ACLU wants veterans' group removed from cross case

A veterans' organization should have no say in legal talks on how to modify a war memorial cross that is located on federal land, the American Civil Liberties Union told a federal judge Friday in a hearing to decide whether the group should be dropped from the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns said he will issue his ruling on the ACLU's request soon, but he told the court that he was inclined to allow the Mount Soledad Memorial Association to continue to intervene as a party in the case.

The association maintains the Mount Soledad cross, which has been deemed to be an unconstitutional mixing of government and religion by a federal court that ordered it be modified but did not specify what needs to be done.

Continue reading at www.abcnews4.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Ed G.

The constitution says congress shall make no law respecting establishment of a religion – this would have to mean negative or positive – wouldn't it? Doesn't this mean the government has to stay out of it?
- John Adams
  
  That is certainly what any reasonable person would have to assume. Of course, there are many lawmakers and judges who think otherwise. But then I would not consider them reasonable people.
  - Bighoss
    
    See my comment above, Adams. It applies to your simplistic and wrongheaded comment also.
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady
    
    I consider them anti-American Communists.
- daves
  
  Since military personnel are government, they cannot use their authority to promote one religion over another.
  
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
  - John Adams
    
    Oh, so you think that our military personnel are exempt from 1st Amendment protection!?!?
    - daves
      
      No – the supreme court has ruled many times that any government official acting in as a government authority is the same as congress and cannot promote a religion. So any government employee is restricted by the first amendment.
      - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady
        
        Idiot commie!
      - John Adams
        
        The supreme court has wrong MANY times, this being one of them.
      - http://intensedebate.com/people/The_John_Galt John Galt
        
        You are quite correct. The Supreme Court is an embarssement to the citizens of the United States and no longer reflective of the nation as a whole. I would change the court and give the soverigne States a meaningful role in ajdicating cases.
      - John Adams
        
        I think that our founding fathers would agree with you.
      - Wordman
        
        Oh, really? Please explain why we have a LONG tradition of Christian chaplins serving in the military on the government payroll? It is only recently that atheist pressures have succeeded in getting judges to reinterpret the 1st ammendment in this way. Your view was not the view of the founders and has no precedent prior to the last 50 years or so. You and they are trying to "fundamentally transform" America.
      - daves
        
        Okay – I should have said they cannot promote a religion to people who do not want them to.
      - Wolf-Spider
        
        Yet they ARE promoting Atheism. Last time I checked, Atheism IS a religion, whether you choose to believe it or not.
        Wolf-Spider
      - daves
        
        In what way is the government promoting atheism?
      - Socialist Troll
        
        Hey … quit confusing "daves" with FACTS! Us socialists don't need no stinken FACTS!
      - Wordman
        
        Not only that but the U.S. Congress has had a chaplin on the federal payroll for longer than I can remember.
- Bighoss
  
  Whatever is the alleged basis in law that would legitimize this monument on public land, it is unconstitutional in that it creates a singular and preferential endorsement by civil government of one particular religion. Thus, it is a law and a practice "respecting an establishment of religion" and therefore is a violation of the First Amendment. End of story–for responsible and intelligent persons. Theocrat wackadoodles will continue to promote their unconstitutional and amateurish interpretations, but I am giving you the straight stuff.
  - John Adams
    
    There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that forbids the federal government to have a preference for one religion above others. The federal government cannot establish a national religion nor can it restrict the practice of religion. It can, and SHOULD, prefer and promote the Christian religion.
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady
    
    Athiest commie!
- Wordman
  
  Yes, it's called the non-establishment clause which athiests and other liberals expand and re-interpret endlessly for their own purposes. The founding fathers would never recognize it. And there there's the "free exercise" clause — "nor shall they prohibit the free exercise thereof." which liberals completely ignore unless they're talking about Muslims, Satanists, or other non-Christian religions attempting to gain prominance in our culture which the fathers never dreamed would be at issue. All these things are twisted, manipulated, and abused outside of their original intent by activist judges and others in order to transform America from being Christian nation into a functionally atheist one. It is simply amazing (and disgusting) to see how creative men can be with words when they wish to undermine God.
John Adams

The aclu is arguably the most wicked and evil organization active in the US. Their competition for that designation must include planned parenthood.
- Evermyrtle
  
  Amen and Amen!!!! But the liberals love them, actually a part of them.
  - daves
    
    I thank God that the ACLU is there to protect our religious freedom.
    - John Adams
      
      The aclu hinders the practice of religious freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      - daves
        
