Posted on 05/31/2005 11:46:40 AM PDT by ViLaLuz
Thank you so very much for brining this to my attention. I have called my Congressman.
Jay777, please add me to your list. Thanks!
Thank you angelsonmyside, for calling your congressman. Please spread the word! Let's stop the ACLU from exploiting the taxpayers.
I will add you!
Contacted Rep. Nunes. Done.
This is Bad legislation! Your going after the wrong target. There is no “tax payer” funding of the ACLU.
Get after the Judges. Not the law that let’s YOU recover expenses.
So where do governments get their money when they have to pay up? The taxpayer.
Get after the Judges. Not the law that let’s YOU recover expenses.
I agree we also need to get after the judges. But why should we have to pay the ACLU lawyers' fee (via our taxes to cities, towns, etc.) just because someone is "offended"?
This isn't going to stop recovery from real damage, such as physical injury or property damage. It's only going to stop collection of fees in cases where someone is "offended."
Religion Fights A No Profit Situation
Indiana Rep. John Hostettler (R) is getting ready to face down Goliath using the very stone that has been hurled at the religious elements in government, schools, and other public entities that have been the recipient of recent lawsuit engagements by the ACLU (i.e., the law). It is Rep. Hostettler's intention to introduce an amendment to Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 which will prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorneys fees in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings.
Civil rights cases historically were based on the premise that the injured party was mentally, physically or monetarily injured, not as in recent events offended as those who have taken issue with prayer in school or religious decorations placed in government buildings or public squares. The ACLU has changed it's litigation standards over the years. The reason is money. Bring in 10 attorneys like the ACLU does on their cases and the cost of litigating gets real expensive to those who have the misfortune to be named defendants in the case. Most school systems and small government entities do not have the financial reserves to fight an army of attorneys. So through intimidation by threat of lawsuit many who would fight, can't.
To find out how to contact your state Representatives and Senators, visit the Stop the ACLU website. It is time for Goliath to be knocked down.
http://isitjust.blogspot.com/2005/05/house-members-fight-aclus-ill-gotten.html
House Members Fight ACLU's Ill-Gotten Gains
Members of the House of Representatives have introduced legislation to limit monetary rewards to reimburse legal fees by those who would seek to sue over religious issues. It is called the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005'.
I first posted on this on May 8th (read previous post). As I stated in that article, unless a litigated case can prove damage beyond a perceived state of being offended, the case will fall into this Act's jurisdiction and no monetary reimbursement for attorney fees by the party that sues can be awarded. This will reduce greatly the amount of frivolous lawsuits, as seen recently in the news, that the ACLU has initiated against schools, cities, counties, and states in which religious art in public places or on public grounds was the basis for the lawsuit. Additionally, those lawsuits stemming from "a moment of silence", prayer in public places, or any other religious issue in which the damage is an "offense" and not one that causes physical or monetary damage will fall under this Act.
Let your Congressmen know that you support this action. For too long now, the ACLU has initiated all manners of frivolous lawsuits that have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary litigation for taxpayers. The way the ACLU supports itself is through litigation of this nature. With the enactment of the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005' the financial funding for the ACLU will be dealt a huge blow. They do not work "pro bono" as they would like everyone to believe. Their attorneys will not pursue litigation that does not line their pockets one way or the other. Their work is not a charitable work for the greater good of mankind. It is all a matter of litigation for profit for the ACLU. It is time this stops.
Read more on this at Stop the ACLU.
Thanks BigFinn. I contacted my state senators and rep last night.
Now let's continue to spread awareness of this bill.
This law has been turned on its head by the ACLU. They use this law to help fund their campaign against the very small schools and local governments it was meant to protect. This amendment does not abolish the law anyway! It only protects local and State officials from being sued for expressing their religion.
Thanks for the ping on H.R. 2679
It is a start though.
By the way I would have contacted my State (D) Sen but he has been indicted on extrition charges and had to resign before getting the big boot.
One down.....
