Posted on 05/31/2005 11:46:40 AM PDT by ViLaLuz
---------------------------------
Posted: July 8, 2005
A federal appeals court rejected the claim of a woman represented by the ACLU who said she was offended by Christmas displays at a city hall.
Grace C. Osediacz sued the city of Cranston, R.I., asserting that the religious displays -- erected along with secular displays by members of the public in an area designated by the city -- violate the so-called "separation of church and state."
But a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled unanimously Wednesday that Osediacz had no standing to bring her claim. "This is the court's message: You can't sue just because you're an offended observer," said Benjamin Bull, chief counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, or ADF.
ADF-allied attorney Tom Marcelle represented the city in the case.
"The appeals court today," Bull continued, "rejected what has been a longstanding ACLU tactic -- filing lawsuits simply for the reason that somebody claims to be offended. The Christmas displays in Cranston were perfectly constitutional, just as the district court ruled."
Last November, a federal district court ruled that Cranston's practice of allowing private holiday displays, including religious displays, on the front lawn of City Hall does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The district court granted an injunction against the city on other grounds at that time, but the appeals court Wednesday threw out the injunction, saying that Osediacz had no standing to sue.
In Wednesday's opinion, the three-judge panel wrote, "The Constitution requires that litigants have a personal stake in a case before they may sue in a federal court., and this plaintiff has not provided facts sufficient to show that she possesses such a stake."
U.S. District Court Judge William Smith wrote last year that nothing in the city's public statements or in its implementation of the policy for its Christmas displays "reveals or even remotely supports an inference that a religious purpose was behind the creation of the limited public forum," as the ACLU's lawsuit alleged.
CHICAGO — A federal judge has ruled the Pentagon can no longer spend millions in government money to ready a Virginia military base for a national Boy Scout event typically held every four years, the American Civil Liberties Union (search) announced Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning's June 22 order stems from a 1999 lawsuit by the ACLU of Illinois that claimed the Defense Department (search) sponsorship violates the First Amendment because the Scouts require members to swear an oath of duty to God.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said Thursday the government was still considering its options.
The order doesn't cover this year's National Scout Jamboree (search), which start July 25 and is expected to draw more than 40,000 people to the Army's Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. A Scouts spokesman said he expects the Pentagon's lawyers to appeal.
"We are confident that an appeal to the 7th Circuit will return everything to the status quo," Bob Bork said.
ACLU of Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka said no other youth organization receives millions of dollars in government support, and that the injunction is the latest step toward ending the Scouts' unfair advantage.
The Defense Department notified the Chicago federal court in April that it would support this summer's jamboree, despite a ruling by Manning in March that the department's aid was unconstitutional. The government argued at the time that the ruling wasn't final.
The government aid, which amounted to $6 million and $8 million respectively for the jamborees in 1997 and 2001, was used to transport military personnel and other goods there, according to Manning's March order. The government expected to pay about $7.3 million for this year's jamboree.
Jamboree activities include archery, biking, a confidence course, environmental conservation programs and kayaking, according to the Scouts' Web site.
The Rev. Eugene Winkler, a Methodist minister who is one of the plaintiffs in the case, said he got involved because he did not agree with the use of taxpayer money to support the Scouts.
"We're not attacking the Scouts and neither is the ACLU," Winkler said. "This issue is not about the Boy Scouts at all. It's about government funding for religious purposes. It's about separation" of church and state.
Some recent events would seem to indicate that the American Civil Liberties Union is lost in the woods without a compass. A moral compass, that is.
For the last five years, the ACLU has been fighting the federal departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development because of their support for the Boy Scouts of America – support that has taken the form of raising money for their national jamborees, allowing military personnel to lead Scout troops in their personal capacities, and providing access to government facilities for free.
Now, a federal judge has sided with the ACLU and ruled that a Virginia military base can no longer host a Scout jamboree after this year's event. Why? Because the Scout oath pledges duty to God – a supposed violation of the so-called "separation of church and state."
The Boy Scouts of America is a federally chartered patriotic organization that's recognized by Congress – one the Pentagon has been proud to be involved with for the last 50 years. The DOD and HUD are strongly defending the Scouts' right to meet on military bases and receive funding.
