the land exchange, and ordered the executive branch to destroy the cross at the veterans memorial.

Veterans in the 2.7-million member American Legion have vowed to fight against the destruction of the veterans memorial, and stand up to the ACLU. The Legion is calling on Congress to amend the Civil Rights Act, 42 United States Code Section 1988, to eliminate the power of judges to award the ACLU attorney fees – to be paid by taxpayers – in this and other "Establishment Clause" cases.

The cross, two pipes strapped together and mounted on a rock outcrop in in the remote Mojave Desert, was erected by private citizens on what was then private land in order to honor the service of World War I veterans. Bill Clinton incorporated the site in the Forest Service as one of his last acts as president.

Although there had never been a complaint about the veterans memorial cross in more than 70 years, the ACLU seized the opportunity to file a federal suit to destroy it as a violation of the Establishment Clause – and to seek attorney fees under the Civil Rights Act.

It has collected $63,000 in attorney fees so far, although neither it nor the plaintiff, Frank Buono, has any actual attorney fees. Buono is a retired Forest Service employee who moved to Oregon, then asked to sue to destroy the cross. He claimed his Civil Rights are violated because he has to see the cross when he drives to California to visit.

The federal court in Riverside is the first in history in which a private citizen has been allowed to sue a veterans memorial to remove a religious symbol. Now, the same court has nullified an act of Congress by judicial fiat, and ordered the executive branch to destroy the cross. The two other branches apparently believe themselves impotent when faced with an order by an unelected judge-for-life, answerable to no one.

This calls to mind the question Shakespeare in Julius Cesar: "Upon what meat has this our Cesar fed that he has grown so great?"

The day before the decision, American Legion National Commander Tom Cadmus published a letter to congressional leaders to amend 42 USC 1988 to withdraw the authority of judges to award the ACLU attorney fees in "Establishment Clause" cases against the Boy Scouts, veterans memorials and, seemingly, every public display of America's religious history and heritage.

There is no doubt that the ACLU will now request and receive even more thousands in taxpayer-paid attorney fees unless the Civil Rights Act is amended as the Legion calls for in our Resolution 326.

This most recent judicial decision on the West Coast, like that of the judicial order to starve an American woman to death on the East Coast, where a governor was ordered by a court not to act to save an American life, is further evidence that the American people should and must stand up against and stop an out-of-conrol ACLU, and an out-of-control judiciary.

Manifestly, there is a need for Americans, the "We the People" of the Declaration of Independence, to stop acting as sheep before lawyers sitting as judges who are usurping the powers of the legislative and executive branches, and are sucking freedom and democracy from our republican form of government.

Indeed, the ACLU is now so fanatic and loosed from common sense that it has become the Taliban of liberal secularism, and the judiciary has become so possessed of narcissistic meglomania as to appropriate unto itself unchecked power to make the ultimate determinations of our Constitution, our laws and our American culture through a process of judicial review which has become in fact judicial voodoo.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: aclu; antitheist; churchandstate; cross; mojavedesert; purge; ruling; veteransmemorial
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 04/15/2005 4:52:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
When the next civil war starts, the first place I'll look for traitors, seditionists, and Enemies Of The State is in places like the back of produce trucks and holds of cargo ships. They'll be the first ones to try to exit the country, and they won't be using the highways and airports.


2 posted on 04/15/2005 5:00:18 PM PDT by Viking2002 (Let's get the Insurrection started, already..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Frank Buono.. Now Tied for SH*THEAD #1 on my list along with Michael Newdow,, the ACLU, Nazi Pelosi and the GReens.. and George Soros.
----


We, The People pay the ACLU to rip the guts of this country to pieces?

What a country.





Although there had never been a complaint about the veterans memorial cross in more than 70 years, the ACLU seized the opportunity to file a federal suit to destroy it as a violation of the Establishment Clause – and to seek attorney fees under the Civil Rights Act.

It has collected $63,000 in attorney fees so far, although neither it nor the plaintiff, Frank Buono, has any actual attorney fees. Buono is a retired Forest Service employee who moved to Oregon, then asked to sue to destroy the cross. He claimed his Civil Rights are violated because he has to see the cross when he drives to California to visit.