A couple more FR links related to this topic:
When Good Legislation is Abused - Fix It!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1414511/posts
And this one is especially interesting because it takes place in Rep. John Hostettler's home state...
ICLU wants Jesus out of prayers in House, files suit
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1414517/posts
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=48219
American Legion: When Good Legislation is Abused -- Fix It
6/1/2005 10:31:00 AM
What happens when Your rights are trampled on by some lefty manned government
entity?
Will you take your case to the courts or let it ride because of the cost?
You win! Should you not recover your costs?
Street preachers arrested on Strip(ACLU defending)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1408572/posts
for later pingout.
Come on now. This is ALREADY HAPPENING.
Right now, over and over again, unethical lawyers and secular groups are taking away your civil rights. They are the ones running around suing those exercising their first amendment right to religious expression.
It's ridiculous to equate civil rights actually being trampled to being "offended."
The secular groups do it because they hate religion so much, they are "offended" at every expression. They are the fanatics pushing us toward a godless socialist society.
The lawyers do it because they've discovered they can sue or threaten to sue and get paid anyway.
The bill puts into perspective the difference between actual civil rights from being "offended" over any mention of anything religious. It plugs the loophole that allows unethical lawyers to exploit public funds provided by the taxpayers.
This bill isn't about taking away anyones' rights. Didn't you read any of the posts to you? Or are you one of those who will say anything irregardless of the facts to stop something you don't agree with? I suspect the latter.
Thanks little jeremiah. Would you consider sending your ping list over here so we can spread the word for this bill? I've only seen ONE ARTICLE so far covering this very important development in the war against the ACLU.
A bit long, but this has been republished and contains lots of valuable timely information:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4494
The ACLU campaign to advance communist goals
May 14th, 2005
By William J. Becker Jr.
Shuffling out of the movie theater last weekend, I emitted a silent scream, frustrated by yet another example of Christianity under assault, the tumescent epic, “Kingdom of Heaven,” a film so utterly contemptuous of Christians and adoring of Muslims that a leading authority on the Crusades branded it “Osama Bin Laden's version of history.”
“What insane times we live in,” one film critic notes. “Here we are in the midst of the War on Terror, and all Hollywood can do is continually bash Christianity.”
In an industry historically known for coddling communists (the blacklist, Jane Fonda, Stone, Spielberg and others traipsing off to Cuba to glorify Castro) one tends to surrender to the unregenerate status quo. Only through the fortitude of pioneers like Jason Apuzzo and Govindini Murty, whose Liberty Film Festival departs from the script by promoting works of an emerging class of conservative filmmakers, can truthful depictions of history get told.
The opiate of Hollywood fare disguised as high-minded popular culture further dulls the minds of a culture already narcotized by a steady supply of anti-Christian rhetoric. The “mainstream” media remains complicit, as evidenced by Harper’s May issue, exposing “America’s Most Powerful Megachurch,” and the “hate” of “national religious broadcasters.”
“America,” said Joseph Stalin, “is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”
Hollywood and the media certainly play major roles in the subtle campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian traditions, but they pose a lesser threat than the judiciary and activist organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund, who represent its driving force.
In Southern California especially, these activists have targeted the Christian cross with glorious success. Examples abound:
Government Seal Cases: The ACLU Foundation of Southern California threatened to sue the County of Los Angeles and the City of Redlands unless depictions of the cross were removed from their official seals.
War Memorial Cases: The ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties succeeded in its legal effort to dismantle the 43-foot tall Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross, a landmark for more than 50 years in La Jolla. The ACLU Foundation of Southern California was equally successful in obtaining an order dismantling a cross that has been a World War I memorial fixture on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert since 1932.