But the whole ordeal shows us something ugly about the ACLU – its single-minded obsession with attacking the Boy Scouts of America. Not only do the Scouts ask their leaders to pledge their loyalty to God – always a no-no in the ACLU's eyes, no matter how appropriate that might be for military troops and their children in harnessing aggression with restraint, particularly in wartime – but they have the audacity to conduct their business by a set of moral standards that runs counter to the ACLU's. Namely, men who are openly and actively engaging in homosexual behavior are barred from leading Scout troops.
I'm referring, of course, to the landmark 2000 case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, for which the Alliance Defense Fund funded friend-of-the-court briefs and assisted the Scouts' lawyers, and in which the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Scouts have a constitutional right to free, expressive association. But you'd never know it from reading about them in most of the mainstream media: Ever since that decision was handed down, the Scouts have been vilified as one of the most bigoted, hateful, intolerant groups in America. And the ACLU has been leading the charge against them, when in fact, the principles held by 3.2 million Boy Scouts – building character; training to become active, responsible citizens; and developing personal fitness – are a lot more like the values held by the rest of America than those held by the ACLU.
Whose values, then, are like the ACLU's? Not Virginia's. In addition to wanting the Scouts off a military base there, the ACLU is also attacking the state for enacting a law that keeps juvenile boys and girls from running around hotels or campgrounds naked without a parent or guardian in attendance.
The ACLU's views do seem more in line with the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which fights to lower the legal age of consent so that sex between grown men and adult boys can become more "acceptable" to mainstream society. That may never happen – but the ACLU has signaled such a change is acceptable to them. Its lawyers stepped in to defend NAMBLA in 2000 after the group was named in a lawsuit against two homosexual men who frequented the group's website – and who then raped and murdered a 10-year-old Massachusetts boy.
But a lack of moral standing is only one problem the ACLU has in its latest fight with the Scouts; the other is that they have very little legal grounds to challenge them. In fighting to have the military end its involvement with the Scouts, the ACLU chose the most humorous of excuses – taxpayer standing. This is the organization that has never met a government expenditure to advance its agenda it didn't like. ACLU attorneys are not representing a child who was allegedly abused by a scoutmaster, one who was denied entry or any other kind of direct injury claim. They're simply saying that taxpayer dollars were used for character building they don't like. So not only is their case without merit – it was brought on grounds the ACLU itself disagrees with on other facts (for example, its support of public funding for abortion).
But, alas, that's to be expected of a group that stands for nothing but absolute autonomy. Behave in the most hedonistic ways imaginable, the more immoral the better, and the ACLU will defend you to the death. The problem is that kind of self-centeredness doesn't do much for society.
But the Boy Scouts – and their Christian values – do.
Evolution returns to court as parents target science textbook
July 14, 2005
"HARRISBURG, Pa. - (KRT) - In a case that reopens the decades-old debate into the teaching of evolution in public schools, attorneys for 11 York County, Pa., parents on Thursday sought to depict the authors of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" as motivated by religion, not science. ..."
ACLU pushes state on Quran oaths
News Record ^ | 14-July-05 | Eric Collins
"GREENSBORO — The ACLU of North Carolina on Monday accused state court officials of not responding quickly enough to a controversy involving the use of the Quran for courtroom oaths.
The group’s legal foundation is calling on the state Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a policy allowing the Quran and other religious texts for oath-taking in North Carolina courtrooms. ..."
CA: Civil rights lawyers petition for deportee's release (ACLU)
Bakersfield Californian ^ | 7/15/05 | AP - Los Angeles
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Civil rights attorneys have filed a 17-page petition in federal court seeking the release of a Palestinian accused of having ties to terrorism who has been held for a year on immigration charges.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the petition Thursday in U.S. District Court on behalf of Abdel-Jabbar Hamdan, who was arrested on immigration charges in July 2004.
His arrest came as federal authorities unsealed an indictment against the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, where Hamdan worked as a fundraiser. The indictment charged the charity with funneling millions to the Palestinian militant group Hamas. ..."
ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training
CWA ^ | 7/14/2005 | Robert Knight
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing school districts in California and Kentucky in an attempt to force them to conduct mandatory homosexual appreciation sessions for students and staff.
ACLU to help reformed killer help others
Anchorage Daily News ^ | July 7, 2005 | Lisa Demer
By LISA DEMER, Anchorage Daily News
The American Civil Liberties Union has gone to court for Mike Purcell, a man convicted of murder as a teen who has served his time and wants a career in social work.
Purcell, now 37, otherwise qualifies for entry into the social work program at the University of Alaska Anchorage. But the social work faculty twice rejected his bid, as did an academic review committee and a college dean.
ACLU Challenges Yelm City Council's 'Speak No Wal-Mart' Policy(a broken clock is right twice a day)
Town Council's Ban on Talk of Wal-Mart Draws Protest From ACLU ^
Note from ViLaLuz - Don't be fooled. The ACLU only cares about getting a $ettlement from the town of Yelm.
Gov. Bush touts Christian-based program for schools [FL ACLU criticizes All-Pro Dad program]
Palm Beach Post ^ | July 06, 2005 | Dara Kam
TALLAHASSEE — Just before Father's Day, Gov. Jeb Bush announced that he wanted every public school in Florida to host a Christian-based program designed to increase fathers' participation in their children's lives.
Seven Years After Curley Murder, ACLU Still Subsidizing Opponents of Death Penalty
On October 1, 1997, 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley jumped into a car on the promise of a new bike and $50; instead, he was driven to Newton and suffocated with a gasoline-soaked rag. His attackers -- members of The North American Man Boy Love Association -- then took his dead body back to their apartment and sodomized him, put his body in a concrete-filled plastic container, and dumped it in a Southern Maine river, where it lay for six days before divers found it. The two men, when caught, pled not guilty, and their trials were held in 1998.
Preserving America's Values and Traditions
Legion Supports Public Expression of Religion Act, HR 2679
On May 26, Representative John Hostettler (IN) introduced H. R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 or abbreviated as “PERA”. The bill, currently with 19 co-sponsors, seeks to amend the federal law which threatens constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials resulting from the threat of potential litigants seeking monetary damages and attorney fees. In lieu of attorney fees under Title 42, United States Code, Chapter 1988, a civil action brought under 42 USC 1979 alleging a violation of the Constitution’s establishment of religion clause would be limited to the sole remedy of injunctive relief and not reimbursement of attorneys' fees.
In 1976, Congress determined that in many cases arising under civil rights laws, the citizen who must sue to enforce the law has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer. So Congress legislated the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act. This law was designed to encourage individual plaintiffs injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief. Knowing civil rights enforcement depended heavily upon private enforcement, fee awards were allowed as a vital remedy for private citizens, if they are to have a meaningful opportunity to challenge unfair policies. Attorney fee awards, although discretionary with a trial judge, are usually approved for the prevailing party. However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has twisted this civil rights legislation to achieve results Congress never intended.
Nationwide we are seeing the chilling results of this assault on religion. For example, Los Angeles County supervisors decided to remove the tiny gold cross on the county seal rather than defend it against a threatened ACLU lawsuit. The ACLU argues that the inclusion of a cross on the official government seal reflects "an impermissible endorsement of Christianity." Because of that, the ACLU says, it violates 1st Amendment guarantees of separation of church and state. In a letter to the supervisors, the archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles contended the cross recalls the importance of Catholic missions in the county's heritage. The cross, along with other images symbolizing Los Angeles history on the seal, have adorned the county seal since 1957.
Using similar tactics, the ACLU received $500,000 in fees from the case Judge Roy Moore of Alabama and the Ten Commandments memorial case. In Bueno, et al, v. Norton, et al, the ACLU stated that the presence of an eight-foot tall Latin cross on federally-owned land in the Mojave National Preserve violated the US Constitution’s Establishment Clause. Accordingly, the Cross erected in 1934 to honor war veterans, is now covered with a large canvas as appeals go forward. To date, the ACLU has received over $63,000 in attorney fees on this case. In Paulson v. City of San Diego, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that when the city of San Diego, CA sold public land containing a cross on it, the City could not favor a buyer with the sectarian purpose of cross preservation. The city owned Mt. Soledad, a 170-acre site dedicated to public use in 1916 on which stands a 143 foot-tall Latin cross, dedicated in 1954 as a tribute to veterans of WWI, WWII and the Korean War. While total costs are not known, it is known that when the city of San Diego filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, the city had to pay over $18,00 in public funds as court costs to the ACLU plaintiffs.
The American Legion supports the intent of H.R. 2679. This country was founded by men of profound religious belief. In fact, the first sentence of the First Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This is another example of a vocal minority trying to impinge on the rights of the majority. All members of The American Legion family should contact their congressional members and urge them to become co-sponsors of H.R. 2679.
| Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] | Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] |
| Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] | Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] |
| Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] | Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] |
| Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] | Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] |
| Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] | Rep Jenkins, William L. [TN-1] |
| Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] | Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] |
| Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] | Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] |
| Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] | Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] |
| Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] | Rep Ramstad, Jim [MN-3] |
| Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] | Rep Sodrel, Michael E. [IN-9] |
| Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] | Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] |
If you haven't called your congressman yet, please do. If you already have, remind them.
Congress asked to probe ACLU
Accused of 'widespread use of frivolous lawsuits'
"... Swarthout said if the ACLU wins the battle in court, it can expect a large financial boost, pointing to other cases in which the group's attorneys have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers. ..."
The public is beginning to realize that the ACLU continues to file lawsuits against public organizations in order to suck up taxpayer funds.
Tax money to pay for legal fight
08/10/2005, By Arielle Kass
WINDER — Nearly two years after an anonymous resident sued the county to remove a framed copy of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse breezeway, Barrow County commissioners authorized a payment of $150,001 to the American Civil Liberties Union and the resident to be paid today with taxpayer dollars. ...
""If they're looking for a test case, we're not it," Olens said."
The ACLU isn't looking for a test case, Mr. Olens, they are looking for the money in your county's coffers.
| Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 5/26/2005 | Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 5/26/2005 |
| Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 5/26/2005 | Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 5/26/2005 |
| Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 5/26/2005 | Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 5/26/2005 |
| Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 6/30/2005 | Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 9/8/2005 |
| Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 6/8/2005 | Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 5/26/2005 |
| Rep Jenkins, William L. [TN-1] - 5/26/2005 | Rep Jindal, Bobby [LA-1] - 10/20/2005 |
| Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 5/26/2005 | Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 7/29/2005 |
| Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 5/26/2005 | Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 9/15/2005 |
| Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 9/15/2005 | Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 9/15/2005 |
| Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 5/26/2005 | Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 5/26/2005 |
| Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 5/26/2005 | Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 5/26/2005 |
| Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 5/26/2005 | Rep Ramstad, Jim [MN-3] - 6/17/2005 |
| Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 5/26/2005 | Rep Sodrel, Michael E. [IN-9] - 5/26/2005 |
| Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 5/26/2005 | Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] - 5/26/2005 |
Ex-ACLU attorney: Group 'terrorizing' U.S.
Activist praises bill that would keep taxpayer funds from organization
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48098
Posted: December 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
An attorney who once worked for the American Civil Liberties Union has slammed the organization for "perverting" federal law by successfully threatening government officials into getting rid of public expressions of religion.
Rees Lloyd made the comments in an online podcast hosted by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in which the two discuss the congressman's legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square – such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal.
Lloyd, a California civil-rights attorney, is an officer with the American Legion who wrote a resolution passed by the national organization supporting Hostettler's bill.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.
In the podcast, Hostettler explains that the 1976 statute was meant to help "the little guy" who is going up against a governmental entity so he won't be impoverished when working to guarantee the liberty to express or practice his faith. But, says the lawmaker, the ACLU has used the law to enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers and as a means to silence public officials who don't want to be sued personally.
Hostettler says some organizations have created a new civil liberty – a right to be protected "from religion, which is found nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights." The Indiana congressman blames "a very select group" for "perverting" the original statute, including the ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separate of Church and State.
"They use this statute to extort behavior out of individuals," the congressman said, citing the Indiana Civil Liberties Union threatening local educators. The group sent a letter to officials saying they would be sued and be forced to pay attorney's fees should any graduation prayers be offered at commencement ceremonies. The threat sent the message, Hostettler said, that individuals tied to school districts could be impoverished personally.
Said the lawmaker: "When officials see the potential threat of a lawsuit, they stop allowing children to write papers for English class – when they're asked to write about the most important person in their life and they decide to write about Jesus Christ."
Hostettler's bill would allow cases to move through the courts without public officials worrying about being held personally liable for thousands in attorneys fees.
"Let's let these cases go forward; let's let the courts decide what's constitutional and what's not, and let's not leave it up to the ACLU," he said.
Hostettler explained that while government entities can pay attorney's fees charged to individual elected officials, they don't legally have to, which puts the politicians on the hook.
Saying most taxpayers are in favor of allowing public religious expression, the congressman noted the irony of those same taxpayers being forced to pay the ACLU to sue their local governments.