The federal court in Riverside is the first in history in which a private citizen has been allowed to sue a veterans memorial to remove a religious symbol. Now, the same court has nullified an act of Congress by judicial fiat, and ordered the executive branch to destroy the cross. The two other branches apparently believe themselves impotent when faced with an order by an unelected judge-for-life, answerable to no one.

This calls to mind the question Shakespeare in Julius Cesar: "Upon what meat has this our Cesar fed that he has grown so great?"

The day before the decision, American Legion National Commander Tom Cadmus published a letter to congressional leaders to amend 42 USC 1988 to withdraw the authority of judges to award the ACLU attorney fees in "Establishment Clause" cases against the Boy Scouts, veterans memorials and, seemingly, every public display of America's religious history and heritage.

There is no doubt that the ACLU will now request and receive even more thousands in taxpayer-paid attorney fees unless the Civil Rights Act is amended as the Legion calls for in our Resolution 326.


3 posted on 04/15/2005 5:00:25 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... The War on Terrorism is the ultimate 'faith-based' initiative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

He claimed his Civil Rights are violated because he has to "see the cross when he drives to California to visit. "

Oh the poor guy!
I totally feel for him. I had to look at a cross I drove by too, and it nearly killed me! Someone should protect us from those bloodthirsty crosses. This is a risk to all our lives, we need to protect our civil rights!(Sarcasm, by the way)

I can't believe how stupid things are getting nowadays. This is the kind of thing you would expect from the bad guy in a young children's story maybe, but not, under any circumstances in real life!

What the hell did the cross do to the guy(who, by the way, should get his ass kicked). What does he do when he drives by a cementary?

Damn, people need to stop being idiots.

Another thing, this is a memorial to those who fought and died so the world could be a better place. If the guy hates America, as it would seem, then why doesn't he move to Cuba or something!

I really hope that this guy, and all the members of the ACLU suffer hardships until they find God.


4 posted on 04/15/2005 5:05:30 PM PDT by Polak z Polski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

I was so angry when I heard of this I tried to e-mail Congressman John Salazar. And my mail was returned -so I called his local office-and I e-mailed the President Reminded him I expect he will do Nothing to save that World War One Memorial- If some wacked out judge on Crack cocain
on penis pump says a cross that has stood for seventy years -wa serected on privat eland-and NOT found to be in
any violation when that land was taken by the Federal govt.
If some godless Communist despot agrees with the enemy of
my country and our way of life in order to perpetrate FRAUD
For no reading of the clear language used and no clear understanding of th einten tof the men who wrote and ratified that document (the Bill of rights) agrees with what the queer ACLU and their minions claim it says.
Hang th eSOB on the cross if it is to be destroyed by his
unjust and demented order. On second thought Scratch that. I would not want him nor the ACLU to claim he was God.


5 posted on 04/15/2005 5:08:00 PM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

6 posted on 04/15/2005 5:08:27 PM PDT by Rakkasan1 (The MRS wanted to go to an expensive place to eat so I took her to the gas station.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

This has nothing to do with the first amendment, but our anger at the ACLU and this self-described Christian who brought this case shouldn't be used as an argument for revising the first amendment's intent. Does the cross's presence demand that Americans become Christians? No. Does the cross's presence suggest that American law is Christian, or even that American law is fully founded on Judeo-Christian doctrines? No.

No problem. But of course we can't count on our courts to make proper distinctions between crackpots and serious concerns over first amendment limits on government power.


7 posted on 04/15/2005 5:11:31 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

This judge’s ruling, like many others, is clearly, for those who can read, clearly unconstitutional, but will not be overruled.

We need judges who can and will read the Constitution of the United States.

The same people that find a provision banning religion in the clause, “Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion,” cannot find a right to ownership of arms in the sentence, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed …”

This is another example of the judicial branch’s fight to remain omnipotent in violation of the Constitution. The Executive and Legislative do nothing. They are impotent, rather than important. Two words which sound like they could be synonyms, but are much closer to antonyms.

We need to change people in our government. We need to reign in the judiciary. It is time for Club Senate to disband and reform as the Senate of the United States of America.

The time to get along is long gone.

I do not know about you. I am getting a call or two a week lately from the Republican Party looking for donations. What to say?