        They hinder the practice of religion by the government which guarantees the rest of us will be free to worship as we please.
      - John Adams
        
        That is absolutely NOT true!
      - fort9erdon
        
        John, Daves is just a crackpot, better left ignored. I once wrote to him, and I had to put up with his childish BS for three days before he finally wore down. He loves Obama, because it frees up his time from working for a living, to where he just sits at his computer all day, jacking people up with his childish BS, rants and raves, only going to the mailbox to see if his welfare check arrived yet, with which he buys drugs.
      - John Adams
        
        I figured that was the case, so I'll just toy with him as long as it amuses me.
      - fort9erdon
        
        Yeah, he's dumb enough that it is easy to be the "cat", making him the "mouse" (toy)!
      - petroskhan
        
        He is good for that.
      - js
        
        yes they give the athiest of which you are the right to run over the christian.
      - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady
        
        We The People should sue the ACLU!
      - John Adams
        
        Yes, we should. But the sad thing is that the aclu always seems to be able to find corrupt judges that does what they want them to do.
    - fort9erdon
      
      Don't bullsh*t us Daves, you don't believe in God! You're just another in the long line of athiest's who will have a very rude awakening when you take your final breath.
      - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady
        
        Amen!
    - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady
      
      You are an anti-American idiot daves!
      - daves
        
        God bless you.
    - http://intensedebate.com/people/The_John_Galt John Galt
      
      To restate what you said is in effect ….. thank God for the devil?
    - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VJZPJHAYI7OO7PT522CLW3UW7A Linda
      
      Okay, daves. What have you been smoking this time?
      - daves
        
        Facts, I only smoke facts.
      - Socialist Troll
        
        You once told me you smoked the bone!
    - Hans
      
      LOL! Protect our religious freedom. Where do you live???…on the moon??? You are a real LIBTARD MORON !!!
    - Saltporkdoc
      
      Stop drinking the Progressives' Kool-Aid! The ACLU exists (read its charter) to further the atheistic agenda necessary for the secularization and the socialization of America! Think man, who is behind every lawsuit to stop Community Creches, placement of the Ten Commandments, removal of crosses (but not Crescents), distribution of invitations to church functions…the list goes on ad nauseum…the ACLU!
      "Protect our religious freedom" my A**!
      - daves
        
        DES MOINES–The Iowa Civil Liberties Union today announced that it is publicly supporting the Christian students who recently filed a lawsuit against the Davenport Schools asserting the right to distribute religious literature during non-instructional time.
        
        The school’s policy against the distribution of religious literature outside of class is clearly wrong, said Ben Stone, Executive Director of the ICLU. “”Not only does the policy violate the students’ right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, but it also infringes on their free speech rights,” he said.
        
        —–
        NATCHITOCHES, LA – The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana today announced a federal court’s decision in its free speech lawsuit on behalf of Christian protester Edwin Crayton, whose rights were violated by Natchitoches’ unconstitutional permit requirements.
        
        In October of 2006, Crayton peacefully picketed for about 40 minutes on a public sidewalk in Natchitoches with a sign that said: “Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Lifestyles And Marriage. Don’t Shop There.” He was then approached by a Natchitoches police officer who refused to allow him to continue protesting without obtaining a permit. Despite the passage of several weeks after application for a permit, the mayor failed to approve Crayton’s request, which resulted in the ACLU of Louisiana lawsuit.
        
        —–
        BOSTON – In an important victory for religious freedom, a federal appeals court ruled that Rhode Island corrections officials cannot bar a Christian prisoner from preaching during religious services at the state prison. The ruling comes in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island.
        
        Religious freedom is too precious a right to be arbitrarily denied to individuals in the custody, and at the mercy, of government officials,” said Steven Brown, Executive Director of the ACLU of Rhode Island.
        
        The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit overturned a district court decision that allowed the Adult Correctional Institute (ACI) to bar Wesley Spratt from preaching during weekly religious services. Spratt, who is a lay minister, had preached at the ACI without incident for seven years before he was unilaterally stopped from doing so by a new warden in 2003. The warden cited vague security concerns in his decision. Spratt challenged the ban, but a district court judge sided with the warden.
        
        —–
        Khouzam, a Coptic Christian, came to the U.S. in 1998 as a refugee from religious persecution in Egypt. In February, 2004, a U.S. Court of Appeals granted him relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding that it was “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if returned to Egypt. Khouzam remained in immigration detention until he was released in February 2006. He has been living with his family and working in Pennsylvania.
        
