Human Events Man of the Year: Roy Moore (Exclusive Ann Coulter Feature Article)

Uttering the standard liberal cliché a few years ago, Richard Reeves described "representatives of the new South" as "Republicans of old Puritan definition, righteous folk afraid that someone, somewhere, is having fun." (I'll skip the context of Reeves' insight, except to note that apparently aging liberals view sodomy with the chubby intern in the back office as "having fun.")

Like all beliefs universally held by liberals, Reeves's aphorism is the precise opposite of the truth.

It's the blue states that are constantly sending lawyers to the red states to bother everyone. Americans in the red states look at a place like New York City—where, this year, the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade featured a gay transvestite as Mrs. Claus—and say, Well, I guess some people like it, but it's not for me.

Meanwhile, liberals in New York and Washington are consumed with what people are doing in Alabama and Nebraska. Nadine Strossen and Barry Lynn cannot sleep at night knowing that someone, somewhere, is gazing upon something that could be construed as a religious symbol.

It's never Jerry Falwell flying to Manhattan to review high school graduation speeches, or James Dobson making sure New York City schools give as much time to God as to Mother Earth, or Pat Robertson demanding a crèche next to the schools' Kwanzaa displays. (Is it just me, or is Kwanzaa becoming way too commercialized?)

But when four schools in southern Ohio have Ten Commandments displays, sirens go off in Nadine Strossen's Upper West Side apartment. It will surprise no one to learn that the ACLU promptly sued and the schools are now Ten Commandments-free.

From the Chelsea section of Manhattan, the gay executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, tossed and turned all night thinking about the Ten Commandments display on the Elkhart, Ind., Municipal Building, which had been there, without incident, since 1958. The ACLU sued and the monument was hauled off.

In Ohio, Richland County Common Pleas Judge James DeWeese had a framed poster of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. The ACLU sued and the Ten Commandments came down. Compare that to the late New York judge Elliott Wilk, who famously displayed a portrait of Communist revolutionary Che Guevara on his office wall. (Che, Castro, Hussein—evidently the only bearded revolutionary these people don't like is Jesus Christ.) And yet, no one from Ohio ever sued Wilk.

The ACLU got word of a Ten Commandments monument in a public park in Plattsmouth, Neb. (pop. 7,000), and immediately swooped in to demand that the offensive symbol be removed. Not being from New York, the people of Plattsmouth didn't want to litigate. Soon cranes were in the park ripping out a monument that had sat there, not bothering anyone, for 40 years.

ACLU busybodies sued Johnson County, Iowa, demanding that it remove a Ten Commandments monument that had been in a public courtyard since 1964. Within a year, the 2,500-pound granite monument was gone.

Barry Lynn's "Americans United For Separation of Church and State" sued little Chester County, Pa., demanding that it remove a Ten Commandments plaque that has hung on the courthouse wall since 1920.

The alleged legal basis for removing all of these Ten Commandments monuments is the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. That clause provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The vigilant observer will note instantly that none of the monuments cases involve Congress, a law, or an establishment of religion.

Monuments are not "laws," the Plattsmouth, Neb., court-house is not "Congress," and the Ten Commandments are not a religion. To the contrary, all three major religions believe in Moses and the Ten Commandments. Liberals might as well say the Establishment Clause prohibits Republicans from breathing as that it prohibits a Ten Commandments display. But over the past few years, courts have ordered the removal of dozens of Ten Commandments displays.

Only the attack on Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments got national attention. And it was a newsworthy event: When liberals attacked, Moore didn't fold.

The ACLU began its onslaught against then-Etowah County Circuit Court Judge Moore in 1995, when an ACLU lawyer, apparently depressed that he was not chosen to play Mrs. Claus in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade that year, wrote a letter to all the state judges in Alabama protesting their practice of having a prayer in the courtroom every few weeks. (Obviously you can't have prayer in court: It might distract all the people holding their hand over a Bible and swearing before God Almighty to tell the truth.)

Everything had been going just fine in Alabama—no defendant had ever complained about the practice—but upon receiving a testy letter from the ACLU, all the other Alabama judges immediately ceased and desisted from the foul practice of allowing prayer in court. Judge Moore did not.