"The current threat to public officials is very real; it's ongoing," Hostettler stated. "It's been the case for several years that public officials are scared to death to suggest any type of public recognition of our Christian roots. It's a problem that needs to be addressed in Washington, D.C."
PERA would prohibit damages, court fees and attorney's fees from going to plaintiffs in establishment-clause suits while keeping the original purpose of the civil-rights law, Hstettler says, to provide a means for those whose religious liberties have been blocked to find justice.
The congressman wonders why the ACLU would oppose his legislation since it still provides for "injunctive relief" – e.g., a court can rule in the ACLU's favor and force the removal of a Ten Commandments display – but takes out the monetary incentive for lawsuits.
"If they're not out for the money but are really out to preserve our civil liberties … then the ACLU should not be opposing my bill," Hostettler commented.
Hostettler mentioned the case of Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, whose colleagues on the state Supreme Court ordered the removal of a Ten Commandments display because, the congressman says, they didn't want the state's taxpayers to have to pay anymore than they did – $500,000 – to the ACLU as a result of the case.
In the podcast, Lloyd decried the "terrorizing litigation tactics of the ACLU."
Said Lloyd: "Not only can the ACLU brings these suits and compel taxpayers to pay them to destroy the public display of our American history and heritage, but so can Islamist terrorists or Islamist sympathizers in our midst.
"All they have to do is walk into court, make their claim that they're offended by the sight of a cross or other religious symbol, and they're going to win the case because judges follow one another under stare decisis," or deference to precedent.
The judges would then order that fees be paid to the Islamists, Lloyd contends.
Lloyd said this issue came into focus for him when he witnessed the fight in San Diego, Calif., over a cross on a veterans' memorial on public land in the Mohave Desert.
"For me, that was the one step taken too far," Lloyd said. "Now, for the first time, the ACLU was attacking the very veterans who secured their freedom."
A civil-rights activist since the '60s, Lloyd worked with the ACLU in the '70s and was "very supportive" of the 1976 Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act because it was a "noble attempt to assure that people who had legitimate civil-rights violations and injuries could secure legal representation."
Stated Lloyd: "The ACLU has perverted, distorted and exploited the Civil Rights Act … to turn it into a lawyer-enrichment act."
Lloyd says the American people are "oblivious" to how many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are going to the ACLU each year.
The attorney pointed out many attorneys in cases brought by the ACLU are volunteers, so the fees the group is awarded normally do not go to reimburse an attorney but rather directly into the organization's coffers.
Lloyd also mentioned the case in Los Angeles County, where threat of litigation caused the Board of Supervisors to have the county's seal redesigned to eliminate a tiny cross.
"They would have fought the ACLU but for one reason: the threat of attorney's fees," Lloyd said.
As WorldNetDaily reported, in October the Center for Reclaiming America announced it had 100,000 signatures on a petition in support of PERA. Since then, another 60,000 have been collected.
Hostettler's bill, which was introduced first in 2003 without success, currently has 35 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and sits in the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Stated Hostettler: "If we're successful in Washington, D.C., it will be because the American people have had enough. … This is a war worth fighting."
Previous stories:
100,000 back bill to curb ACLU
Petition: Get ACLU off taxpayer dole
Congress asked to probe ACLU
There are now 35 co-sponsors, up from 28!
COSPONSORS(35), ALPHABETICAL
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 5/26/2005
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 5/26/2005
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 5/26/2005
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 5/26/2005
Rep Beauprez, Bob [CO-7] - 11/18/2005
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-10] - 11/18/2005
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 5/26/2005
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 5/26/2005
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 11/18/2005
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 6/30/2005
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 9/8/2005
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 6/8/2005
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 5/26/2005
Rep Jenkins, William L. [TN-1] - 5/26/2005
Rep Jindal, Bobby [LA-1] - 10/20/2005
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 5/26/2005
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 7/29/2005
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 5/26/2005
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 11/18/2005
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 9/15/2005
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 11/18/2005
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 9/15/2005
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 9/15/2005
Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 5/26/2005
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 5/26/2005
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 5/26/2005
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 12/6/2005
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 5/26/2005
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 5/26/2005
Rep Ramstad, Jim [MN-3] - 6/17/2005
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 5/26/2005
Rep Sodrel, Michael E. [IN-9] - 5/26/2005
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 5/26/2005
Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] - 5/26/2005
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 11/18/2005
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.