ACLU's disinformation exposed

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU's disinformation exposed

The ACLU is attempting to defeat passage of the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA, in the 109th Congress by deceptive disinformation.

PERA, H.R. 2679, sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in the House, and S. 3696, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., in the Senate, would amend all relevant federal laws to rescind the authority of judges to award attorney fees to the ACLU, or anyone else, in Establishment Clause lawsuits against veterans memorials, Boy Scouts, public seals, or the public display of the Ten Commandments or other symbols of our American history of a religious aspect.

ACLU's disinformation is exemplified by a commentary in the Los Angeles Daily News (Aug. 24) by Ramona Ripston, longtime executive director of the ACLU of Southern California and wife of Ninth Circuit Justice Stephen Reinhardt.

Ripston, defending the ACLU's lawsuit against the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial – a solitary cross erected by veterans on a rock outcrop in 1934 to honor World War I veterans that was incorporated into the Mojave Desert preserve in 1994 – wrote that the ACLU acted on behalf of "Morris Radin," whom she describes as a Jewish war veteran offended by the cross.

A touching story. However, "Morris Radin," if he exists at all, never existed as a plaintiff in the records on file in the case of Buono vs. Norton, Case No. EDCV 01-216-RT (SGLx).

Indeed, the ACLU filed its complaint March 21, 2001, solely on behalf of plaintiff Frank Buono, former assistant superintendent of the Mojave Preserve, who never complained about the cross until he retired, moved to Oregon, then sued. A district court ordered the cross destroyed and awarded the ACLU $63,000 in attorney fees. Appeal is pending.

On Oct. 26, 2001, the ACLU filed an amended complaint joining as plaintiff Alan Schwartz, Jewish war veteran. However, Schwartz admitted that he had never seen the cross before suing to destroy it. Noting that, the Ninth Circuit declined to find he had standing to sue.

It has been widely claimed that a Buddhist was discriminated against by the denial of his application to establish a shrine. The Court found as to the origin of the lawsuit and the alleged Buddhist:

"The controversy surrounding the cross surfaced in 1999, when the NPS received a letter from an individual who identified himself as 'Sherpa San Harold Horpa' of Jensen, Utah. The person who sent the letter under the alias 'Sherpa San Harold Horpa' is also known to Buono as Herman R. Hoops ('Hoops'), a retired NPS employee and longtime acquaintance of Buono. Hoops requested permission from the NPS to erect a 'stupa' (a dome-shaped Buddhist shrine) on a rock outcrop at a trail head located near the cross."

Thus, it is upon the hoax of "Sherpa San Harold Horpa," crony of plaintiff Buono, that the controversy began, which led to the ACLU's lawsuit and claims of discrimination against a Buddhist.

Neither Ripston nor the ACLU have retracted their disinformation. Rather, Ripston, and the ACLU nationally, accuse supporters of PERA of spreading a "myth" that veterans cemeteries are at risk of lawsuit attack. Ripston wrote:

"PERA's supporters spread the myth that religious symbols on gravestones at military cemeteries will be threatened unless the bill passes. In fact, religious symbols on grave markers in military cemeteries, including Arlington National Cemetery, are entirely constitutional. They reflect the religious conviction of the soldier and his or her family, and they are vastly different from government-sponsored religious symbols."

The ACLU has claimed nationally that gravestones have been "deemed" constitutional because families, not the government, choose the religious symbols. However, the truth is no court of precedent has ever "deemed" that it is constitutional for the government to allow and pay for gravestones bearing religious symbols at veteran cemeteries, on the basis that families, rather than the government, chose the symbol. The ACLU has cited no such decision; and none has been found to exist.

Second, the ACLU has never taken that position in litigation; rather, it insists that religious symbols are unconstitutional if on public property.

Third, the ACLU has not stated it will not sue the freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols or expressions that exist at veterans cemeteries.

Fourth, there are thousands of grave markers, including 9,000 at the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach, which the government decided upon, not families.

Fifth, the ACLU is hardly the only entity representing a threat of such lawsuits. Nothing in the law currently prevents others, including Islamist fanatics, from filing Establishment Clause lawsuits against veterans cemeteries, and then demanding court-awarded, taxpayer-paid attorney fees.

Thus, all of our veterans cemeteries and memorials on public property are at risk – unless PERA passes.

Finally, the ACLU alleges that passage of PERA will prevent Establishment Clause cases from being filed. Nothing in PERA prevents the filing of Establishment Clause cases. PERA merely re-establishes the American rule that each side pays its own attorneys. If the ACLU has filed these cases pro bono on principle, and not for profit and political purpose, then PERA should have no effect on filing them.

Although ACLU has no actual attorney fees (all cases are handled by staff or volunteer attorneys), it has profited greatly from such cases, including: $950,000 to drive the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park; $500,00 in the Judge Roy Moore Ten Commandments case; and, most recently, $2,000,000 against the Dover School Board in the Intelligent Design case – even though the law firm representing the ACLU waived all attorney fees.

Further, in hearings on PERA, by the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Marc Stern, the general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, ACLU's strongest defender, admitted, under questioning, that the ACLU and others are using the threat of attorney fees as "a club" against local elected bodies.

No Americans should be "clubbed" into submission by the ACLU. Period. PERA needs to be passed now, in the 109th Congress, to reform the law and prevent such abuse.