For resisting the ACLU's bullying, Moore became High Value Target No. 1. Soon the ACLU and their ilk were filing lawsuits and anonymous ethics complaints against Moore. The ACLU, along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, sued Moore for having a Ten Commandments plaque in his courtroom. (Poverty had been nearly eliminated in the South until a poor person happened to gaze upon Moore's Ten Commandments—and then it was back to square one.)

Another judge found that the Ten Commandments plaque violated the 1st Amendment. Apparently, in a little-noticed development, Judge Moore had become "Congress," his Ten Commandments plaque was a "law," and the plaque established a national religion. The Taliban had better legal justification to blow up centuries-old Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

The then-governor of Alabama, Fob James, responded to the inane ruling by saying he'd send in the Alabama National Guard if anyone tried to take down Moore's Ten Commandments.

That's all it took. The Alabama Supreme Court backed off from a confrontation with the governor by dismissing the ACLU's suit on technical grounds.

James went on to reelection as governor, and Moore won election as chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Liberals reacted to the overwhelming popularity of the state officials who resisted the ACLU by accusing them of stirring up the Ten Commandments dispute as a publicity stunt. The president of the Alabama ACLU said "the whole thing is political" and the officials were using it as an election issue. The ACLU sued, and for not surrendering immediately, Moore and James were media-whores.

Inasmuch as the Ten Commandments turned out to be extremely popular nationwide, claiming Moore was a publicity hound became the left's rallying cry. As Time magazine described Judge Moore's wily ploy: "Sessions of Congress open with prayer, the attorney general holds prayer meetings each morning in his office, the Supreme Court routinely asks that 'God save the United States and this honorable court.' All that seems required for such conduct to persist unchallenged is not to call attention to it." (Emphasis added.)

Just don't call attention to it? That strategy didn't work out so well for Johnson County, Iowa; Plattsmouth, Neb.; Elkhart, Ind.; and dozens of other towns, schools and courthouses across the nation that have been forced over the last few years to remove their Ten Commandments displays.

Yet according to Time, Judge Moore has been on a "crusade" since—in Time's own words—"he defended his right to display" the Ten Commandments. Thus, the magazine continued, "it should have surprised no one" when Moore installed the Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse lobby and "forced a showdown by refusing to remove it."

In other words, he defended himself from one ACLU lawsuit and then—as if that weren't enough—he did not instantly surrender when the ACLU filed a second lawsuit! That guy sure knows how to get publicity.

Indeed, Moore maintained his disagreement with the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution as creating a universal ban on God right up until he was out of a job.

A lot of conservatives said Moore was wrong to refuse to comply with the court's idiotic ruling. Conservatives keep trying to play fair in the faint hope that, someday, liberals will play fair too. Note to conservatives: That will never happen.

The conservative argument for enforcing inane court rulings is that the only other option is anarchy. But we are already living in anarchy. It's a one-sided, Alice-in-Wonderland anarchy in which liberals always win and conservatives always lose—and then cheerfully enforce their own defeats. Oh, you see an abortion clause in there? Okay, I don't see it, but we'll enforce it. Sodomy, too, you say? Okay, it's legal. Gay marriage? Just give us a minute to change the law. No prayer in schools? It's out. Go-go dancing is speech, but protest at abortion clinics isn't? Okie-doky. No Ten Commandments in the courthouse? Somebody get the number of a monument removal service.

What passes for "constitutional law" can be fairly summarized as: heads we win, tails you lose. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues they can get before a court.

If a federal judge can issue an opinion premised on the finding that Chief Justice Moore is "Congress," why can't Moore, in his capacity as "Congress," tell the judge he's impeached? But we can't do that, conservatives say, because that's not really what the liberals mean. And if we don't give liberals everything they want, when they want it, it will lead to anarchy.

Apparently the only thing standing between a government of laws and total anarchy is the fact that conservatives are good losers. If we don't obey manifestly absurd court rulings, the argument goes, then liberals won't obey court rulings when they lose.

Point two: They already refuse to accept laws they don't like. They do it all the time—race-discrimination bans, bilingual education bans, marijuana bans. If you don't let them win every game, they walk off with the football.

