Fellow Veterans and supporters, we are under attack again. Unlike when we faced battle, these attacks are not from foreign enemies, but citizens within our country and groups claiming they “protect the constitution” we swore an oath to “protect and defend.”
Coming under attack by the very citizens we fought to defend isn’t new to Viet Nam Veterans as we still feel the sting of the disparagement leveled against us.
These latest attacks aren’t against us personally, but against long ago built Memorials to Honor the fallen of past wars.
It wasn’t enough that in recent years dozens of our Memorials were vandalized around the country or that leftist media is again focusing on a half dozen malcontents to paint Veterans as troubled victims again, the ACLU is using the Separation of Church and State issue to fight our Memorials, even in out of the way places.
One such is the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial, built in 1934 and that the very liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled is a violation of the US Constitution.
The case is going to appear before the Supreme Court for a final decision.
Rees Lloyd, former ACLU attorney, civil rights attorney and Vietnam-era veteran, is one of the attorney’s supporting the American Legion in their arguing to allow the cross-shaped Memorial to remain at Mt. Soledad, 11 miles out of sight of any major roadways.
Mr. Lloyd has submitted several posts to the blogsite of local radio host, Victoria Taft, heard on KPAM 860 AM weekdays from 5 PM to 8 PM. Rees Lloyd says in part,
“This case, Salazar vs. Buono, also known as the "Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial Case," will be a constitutional landmark. The decision will determine whether 300,000,000 Americans may continue to choose how they honor American war dead and other veterans in their varied states, counties, cities, and communities --including by inclusion of the Cross and other symbols of a religious aspect --or whether the ACLU, the Taliban of American liberal secularism, and atheists, agnostics, or others "offended" by the sight of the Cross, or other religious symbol, shall have a veto power over those decisions heretofore exercised as a matter of tradition by heretofore free Americans.”
“The nationwide impact of the case cannot be overstated. The importance of the case is presented in a short video produced by Liberty Legal Institute, a pro bono law firm that is fighting for veterans and against the ACLU. I am advised that some 700,000 Americans have now viewed that video, entitled "Mojave Veterans Memorial Video," which I urge you to take a very few minutes to view. It can be viewed at www.libertylegal.org, or www.DontTearMeDown.com.”
In a more recent posting, we see that the one claiming to be “offended” is
“Frank Buono of Oregon. He was the Assistant Superintendent of the Mojave Desert Preserve when former President Bill Clinton incorporated the Veterans Memorial into the federal Preserve. Although he did nothing as Assistant Superintendent to stop the inclusion of the memorial into the Preserve, nor made any complaint to his superiors about it, Buono waited until he collected his generous federal pension, moved to Oregon, then sued through the ACLU to destroy the veterans memorial over a thousand miles away in California. He says he would be offended if he drove back on vacation and had to endure the sight of the Cross.”
As a Veteran, it offends me that our Memorials have come under attacks as this.
Memorials are to all who have fallen and are not political in nature.
That many may contain crosses is just a reflection that we were founded on Christian principles, principles shared by many other religions.
Our enemies do not ask what religion we are; they just see the uniform and try to kill us.
It is utterly reprehensible to see our Memorials being politicized as this to 'putsch' a minority view and most often, by ones who never faced battle in defense of the nation.
If our Memorials offend you, feel free to erect one of your own in any manner that honors our fallen you so choose.
But, leave ours the hell alone!
Posts
6 comments:
I know I've ranted about it before, but I think they grossly misinterpret and misapply the "separation clause" of the Constitution.
Setting a legal precedent in the court is an interpretation of law, and interpreting the Constitution - the very foundation of law itself - as forbidding a religious-based memorial is in direct violation of that clause in that THE LAW clearly states there shall be NO law regarding an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.
Forbidding such displays is a direct violation of the very Constitutional basis they claim to have been breached when filing these asinine suits.
For that matter, why not sue over religious memorials in Arlington? Or ANY cemetery across the nation, for that matter? Or churches in general?
If this twat is so stricken by the sight of a cross, every town and every city he finds himself in across the nation that happens to have a church should be offensive to him, right?
What kind of person is stricken by the site of a cross?
Ms Calabaza, in the old movies it was vampires, Count Dracula, who was always stricken by the sight of a cross ;-)
That this person so "offended" must travel 11 miles off of the major trail to even see the memorial astounds me.
Angie is right. The ACLU repeatedly claims they have no nothing of suing to removed crosses from graves at Arlington and elsewhere, but can we really trust that when they raise such a fuss over a cross 11 miles away from any major roadway?
It is just another effort at destroying what made America great.
And don't forget, the ACLU was founded by a card carrying communist.
I think that explains their real goal.
Wow! I did not know that...if you have the time can you send my some info on the guy who started the ACLU?
ACLU is nothing more than an organization of vermin. Those assholes are for everything I am against and against everything I am for. If Buono doesn't like crosses, tell him to stay home. Besides, that isn't a cross, it's a plus sign.
Post a Comment