“Tell President Bush to repent and apologize for what he left undone for Terri Schiavo and letting Judge Greer kill her; tell Bill Frist I expect judges who can read the Constitution and I don’t give a damn what Boss Reid thinks. When you get those two done, call me back. Make sure you explain to your supervisor why you are not getting any donations and have a nice day.” Click.

Fight’s on, Fight’s on!


8 posted on 04/15/2005 5:19:31 PM PDT by Rodentking (http://www.airpower.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"erected by private citizens on what was then private land in order to honor the service of World War I veterans. Bill Clinton incorporated the site in the Forest Service as one of his last acts as president. Although there had never been a complaint about the veterans memorial cross in more than 70 years, the ACLU seized the opportunity to file a federal suit to destroy it as a violation of the Establishment Clause – and to seek attorney fees under the Civil Rights Act. It has collected $63,000 in attorney fees so far, although neither it nor the plaintiff, Frank Buono, has any actual attorney fees. Buono is a retired Forest Service employee who moved to Oregon, then asked to sue to destroy the cross. He claimed his Civil Rights are violated because he has to see the cross when he drives to California to visit."

I started to note the most egregious parts but soon found that it would include the entire article.

This is one of those things where you don't know where to start but are damn sure where you will end up!

After impeaching the judges, someone should look into jailing the plaintiff for wasting valuable court time.

Not to mention potentially valuable court legitimacy; or the guilt of an ex-POTUS for a flagrant land-grab.

9 posted on 04/15/2005 5:54:24 PM PDT by norton (build a wall and post the rules at the gate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonevoice

This will make you even more angry. It is just unbelievable what is happening to our country. This story just makes me sick. Our Republican leaders MUST help us take back our country and our courts. And the government must close down the borders. In the meantime, I hope the 2.7 million strong American Legion members can win this one.


10 posted on 04/15/2005 5:59:34 PM PDT by Pride in the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norton
It's no coincidence that the very same socialists who want the government to take over as much land as it can are exactly the same people as those who want to ban all religious expression from public land.

They want the government to control as many areas as possible and to edge religion out of them.

11 posted on 04/15/2005 6:00:19 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pride in the USA; Stillwaters
Thanks for the sad ping. It's become too surreal.

From the article:

"The two other branches apparently believe themselves impotent when faced with an order by an unelected judge-for-life, answerable to no one.".

This is something we keep hearing all too often, and frankly I just won't believe is true. The framers of our constitution never intended the judicial branch to exercise tyranny over the other two. Maybe we need to start sneaking testosterone supplements into our legislators' water supply. Perhaps we could do that after we get the ACLU shut down as a terrorist organization.

12 posted on 04/15/2005 6:19:40 PM PDT by lonevoice (Vast Right Wing Pajama Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

***Although there had never been a complaint about the veterans memorial cross in more than 70 years,***

Is not there some statute of limitations on how long you have to file a complaint? Any complaints should have been filed years age. The ACLU is tasting blood!


13 posted on 04/15/2005 6:44:25 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Will they now try to destroy the MOUNTAIN OF THE HOLY CROSS in Colorado?


14 posted on 04/15/2005 6:46:58 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
It truly is a sad day when we are even thinking about letting red-diaper doper babies smash the crosses off of our war memorials.
15 posted on 04/15/2005 6:48:37 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

I can think of a lot of CROSSES in government cemeteries around the world. Why choose this one?

Da^^n I'm hot!


16 posted on 04/15/2005 6:48:41 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Let them smash crosses in Arlington cemetary. I'd love to see them try.


17 posted on 04/15/2005 6:49:31 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"They want the government to control as many areas as possible and to edge religion out of them."

Sad that it should be a competition when the Constitution seems so clearly to accept both.

18 posted on 04/15/2005 6:50:24 PM PDT by norton (build a wall and post the rules at the gate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"The court has so found and, significantly, ordered the legislative branch – Congress – not to carry out the land exchange, and ordered the executive branch to destroy the cross at the veterans memorial."

Here's a federal judge that needs to be publicly humiliated by rubbing his nose in Section III of the U.S. Constitution and then impeached on the spot.

It's the congress that tells the federal courts what to do not the other way around.

19 posted on 04/15/2005 6:51:13 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Disgusting. I am really beginning to wish very bad things
for the ACLU.


20 posted on 04/15/2005 6:58:39 PM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

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

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson