Mt. Soledad

[Soldier4Christ]

Mt. Soledad case 'should be put to rest' 
ACLJ argues more appeals in dispute over San Diego cross unneeded

A brief has been filed with the California Supreme Court on behalf of nearly two dozens members of Congress asking that a lower court ruling in the dispute over the Mt. Soledad Memorial be affirmed.

That lower court decision concluded that a ballot proposition in which San Diego voters overwhelmingly supported a plan to donate the memorial and its land to the federal government was constitutional.

The new filing comes from the American Center for Law and Justice, which wants the state Supreme Court to deny a further review of the dispute and allow the cross memorial to stay where it is.

The ACLJ's filing come just a few weeks after a federal appeals court dismissed a separate legal proceeding that challenged the cross memorial.

"The state appeals court got this right and there is simply no reason for the California Supreme Court to take this appeal," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, which is active in defending the constitutionality of the cross.

"It's clear the legal challenges at both the state and federal levels are not succeeding and we're confident that ultimately this issue can be put to rest once and for all. The Mt. Soledad Memorial is a historically significant tribute honoring veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces and poses no constitutional crisis," he said.

The filing by the ACLJ represents itself and 20 members of the 110th Congress including U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who sponsored legislation that transferred control of the Mt. Soledad Memorial to the federal government. That legislation was signed into law by President Bush in August 2006.

In addition to Congressman Hunter, the ACLJ represents 19 other members of Congress: Todd Akin, Gresham Barrett, Eric Cantor, Michael Conaway, Barbara Cubin, John Culberson, Phil Gingrey, Jack Kingston, John Kline, Kenny Marchant, Patrick McHenry, Mike McIntyre, Gary Miller, Marilyn Musgrave, Randy Neugebauer, Joseph Pitts, Todd Tiahrt, Dave Weldon, and Lynn Westmoreland. The ACLJ also represents Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a California-based non-profit law firm.

The ACLJ brief contends the panel of the California Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the city's ballot proposition in which San Diego voters overwhelming supported the transfer of the memorial to the federal government was indeed constitutional.

"The Petition for Review should be denied because the clear purpose and effect of Proposition A is to preserve a historically significant war memorial, not to proselytize a particular religious viewpoint or coerce any religious activity," the brief concludes.

The ACLJ brief was filed just weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a federal challenge against the city of San Diego, determining that legal challenge was moot since the federal government now owns the land on which the monument sits.

That brought to a close one chapter of the multiple-front battle over the cross, the ACLJ said.

The case to remove the cross originally was brought on behalf of an atheist, Phillip Paulsen, who died in 2006. Pending are the current state challenge, and a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the memorial.

The dispute began in 1989, and at one point the arguments included an order for San Diego to take the cross down. But in 1998 the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.

Then Proposition A, passed by 75 percent in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial.

More than 170,000 Americans, including 27,000 from California, have signed the ACLJ petition to preserve the memorial.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mt. Soledad cross supporters win again 
Symbol at San Diego memorial has been under attack for 18 years

Another court decision has endorsed the existence of a cross at the Mt. Soledad Memorial in San Diego, but the 18-year-old fight over whether it must be removed to satisfy a now-deceased lawsuit plaintiff still isn't over.

The newest decision came from the California state Supreme Court, and let stand an appellate court ruling that the decision by city voters to turn over to the federal government land on which the cross is located was proper.

"We're extremely pleased that the California Supreme Court has decided to reject this case which effectively brings an end to state litigation to remove the Mt. Soledad cross memorial," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which specializes in constitutional law and had argued for that result.

"This represents the latest in a series of legal victories to keep the cross in place and we're confident that the final legal challenge – now in federal court – will ultimately fail as well," Sekulow said. "The cross memorial is an important symbol honoring veterans of our military. We believe this memorial will survive the final round of legal challenges and remain in place."

The state's high court denied a request to review the appellate court decision. The lower court had endorsed the constitutionality of a San Diego ballot initiative in which voters overwhelmingly approved a plan donating the Mt. Soledad Memorial to the federal government, but the decision was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLJ had filed an amicus brief with the court earlier this month asking the state court to reject the appeal.

The ACLJ's brief suggested that the purpose of the vote was to preserve a historically significant war memorial, not to proselytize a particular religious viewpoint.

Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center also played a key role in the case, and said in addition to winning the arguments over the validity of the San Diego vote, his organization also was successful in fending off a request by the ACLU on the issue.

The ACLU, which is spearheading attacks on the cross, had asked the state Supreme Court to "depublish" the lower court opinion. "The ACLU wanted the decision depublished so it could continue with its anti-Christian agenda free from opposing precedent," said Thomson. "This appellate court decision will forever be a stumbling block for the ACLU – and we are pleased about that."

The only remaining litigation is a federal lawsuit that challenges the law signed by President Bush in 2006 that actually accepted the transfer of the property into the control of the federal government.

Just a month ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an earlier federal challenge that targeted the city of San Diego, noting that the claim was moot since the federal government, not the city, now controlled the land.

Several hundred thousand Americans, including 27,000 from California, have signed a petition assembled by the ACLJ to seek the preservation of the memorial.

The ACLJ's filing represented itself and 20 members of the 110th Congress including U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who sponsored legislation that transferred control of the Mt. Soledad Memorial to the federal government.

The case to remove the cross originally was brought on behalf of an atheist, Phillip Paulsen, who died in 2006. The dispute began in 1989, and at one point the arguments included an order for San Diego to take the cross down. But in 1998 the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.

Then Proposition A, passed by 75 percent of the voters in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial.

As WND has reported, the cross was erected in 1954, and now honors veterans of World Wars I and II and the Korean War.

[Soldier4Christ]

9th Circuit to decide 'Mojave Desert Cross' fate

The National Legal Foundation and its attorneys are awaiting a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following Monday's hearing on a case challenging the right of a World War I memorial cross to remain on public land in the middle of the Mojave Desert.

In the case of Buono v. Kempthorne, the National Legal Foundation (NLF) is fighting the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in an effort to save the Mojave Desert Cross. The large, white memorial cross has been located on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve near the California-Nevada border since 1934, when it was given and erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Attorney Joe Infranco is with Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which argued an amicus brief for NLF at Monday's hearing. He says one of the last acts of Bill Clinton's presidency was his executive order authorizing the establishment of the land the cross stood on as a federal preserve.

"The ink was barely dry, and a local ACLU affiliate was filing a lawsuit," Infranco notes. The lawsuit challenging the monument's constitutionality alleged that its placement on federal land in the Mojave Desert violated the First Amendment's guarantee of separation of church and state and that the memorial cross should therefore be removed.

Supporters of the Mojave Desert Cross hoped to reach a settlement of the suit with the Department of Defense's transfer of the memorial land to private ownership in 2004. However, the ACLU claimed before the 9th Circuit that the property transfer was invalid -- a point ADF helped dispute in this week's appeals court hearing.

Such transfers already have legal precedent in several federal court cases, the ADF attorney notes. He says a number of federal appellate courts have already held that government property may be transferred to private ownership to prevent challenges based on the Establishment Clause, which, he notes "is that part of the First Amendment that is cited as the basis for the so-called separation of church and state." Although the jurisdictional circumstances were different, ADF recently helped defend a similar land transfer to save San Diego's Mount Soledad Cross in California.

Based on the precedents cited in the amicus brief, Infranco says ADF and the other cross supporters in Buono v. Kempthorne are hoping their argument that the transfer of the WWI memorial cross to private ownership was legal will prevail.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLJ Cases Coming Up This Summer



Summum v. Pleasant Grove - The latest attack on the public display of the Ten Commandments.  A group is suing to display their own guidelines (the Seven ''Aphorisms''), and we're already preparing to go to the Supreme Court of the United States if necessary.
 
Trunk v. City of San Diego - Opponents of the Mt. Soledad war memorial cross refuse to give up.  They're relentlessly fighting public expressions of the Christian faith, even after our court victories.  We'll file an amicus brief in federal court soon.
 
McLean Bible Church v. McLane, et al. - We're in federal court because Fairfax County, Va., says a Bible church must become an official college or university in order to hold Bible studies or religious ministry classes in its facilities!  It's an obvious, outrageous attempt to squelch churches' proclamation of the Gospel - and an attack on freedom of religion and speech.
 
We're preparing a federal case in defense of Teen Challenge, one of the world's most successful drug rehab programs.  A local Tennessee planning commission has discriminated against this Christian organization by refusing them the use of property already zoned for rehab services!
 
They're working to turn back congressional efforts to pass a so-called ''Freedom of Choice Act,'' which would enshrine Roe v. Wade into law and open the floodgates for abortion.
 
They're also working on Capitol Hill to turn back attempts by liberals in Congress to advance the abortion lobby's agenda and restrict our religious liberties in other bills in Congress.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mt. Soledad

Mt. Soledad challenge loses again!
'We are hopeful this epic legal battle soon will be resolved'

A California man who sued in federal court seeking to have a congressional decision nullified and a veterans' memorial cross on Mt. Soledad removed has lost on both counts, giving hope to memorial defenders the 18-year legal odyssey for the site soon will be over.

"We are very pleased with the court's decision and are hopeful that this epic legal battle will soon be resolved," said Pete Lepiscopo, of San Diego, an affiliate attorney for The Pacific Justice Institute, which has worked on amicus briefs in the case.

"There is a reason the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and the president intervened in this case to protect the Mt. Soledad War Memorial: this nation honors those who gave the ultimate sacrifice to insure such public expressions of faith can continue in this country," he said.

The case, which still has several minor issues pending, is the only remaining litigation over the existence of the cross at the war memorial in California. It challenged a law signed by President Bush in 2006 that actually accepted the transfer of ownership of the site from the city of San Diego to the federal government.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier dismissed a challenge targeting the city, since the federal government now controls the land. Several hundred thousand Americans, including 27,000 from California, also signed a petition assembled by the American Center for Law & Justice to seek the preservation of the memorial.

The ACLJ represented itself and 20 members of the 110th Congress including U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who sponsored legislation that transferred control of the Mt. Soledad Memorial to the federal government.

The case to remove the cross originally was brought on behalf of an atheist, Phillip Paulsen, who died in 2006. The dispute dates back to 1989, and at one point the arguments included an order for San Diego to take the cross down. But in 1998 the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, a move which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.

Then Proposition A, passed by 76 percent of the voters in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial. Finally, Congress stepped and ordered the ownership of the land transferred to the federal government, a plan signed into law last year by President Bush.

As WND has reported, the cross was erected in 1954, and now honors veterans of World Wars I and II and the Korean War.

The latest decision from U.S. District Judge Larry Burns noted that the remaining plaintiff in the case, after Paulson's death, was Steve Trunk, but he had no standing to bring a complaint.

"Trunk has not met his burden of demonstrating he has standing to challenge the taking of the Mt. Soledad property by Public Law 109-272. This claim is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. His requests for a declaration that the taking violated his California state constitutional and U.S. Constitutional rights, and for the court to encourage the parties to abide by the earlier settlement agreement are likewise denied for lack of jurisdiction," the judge concluded.

"Trunk has not shown he has suffered an 'injury in fact,' consisting of 'an invasion of a legally protected interest which is … concrete and particularized and … actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical," the court said.

"Last summer, after a court ordered San Diego to remove the war memorial, Congress and President Bush intervened by acquiring the land on which it sits. The atheists who have been fighting the cross for the better part of two decades filed a new federal lawsuit, alleging that the transfer was invalid," according to Pacific Justice.

"PJI attorneys, acting as amicus in the case, recognized significant jurisdictional problems with the new lawsuit and asked the court to consider them. Based on PJI's request, Judge Burns required additional briefing … and yesterday issued a 19-page order agreeing with PJI that most of the claims were no longer valid, and the City of San Diego should no longer be a defendant," the law firm's statement said.

"The court also took the opportunity to note that there is nothing inherently wrong with a cross on public land," the statement said.

"This case has huge implications not only for San Diego and the West Coast, but for the entire nation," added Brad Dacus, president of PJI. "We will continue to fight until we obtain a final judgment that this time-honored war memorial – like the fallen soldiers it honors – can rest in peace."

The remaining questions, a spokesman for PJI told WND, were less substantive and the court ordered briefs be filed immediately by interested parties in order to dispose of those soon.

The latest lawsuit had wanted the court to issue both a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the display of the long-standing cross on the memorial. But the judge's ruling noted a previous Order to Show Cause "took care to point out the fact that a large cross is located mountain is not an Establishment Clause violation, nor was the government ownership or non-ownership of land on Mt. Soledad, nor were mere efforts by officials or voters who wished the cross to remain where it was."

"Clearly, Trunk would prefer above all else that the California constitutional violations were brought to an end by removal of the cross, However, his wishes … cannot give rise to standing," the court said. "Now those violations have ended, he has no standing to complain about the manner in which they ended."

Those state violations vanished when Congress assigned ownership of the land to the federal government, and that became law, the judge said.

"The United States is of course not limited by or subject to the California constitution … and therefore cannot be liable for either violating or evading it," the judge found.

Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, has been representing San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in the case, while Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, also has filed arguments in the case.

[Soldier4Christ]

Members of Congress, again, affirm U.S. owns cross 
Brief seeks conclusion to decades-long dispute over Mt. Soledad memorial

Dozens of members of Congress are asking a federal court to affirm the transfer of ownership of San Diego's Mt. Soledad veterans memorial to the federal government, and end a case that has encompassed nearly two decades.

The American Center for Law & Justice has filed an amicus brief on behalf of more than 30 members of Congress seeking a ruling that Congress, when it approved the transfer of ownership of the site, acted constitutionally.

"The federal government acted appropriately and constitutionally when it acquired the Mt. Soledad Memorial, a move that was overwhelmingly approved by voters of San Diego," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.

"Over the years, there have been numerous state and federal challenges, all aimed at removing the memorial. Those attempts have failed and we're hopeful this latest legal challenge will not succeed. The federal government's ownership and operation of the memorial is proper and plays a vital role in ensuring that this important symbol honoring military veterans remains in place," he said.

The remaining issue in the case pending before U.S. District Court in San Diego is the transfer of the ownership of the memorial site from the city of San Diego to the federal government.

"Like all democratically elected bodies, Congress has a great interest in giving effect to the will of the people on issues of public importance," the brief said. "The widespread support among San Diego voters for the federal government's operation of the memorial cut across religious, political, and cultural lines."

"The pertinent question is whether the federal government's operation of the entire memorial is consistence with the Establishment Clause, not whether a Latin cross has religious meaning in various contexts," the group said.

The ACLJ represents 33 members of the 110th Congress, including Todd Akin, Gresham Barrett, Rob Bishop, Dan Burton, John Campbell, Eric Cantor, Steve Chabot, Michael Conaway, Barbara Cubin, John Culberson, John Doolittle, Tom Feeney, Virginia Foxx, Scott Garrett, Phil Gingrey, Louis Gohmert, Steve King, Jack Kingston, John Kline, Keeny Marchant, Patrick McHenry, Mike McIntyre, Gary Miller, Marilyn Musgrave, Sue Myrick, Randy Neugebauer, Steve Pearce, Joseph Pitts, Dana Rohrabacher, Tom Tancredo, Todd Tiahrt, Dave Weldon and Lynn Westmoreland.

The brief supports the city of San Diego and the U.S. government, who are defendants in a federal lawsuit that challenges legislation signed into law by President Bush in 2006 changing ownership of the site from the city to the federal government. The brief was filed in conjunction with Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a California law firm serving as co-counsel in the case.

The odyssey over the memorial was launched in the 1980s, and many thought it was resolved when Congress intervened in 2006.

"There is a reason the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and the president intervened in this case to protect the Mt. Soledad War Memorial: this nation honors those who gave the ultimate sacrifice to insure such public expressions of faith can continue in this country," said Pete Lepiscopo, of San Diego, an affiliate attorney for The Pacific Justice Institute, which also has worked on amicus briefs in the case.

The case is the only remaining litigation over the existence of the cross at the war memorial in California. It challenged a law signed by President Bush in 2006 that actually accepted the transfer of ownership of the site from the city of San Diego to the federal government.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier dismissed a challenge targeting the city, since the federal government now controls the land. Several hundred thousand Americans, including 27,000 from California, also signed a petition assembled by the ACLJ to seek the preservation of the memorial.

The case to remove the cross originally was brought on behalf of an atheist, Phillip Paulsen, who died in 2006. The dispute dates back to 1989, and at one point the arguments included an order for San Diego to take the cross down. But in 1998 the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, a move which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.

Then Proposition A, passed by 76 percent of the voters in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial. Finally, Congress stepped in and ordered the ownership of the land transferred to the federal government, a plan signed into law by President Bush.

As WND has reported, the cross was erected in 1954, and now honors veterans of World Wars I and II and the Korean War.

The latest decision from U.S. District Judge Larry Burns noted that the remaining plaintiff in the case, after Paulson's death, was Steve Trunk, but he had no standing to bring a complaint.

"Trunk has not met his burden of demonstrating he has standing to challenge the taking of the Mt. Soledad property by Public Law 109-272. This claim is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. His requests for a declaration that the taking violated his California state constitutional and U.S. Constitutional rights, and for the court to encourage the parties to abide by the earlier settlement agreement are likewise denied for lack of jurisdiction," the judge concluded.

"Trunk has not shown he has suffered an 'injury in fact,' consisting of 'an invasion of a legally protected interest which is … concrete and particularized and … actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical," the court said.

The latest case alleging the transfer was filed after Congress and President Bush took action to affirm the memorial's ownership by the U.S. government.

Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, has been representing San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in the case.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge rules Mt. Soledad cross constitutional
'The primary effect is patriotic and nationalistic, not religious'

A judge has concluded that a cross located at the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial near San Diego is constitutional and can remain where it is on federal property, but the 20-year-old battle over the symbol – one of thousands at the memorial – apparently still is not over.

"When the cross is considered in the context of the larger memorial and especially the numerous other secular elements, the primary effect is patriotic and nationalistic, not religious," wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns.

"The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," he said.

"This is a wonderful victory, not only for the families of Majors (Michael D.) Martino and (Gerald) Bloomfield (III) who can have some comfort knowing that the memories of their loves ones are preserved under the cross, but for all Americans who care about our young men and women who have sacrificed their lives in defense of our country," said Richard Thompson, chief of the Thomas More Law Center, one of several law firms whose members have been active in the case over the years.

"Sadly, I fully expect the ACLU attorneys to appeal this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. So this fight is not over," he said.

The center advocated for the cross remaining in place on behalf of the families of the majors, both of whom were killed in combat in Iraq in 2005 when their attack helicopter was shot down by a surface-to-air missile.

The case to remove the cross originally was brought on behalf of an atheist, Phillip Paulsen, who died in 2006. The dispute dates back to 1989, and at one point the arguments included an order for San Diego to take the cross down. But in 1998 the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, a move which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.

Then Proposition A, passed by 76 percent of the voters in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial. Finally, Congress stepped and ordered the ownership of the land transferred to the federal government, a plan signed into law last year by President Bush.

As WND has reported, the cross was erected in 1954, and now honors veterans including those of World Wars I and II and the Korean War.

The judge said the cross has been there for 54 years and has been used "for religious and non-religious events, including Easter sunrise services (some of which have been broadcast to troops overseas), veterans' reunions, memorial services, weddings, and family gatherings.

"There is no history of discrimination between religious and nonreligious gropus in the issuance of municipal permits to use the site," he added.

Further, "The cross on Mt. Soledad is, as Congress accurately described it, 'fully integrated' as the centerpiece of a 'multi-faceted' veterans' memorial 'that is replete with secular symbols,'" the judge said. "In fact, in terms of the number of elements the memorial comprises, secular symbols predominate with over 2,000 individual memorial plaques, 23 military bollards, numerous inscribed paving stones, a tall flagpole and large American flag, and a bronze plaque commemorating the dedication of the memorial in 1954. And except for the cross, there are no other religious elements such as altars, statues, religious texts, or a chapel," the judge said.

"The physical setting of the memorial, moreover, neither compels nor encourages religious devotion. For one thing, physical access to the cross is blocked by an iron fence. Also, there are no benches immediately adjacent to and facing the cross, nor any other fixtures or devotional trappings inviting veneration of the cross," he continued. "Finally, the location of the memorial makes it an unlikely venue for government indoctrination. Located away from the hub of downtown and the seat of government, Mt. Soledad park is more a destination than a way station."

The original dispute was voided by the transfer of ownership to the federal government, and Burns' decision comes in a new round of legal actions launched against the U.S. government after that transfer.

In a letter to the private association that runs the memorial, President Bush said, "Mt. Soledad becomes a place to reflect on our past, be inspired by true patriots, and offer war veterans our heartfelt gratitude for the freedom we all enjoy today."

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast director for the Thomas More Law Center, said residents of San Diego "wanted and deserve" this result.

Opponents, he said, "are not going to be able to take that cross down, and they should just deal with it."

Rees Lloyd, a longtime California civil rights attorney and director of the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project of The American Legion Department of California, said he expected the issue to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

LiMandri said, "We are confident that when this case reaches the Supreme Court, justice will finally prevail and put an end to this fanatical litigation of atheists and others backed by the ACLU."

"This Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial victory is great news not only for veterans but for all freedom loving Americans," said Thomas Bock of Colorado, the past national commander of the American Legion. "It has been a long battle, and may not be completely over, but when good people take on a good cause they will eventually succeed over evil."

"We will continue to stand, as long as it takes, with our allies in the Thomas More Law Center, and the Alliance Defense Fund, in the legal fight to protect Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial, and all other veterans memorials, from desecration by the abusive legal assaults of the ACLU and others who have no respect for veterans or our American heritage," said Al Lennox, commander of the 130,000-member American Legion Department of California.

Among other groups who have been active in the case on behalf of the memorial are the Pacific Justice Institute and the American Center for Law and Justice.

[HisDaughter]

"Sadly, I fully expect the ACLU attorneys to appeal this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. So this fight is not over," he said.

Mark 5:9 - Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?"
               "My name is Legion", he replied, "for we are many."

[nChrist]

AMEN!

Brothers and Sisters, I'm sure that most of us are weary in even hearing the name of the Anti CHRIST Lawless Union (ACLU). They are highly skilled workers of DARKNESS! The day will come when they will try to hide from the LIGHT, and there won't be a place on this earth for them to hide from the GLORIOUS LIGHT OF JESUS CHRIST AT HIS SECOND COMING! All of the workers of DARKNESS will be crushed and reserved for final Eternal Judgment at the GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT! The JUDGE will be JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. There won't be any appeals, and there is no higher court. The best thing they could do NOW is to REPENT and accept JESUS CHRIST AS LORD AND SAVIOUR!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Christian Quotes 244 -
"We want to reach the kingdom of God, but we don't want to travel
byway of death. And yet there stands Necessity saying: 'This way,
please.' Do not hesitate, man, to go this way, when this is the way
that God came to you."
 -- Augustine