        On May 29, 2007, after appearing for a routine check-in with immigration authorities, Khouzam was abruptly detained at the York County, PA jail. He was told that the State Department had secured a promise from Egypt that he would not be tortured, and informed that his deportation to that country would take place as soon as June 1. Neither Khouzam nor his lawyers has seen the Egyptian promise. An emergency petition for a stay of Khouzam’s removal order until June 7, 2007 was issued last week, by Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie of the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In addition, Khouzam’s attorneys filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit yesterday. That petition was denied as moot on June 1.
        
        Our government should be smart enough to know that it shouldn’t believe the empty promises of Egyptian diplomats that they won’t torture,” said Christopher Anders, ACLU legislative counsel. “The Egyptian diplomats can cross their fingers and say they won’t torture again, but their full torture chambers tell the real story.
        
        —–
        DETROIT – The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The student’s entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.
        
        While it is true that the Constitution forbids public schools to promote religion, schools must be careful not to suppress the private religious expression of students, said ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg, who represented the student. “”In this case, a high school purported to create an open forum for student expression, yet censored a student’s speech because it was religious in nature.
      - daves
        
        http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression
        
        http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
        
        http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html
Evermyrtle

Who do you suppose knows about things of war, veterans or the ACLU?While the ACLU is quite knowledgeable about war against the conservative citizens, I believe that veterans are more knowledgeable of war protecting the USA. Does the ACLU get the vote or does the War Veterans get the vote??? The ACLU is 95 % of the time against conservative matters.
Model Citizen

Why don't you useless ACLU people leave us Christians alone. We served our country honorably and some gave their lives.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady
  
  ACLU members most likely never served and are just a bunch of commie lawyers. Thank you for your service.
dntmkmecomoverther

Sorry ACLU, but veterans' achievments are the SUBJECT of the suit…DUH!!
The ACLU is nothing but a moron bunch of heathens.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady
  
  Athiests and anti-Americans.
  - Wolf-Spider
    
    Considering that their founder was a Communist himself, I'm not surprised that they're following his example.
    Wolf-Spider
lostproton

Why cannot the Mount Soledad Memorial Association and the Veterans group buy the prosperity from the government? The government would not be responsible for the maintenance of it which would relieve the atheists from paying taxes on it. On I65 between Montgomery and Birmingham, Alabama, on private property, there is an I-beam cross with a barbed wire crown hung on it and further north a Large Confederate flag waves in the wind. Both displays pay respect to those who have given their lives so that we may enjoy the freedom and peace that we have. Read the story of the music TAPS played at military funerals; of the young music student that wrote it, where he was from and how he died in the Civil War. There is a cancer in the United States that must be removed before it kills us all.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady
  
  Because Freakyfornia most likely would not sell it to them.
Sky Soldier – 11th AAD

U.S. Military Veterans want the ACLU removed from American soil and sent to Afghanistan where they'd be a better fit.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady
  
  I second that motion.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BX7Q3RKO7UTT6Q7TJE27NVGPQE lonestarlady

I think we should move the ACLU to a Communist country so we would be rid of their evil. I have been to Mt. Soledad and it is awesome. If the athiest who complained doesn't like it he/she can just take another route!
David S.

The ACLU, like the EPA and other groups, are a double-edge sword. They have done some good things but have gone overboard on others. This was a bad move on their part. I guess some don't value their civil liberties. Oh well.
- Wolf-Spider
  
  The ACLU have a 10% record of conservative values. I'm being generous with that figure. They have NEVER been good. The EPA was good starting out. They've cleaned some water and land. Now, the people of the U.S. are Toyko fending off the Godzilla of the EPA.
  Wolf-Spider
petroskhan

Oh, I SOOO need to try to contact the veterans' association.

"David Loy of the ACLU in San Diego argued the veterans' organization
maintains the memorial but does not own it and therefore has no right to
decide how the property should be reconfigured."

Then, by that logic, the ACLU should have no say in it, either! ROFL
- Bighoss
  
  Baloney! The ACLU is not obliged by law to own the memorial or to otherwise demonstrate that it (the ACLU) has standing required of a plaintiff. It is the role of the ACLU to represent the plaintiff as counsel. Your problem is that you do not understand even the most elementary aspects of civil litigation. Your "ROFL" makes you look fatuous and absurd.
  - petroskhan
    
    I look fatuous and absurd? Wow, I'm devastated…and yet…not…
    
    The ACLU in this case IS the plaintiff. And if you look at the wording they've used to make the case, which I quoted, it is clear that they maintain that the veterans association doesn't own the memorial "and therefore has no right to decide how the property should be configured." Now, with that reasoning, how should the ACLU have a say in it?
    
