Get That Cross Down Now!!

For the past week we have been voicing our support for HR 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) of 2005. And this is a case that would potentially be effected by it should it already be law. In San Diego, California, there has been a fight over a cross put upon Mount Soledad.

Decades ago, private citizens placed the cross on that site to honor Korean War veterans. In 2004, President Bush signed legislation designating the site a 'National War Memorial'. Now, an atheist who travels the road overlooked by the cross has complained. And with the help of the American Communist Lawyers Union, successfully got a federal judge to declare that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and ordered it removed.

The people of San Diego County have a ballot issue on the matter coming up for a vote on July 26. But now the attorney for Philip Paulson, James McElroy has filed lawsuits against 3 radio personalities, a state Congressman, and SoledadNational.com Director Phil Thalmeimer over the language used on the ballot issue.

The language objected to reads, "Vote Yes to transfer the land to the federal government and to permanently preserve Mount Soledad -- as it is where it is." And another statement that reads in part, "as in the case with Mount Soledad, wherever veterans are honored with the symbols of the fallen, an intolerant few will launch frivolous lawsuits that waste our tax dollars…"

The five men named in the suit believe that they will prevail in court. They plan on standing by the wording in question.

This is a classic reason why, we need PERA 2005 to pass. The ACLU's motivation in this case is federal funding. Remove the monetary motivation and you remove the reason for the suit.

This Philip Paulson must really be a weak minded individual if the sight of a cross on a hill can effect him in such a way as to be offended by it. What kind of power can a cross have over someone who doesn't believe in its meaning? How can the sight of it just cause such an offense in the mind of this individual as to promote a reason to sue?

The answer is simple. Money. He proclaims himself an atheist and manufactures an offense so as to get paid for something that he hasn't worked for. The lure of easy money. Because what is the optimal result for him? He wins, the cross gets removed, he gets damages for his offense, and his lawyers get more money to file more frivolous lawsuits.

Urge passage of HR 2679, The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. What this bill does, is to remove the ability for the award of federal funding in order to recover legal fees. These suits are often taken pro bono. But once won, the attorneys are able to recover legal fees from the government. We need to get groups like the ACLU off the Taxpayers' Dime. Call, write, or email your Congressman and Senators and urge passage of this bill.

The ACLU's motivation in this case is federal funding. Remove the monetary motivation and you remove the reason for the suit.

Among ACLU's founders January 12, 1920, were William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and Louis F. Budenz. All three later became prominent leaders of the Communist Party, USA, although Budenz broke with the Party in 1945 and became a militant anti-Communist.

In 1976, Congress passed the Civil Rights Attorneys Fee Awards Act, which was designed to encourage private lawyers to take on suits to protect civil and constitutional rights. The law provides that judges can order federal and state governments to pay legal fees to private lawyers who sued the government and won. The result has been a flood of civil rights cases in federal court. From The New American Feb. 2, 1987

It's an outrage that US law, passed during the Watergate era, allows the ACLU to collect attorney's fees for makework----Christian-hatng lawsuits it itself launches.

That means "values voters" have been footing the bill for the ACLU's launching a juggernaut to remove Ten Commandments images, Christmas creches and Christmas carols, taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and because they claim they have a civil right not to see the Ten Commandments, a civil right not to hear the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, not to see a creche of the Baby Jesus, not to hear Christmas carols. The ACLU has collected a huge amount of our tax dollars in this left-handed fundraiser for the ACLU.

FReepers can silence the ACLU with a bit of activism. We need to insist our Congressmen repeal this abusive law that allows the ACLU to get rich on harassing Christian America. Congress must repeal laws enabling the ACLU's Christian-hating activities. Cut off the ACLU's funds and watch them disappear. Here's what we can do.

Under the aegis of the ACLU's Foundation---worth some $135 million---any number of financial travesties can be hidden. The IRS should determine whether the ACLU is properly accounting for all its tax-funded activities, whether it is inflating legal costs, and whether it is using tax dollars for the purposes stated. We need to know whether the ACLU is engaged in Enron-style accounting and spending practices.

REFERENCE SOURCE FOR ARGUING REPEAL TO CONGRESS

Apparently, when Congress contemplated the fee-shifting bill three decades ago, it never conceived that 42 U.S.C. §1988 would be used to secure fees in esoteric battles over the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The statute gives a court "discretion" to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in civil rights cases.

Study of the legislative history of the statute reveals that Congress intended this statute to apply to civil rights abuses, including certain race and sex discrimination cases, but not to arguments about whether Judge Roy Moore is allowed to display the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse.

During the deliberations on the bill, the Senate penned that "in many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who must sue to enforce the law has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer."[6] In the recent First Amendment lawsuits filed by the ACLU, the tables are turned.

Small school districts and municipalities can either defend lawsuits and risk paying the ACLU's attorneys' fees if they lose, or they can voluntarily submit to the ACLU's view of the Constitution.

Even if lawsuits over the establishment clause somehow fall within 42 U.S.C. §1988, the statute empowers courts with nothing more than "discretion" to award fees.

In these cases, one would expect courts to withhold awarding fees. Since this is not happening, Congress must take immediate action to clarify 42 U.S.C. §1988 to explicitly exclude lawsuits related to the acknowledgement of God.

NOTE: In order to spread this message far and wide, you may have already received it. Sorry about that.

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.