Posted on 06/01/2005 5:58:08 PM PDT by SandRat
The Mojave Desert (search) is not the kind of hard-scrapple place you'd expect to find the latest battle in the culture wars.
But that's exactly where the ACLU is battling with locals to tear down a cross that was erected as a tribute to World War I veterans.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
These people are sick. They should be sent for psychiatric examinations ~ as close to a court as they need to be.
isn't it true that it's really difficult to find dead bodies in the desert?
OK, my sarcasm switch was on, just a little ... but I really am starting to get a bit fed up with these ACLU people.
There is a very simple solution. Sell the land to a local church or the VFW for $50 and tell the ACLU to go screw themselves.
I think they offered that but the 9th circus said nope because its Federal Land.
Did you see who started this mess?
"But in 1994, President Clinton declared the area around Sunrise Rock a federal reserve, and that's when the ACLU moved in. A former park ranger named Frank Buono (search) hooked up with the ACLU, demanding that the National Park Service tear down the cross. Mr. Buono says he's offended by seeing the cross, and since it's now on federal property, the feds should tear it down.?
Mr. Buono offends me.
Yes as does he me. But the KLUTZ that started this mess in 1994 offends me more.
For all practical purposes he has achieved the status of being little more than a banked federal employee holiday!
Should it come to pass and I'm not saying it should as I don't wish that even on him; within days but not more than a couple of weeks after the funeral watch the Hildabeast confess about all the things we've suspected about those two, then blame it all on him.
She'd best do her confessing at the gravesite since that's going to be her biggest national audience.
The opposition to the cross, God and Religion can't have it their way all the time. The cross should stay. Period!!!!
Clinton. It figures. He and his legacy is like a turd that won't flush.
I would ask Mr. Buono EXACTLY WHERE in the Constitution does it mention his inalienable right to not be offended?
It offends me that he thinks that his seething hatred of Christianity could be enough to have an 80 year old memorial torn down.
Apt description.
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.
High Noon at Sunrise Rock -- A cross honoring fallen soldiers stirs controversy.
Please post the latest on legislation introduced into the Congress that would repeal the outrageous legality that allows the Christian-hating ACLU to receive tax dollars to launch its anti-religious juggernaut.
quote "The ACLU has even managed to collect $63,000, because of a law that forces plaintiffs to pay legal fees in even partially successful civil rights cases."
that law needs to be changed ASAP !
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.