Liberals disagreed with the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore and consequently refuse to allow the President to appoint judges. (And consider that the media consortium recount has now proved that under any recount ordered by any court or requested by any party in Bush v. Gore, Bush would still have won Florida.) Texas Democrats fled rather than accept lawful re-districting. Frank Lautenberg entered the New Jersey Senate race after the deadline when it became clear the Democrats' lawful candidate was going to lose. Clinton openly perjured himself, hid evidence and suborned the perjury of others rather than obey court rulings. So we had better take down those Ten Commandments pronto—otherwise liberals won't respect the rule of law!

The perfect example of liberal fair play comes from Chief Justice Moore's own case.

The great conservative attorney general of Alabama, Bill Pryor, openly disagreed with the court's ruling in the Ten Commandments case. But he said, as attorney general, he would have to enforce it. His nomination to a federal appellate court is still being blocked by Senate Democrats—because, they say, he won't enforce laws he disagrees with. No way will they let Pryor through. So that's worked out well.

But someday, perhaps, liberal hearts will be warmed by conservative magnanimity and they will start playing fair, too. We've been waiting for that result for 40 years.

Of course, it's easy for me to say conservatives should start ignoring the unending barrage of inane court rulings: I am not a government official, so I don't have to do it. I don't even have to talk to liberals and I know how tiresome that can be.

But if I were a man rather than part of the frivolous, nonproductive chattering class, Roy Moore is the man I'd like to be. He lost his judgeship because he did what was right. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to uphold whatever blather a liberal judge manages to put on paper. He followed the real law, not liberals' make-believe law. He put principle above his personal interest or comfort. He was actually brave—and this is the only newspaper in the country that will say so. The Ten Commandments monument was removed, but this time, not without a fight.

"I read it very carefully and found it to be totally repugnent - supporting a judge with so little regard for the law. Judges, and the rest of us can disobey any law we want - as long as we're ready to accept the outcome of our actions."

If you educated your self on this matter then you should come to the conclusion that Judge Moore was only one lawful in this matter. The courts did not follow the law at all. They were lawless. Liberal who hate God and write there own law to suite there whims. They are the ones who should be run out of town.
No matter how many times people with your train of thought have been asked to define how the courts ruling is legal...I have not ever been witness to a legitimate answer.

You just figure that they can break the law and that is ok. But anyone being ordered by such a court must obey. How long before you think the courts are going to get back to following the law if every just sits back and says "no problem".

oh, really?
here's the full text, prove your point.
I think you've swallowed a pantsload.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election f or the choice of Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"I read it very carefully and found it to be totally repugnent - supporting a judge with so little regard for the law. Judges, and the rest of us can disobey any law we want - as long as we're ready to accept the outcome of our actions."

Your attitude clearly indicates that you have not understood the Coulter article and are clearly one of the surrendering 'conservatives' Ann is talking about, if you are even a conservative. Moore broke no laws, he stood against bigoted oppression. Something you don't understand. You'd probably jump off a cliff if they passed a law saying you had to...in the name of the rule of law, like a good little sheep.

"Stating that the Alabama constitution required him to recognize God (which is a flat out falsehood) raused similar questions."

How is this a falsehood?

The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God". It doesn't get much more blatant than that. Now, if you want to argue that that doesn't mean he's -required- to do so, have a field day! But it's a strawman. The text of the Constitution makes it pretty obvious that he is, at the -very- least, PERMITTED to invoke "the favor and guidance of Almighty God".

Frankly, my interpretation of his saying it was "required" was not that it was "required" on the face of it, but that it was required because it was under deliberate attack. His oath "requires" him to defend the Constitution, and that part of the Constitution that gives him PERMISSION to invoke God was under attack. He is therefore -required- to defend it. That's the context I saw that part of his statement in.

Fair warning: I'm Agnostic. This isn't about religion to me, it's about what the government has the power to do, and it does -not- have the power to smack down religious expression EVEN WITHIN ITSELF. I have a strong libertarian streak, and it is THAT part of me that absolutely rejects the current interpretation of the Establishment clause. Your brand of libertarianism is as polluted as that of liberals - you pick and choose what in the plain meaning of the Constitution to enforce, and reword the rest to your liking in order to sate your anti-religious bias.

I'm with Ann all the way on this.

Qwinn

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.