    I await the display of your dazzling insight into the legal world.
    - Socialist Troll
      
      Of course you got him! Socialists like "Bighoss" and me always turn to name calling when we have nothing intelligent to say.
      - petroskhan
        
        Well, thanks for clearing that up. :D
  - Socialist Troll
    
    Troll Alert!
HTCM USN RET. James A Graham

Subject: Washington Post Hits Obama

Why isn't
the Romney campaign pushing this information

THE WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA

The liberal media bashing
Obama! Now this is a story.

THE WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA

Finally, the Washington Post and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is
timely and tough. As many of you know, the Washington Post and Newsweek have
a reputation for being
extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print the following
article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes
this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the
truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the“protective wall”
built around him by the liberal media.

I Too Have Become Disillusioned.

By Matt Patterson (columnist – Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco
Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an
inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass
hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will
wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many
into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's
most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered
into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores
along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief
career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact
nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present");
and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the
entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as
a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the
white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's
"spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as
Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future
historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected
president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed
the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white
candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like
Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have
lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled
in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various
American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because
of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter
when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said)
"non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to
become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to
rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama
phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But
certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and
regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and
especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on
the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are
not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance
and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority
students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation
and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative
action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of
the color of his skin – that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that
isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled
by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama
was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at
Occidental; he was told he was good enough

for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was
good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his
life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next
step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every
time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive
qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and
cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be
deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has
his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely
think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -
it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again
for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited
this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is
embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own
powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what
were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do
we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament
nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when
you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make
sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

Pray for US

10/17/2012

Dear James,

What a magnificent
job Mitt Romney performed last night.

Joy to our great
country.

May we give thanks
with today's prayer:

Lord,

There
are marvelous things that I do not know, nor can I comprehend.

Things
that happen in my life, and things that happen in my friends' lives.

But,
I desire to be thankful, to appreciate everything that comes across my
path.

Knowing
that so often life hurts, I get angry – upset, I do not understand,
yet You ask me to be thankful for everything, and have faith – and I do.

Lord, help
me to be thankful, when the rains come on the just and the unjust.

Thank
You that You care so much about me, that You chasten me to build my
character and place godliness in me, to be a mirrored reflection of Your
Son, so as to reach others.

Lord, I
thank You for mercy, for the hunger for righteousness, for forgiveness, for
purity, for providing for my needs.

Yesterday
I prayed for your intervention and, yes, inspiration, for one thing I love
most dearly – America.

Thank
you, Lord, for answering my prayers and the prayers of so many others who
follow you here.

The
inspiration you provided to Mitt Romney shone through, and defeated, the
somber pall of a darkened lunar phantasmagoria of deceit, wickedness and
venom that spewed from the usurper's lips.

As
your humble servants, we have fought this darkness of deceit from the east
for more than a millennium and shall fight on 'til final victory be had -
conversion of them all to be your followers, to raise them from darkness to
light, from the worship of devilish acts to those of purity and
righteousness.

Lord,
I thank You for being the author and finisher of my faith – Jesus Christ –
and that in You is hope everlasting.

Lord, I
thank You for the blood of Jesus, Your precious lamb.

Thank
You Lord God!

Amen and amen.

Pray for US, A
501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Organization

2360 Corporate Circle, Suite 400

Henderson, Nevada 89074-7722 USA

PHONE: 800-362-2723

Copyright 2012 by Pray For US | All
Rights Reserved

This may not be copied or reproduced in any way

without permission from Pray For US.

Email forwarding for personal use excepted.

Update
your details here.

Please
forward this powerful call to prayer

to all of your family, friends & acquaintances.
Saltporkdoc

I'm trying to limit my anger at the ACLU so I will limit myself to two points: the cross is part of a memorial to fallen service members who are, by definition "veterans" thereby establishing legal status for the veteran's group to remain a party to the suit; secondly, the ACLU is notorious for ignoring the fact that the First Amendment is a limitation placed upon Congress' passing laws regards "establishment" or "free practice of religion" Ergo, in my humble and non-lawyered opinion, ACLU loses if Congress did not pass any law establishing the memorial and they lose because their rescinding of such a law (if passed) would inhibit the "free practice" clause which the ACLU is so good about ignoring since it does not further their agenda!
fliteking

To be clear, the ACLU finds value in the 'rights' of pedophiles but could care less about veterans.

Sad and disturbing.