Though battles have been lost, the war rages on:
In Los Angeles, two lawsuits were filed against the County. The Thomas More Law Center, of which I am affiliated counsel but not in their action, sued the County under an Establishment Clause theory. U.S. District Judge S. James Otero sustained the ACLU’s demurrer. The case is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
The Claremont Institute, the Individual Rights Foundation, the Orange County firm of Wagner Lautsch and I sued in Superior Court under state and federal constitutional theories as well as under a taxpayer waste theory pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 526a. This action has been stayed pending the outcome of the federal appeal. I am also vice-chair of the Committee to Save the Seal Ordinance petition drive, the purpose of which is to place a measure on a June 6, 2006, ballot putting the question whether the cross should remain on the seal to voters.
In Redlands, a similar measure will appear on a November ballot.
In San Diego, the City Council will hear argument on May 17 over whether to consider a transfer of the Mount Soledad property to private owners.
And on April 8, 2005, after an unsuccessful appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and without media fanfare, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Timlin signed an order requiring the immediate dismantling of the Sunrise Rock cross. That case, Buono v. Norton, has drawn the wrath of the American Legion, which is approaching the defeat with a novel solution.
The Legion passed a resolution calling on Congress to amend 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to bar recovery of attorney fees to the prevailing party in cases filed for the purpose of removing and destroying religious symbols located on public property.
Rees Lloyd, a past commander of a Legion post in Banning, California, and himself a former ACLU attorney, drafted the resolution. This week, U.S. Representative John Hostettler (R-Indiana) is expected to introduce the Public Expression of Religion Act. Its goal is to drive out one incentive to file lawsuits where no one is complaining and no one is actually injured. The ACLU pockets the change even when delegating work to pro bono attorneys.
In a recent Daily Journal news item (5-6-05), attention was drawn to the measure, but in publicizing it, those attorneys who are expected to oppose the measure were classified as “civil rights” lawyers while those of us who would support it were not.
The report led by stating that supporters hope it will have a “chilling effect on civil rights attorneys.” Later in the piece, the reporter noted that “civil liberties lawyers warn the measure, if successful, would bode ill for anyone tackling an issue unpopular with a member of Congress.”
Identified as “an advocate for keeping the cross on the [County] seal,” I somehow failed to rate the civil rights lawyer tag.
But if I am not a civil rights lawyer, defending the rights of people whose traditions and heritage are under attack, then what? Who really believes that a cross in the desert, on a hilltop or on a seal establishes a government-endorsed religion? Who honestly believes their tax money is working to do any more than to honor war veterans or the community’s heritage?
Communicating the message of religious liberty certainly presents challenges, not the least of which is convincing the media, or Hollywood for that matter, that defending the cross is beneficial to our society and in fact crucial to preserving our civil rights and liberties.
When the ACLU cleverly named itself a “civil liberties” union in 1920, its idea of civil liberty was hardly consistent with what the U.S. Constitution’s framers had in mind.
“I am for socialism,” wrote ACLU founder Roger Baldwin in 1936. “I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
Communism, a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society, remains the goal. Imagine a world without religion, the utopian song asks without imagining the tyranny of a classless society.
When U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite composed his analysis of the Establishment Clause in Reynolds v. United States, a Free Exercise case, he relied on Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association and Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and State.”
Strange that he would examine the Establishment Clause at all since it was not in issue. Stranger still was his reliance on Jefferson’s letter and his attraction to the “wall of separation” phrase, parroted by judges and liberal activists ever since.
As Justice Waite even observed, Jefferson was in France when the language of the First Amendment was finalized and adopted. It was James Madison’s version that we venerate today. “It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted,” Waite wrote. Jefferson’s letter was a peevish response.
When Justice Hugo Black lifted the Reynolds analysis in Everson v. Board of Education (1945), he resisted the urge to compare what other founding fathers thought about the matter. “The wall of separation” was thus enshrined in our national consciousness and divides us still.
If the ACLU were to support the Hostettler bill, it would go a long way toward proving that they aren’t profiteers at the expense of people of faith and believers in the sanctity of tradition. But I suspect they will commit all their resources toward winning another tiny battle in their classless and unholy crusade. As Memorial Day approaches, keep it in mind.
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.