Daily Archives: May 26, 2010

MT SOLEDAD VETS MEMORIAL CROSS CASE NEWS By REES LLOYD

Important news has been received regarding the Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial Case which is pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on ACLU’s appeal of our veterans’ victory in the U.S. District Court, which ruled, after twenty years of ACLU-backed litigation, that the cross at Mt. Soledad honoring veterans does not violate the Establishment of Religion Clause.
 
The 9th Circuit has issued an order for additional legal briefs to be filed in the Mt. Soledad case “on the application of Salazar v. Buono, — S.Ct. —-, 2010 WL 1687118 (2010), to this case. ” (Order issued in Case 3:06-cv-01597-LAB -WMC Trunk, et al v. City of San Diego, et al, USCA Order, May 26, 2010.)
The Supreme Court’s decision in our favor in Salazar v. Buono , rendered on April 28, 2010, rejected the ACLU’s secular extremist position that the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial could not be transferred from public hands and land to private hands and land. That is, the Supreme Court overturned the orders of the U.S. District Court and the 9th Circuit enjoining implementation of the Congressional Act achieved by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) providing for a land exchange of the one-acre Memorial site from the Mojave Preserve to the VFW, for five-acres of private land donated by the Sandoz family to the Mojave Preserve.
The Mt. Soledad case also involves a transfer of a memorial, from the City of San Diego to the federal Department of Defense of the Mt. Soledad Memorial. The U.S. States Senate voted unanimously for the memorial to be transferred to the federal government after a U.S. District Judge ordered the cross destroyed, and after 76% of the citizens of San Diego voting in a referendum ordered the City Council to transfer the memorial, reversing by vote of the people the City’s refusal to transfer the memorial in order to save it.
Further, the language used by the Supreme Court in the Salazar v. Buono opinion written by Justice Kennedy strongly rejects the ACLU’s secular extremism position on crosses at memorials, and in the public realm generally. The Salzar vs Buono opinion states regarding the cross:
         “[A]  Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, a Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”
The Supreme Court further stated, in contradiction to ACLU’s extremist secular position: 
    “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs.  The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.”
    
This is strong language indicating the view of the Supreme Court.  Hopefully, it will persuade the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, the most liberal circuit in the country, not to overturn our victory over the ACLU in the U.S. District Court which preserved Mt. Soledad “as it is, where it is,” and has been for over sixty years, with a cross honoring fallen veterans intact.
But, while this is good news, there is a long fight to be made: The Supreme Court remanded the Mojave Desert case to the U.S. District Court in Riverside for further proceedings consistent with the High Court’s decision. It is all but certain that the Mt. Soledad case will also be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Thus, we have to keep fighting the ACLU, which has become the Taliban of American Liberal Secularism, and other intolerant secular fanatics who are attempting to impose their extremist secularism on America and destroy all symbols of our American history and heritage if they have a religious aspect, particularly the cross. 
FOR GOD AND COUNTRY FOREVER; SURRENDER TO THE ACLU– NEVER!
(Rees Lloyd, a former staff attorney of the ACLU of So. Cal., is a longtime civil rights attorney and now one of the attorneys fighting the ACLU’s secular extremist attacks on veterans memorials as Director of the Defense of Veterans Memorials of the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project of The American Legion Dept. of Cal.)
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Man Arrested For Shooting at Escaping Robbers

A Gresham man has been arrested for firing his gun at robbers escaping from a robbery in their car. The two robbers stole about $2,800 worth of cell phones from an AT&T store.

The man holds a concealed weapons permit, but was faulted for firing his weapon in a public place, even though no one was injured.

The robbers escaped.

KGW 8 News

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

MT SOLEDAD VETS MEMORIAL CROSS CASE NEWS By REES LLOYD

Important news has been received regarding the Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial Case which is pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on ACLU’s appeal of our veterans’ victory in the U.S. District Court, which ruled, after twenty years of ACLU-backed litigation, that the cross at Mt. Soledad honoring veterans does not violate the Establishment of Religion Clause.
 
The 9th Circuit has issued an order for additional legal briefs to be filed in the Mt. Soledad case “on the application of Salazar v. Buono, — S.Ct. —-, 2010 WL 1687118 (2010), to this case. ” (Order issued in Case 3:06-cv-01597-LAB -WMC Trunk, et al v. City of San Diego, et al, USCA Order, May 26, 2010.)
The Supreme Court’s decision in our favor in Salazar v. Buono , rendered on April 28, 2010, rejected the ACLU’s secular extremist position that the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial could not be transferred from public hands and land to private hands and land. That is, the Supreme Court overturned the orders of the U.S. District Court and the 9th Circuit enjoining implementation of the Congressional Act achieved by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) providing for a land exchange of the one-acre Memorial site from the Mojave Preserve to the VFW, for five-acres of private land donated by the Sandoz family to the Mojave Preserve.
The Mt. Soledad case also involves a transfer of a memorial, from the City of San Diego to the federal Department of Defense of the Mt. Soledad Memorial. The U.S. States Senate voted unanimously for the memorial to be transferred to the federal government after a U.S. District Judge ordered the cross destroyed, and after 76% of the citizens of San Diego voting in a referendum ordered the City Council to transfer the memorial, reversing by vote of the people the City’s refusal to transfer the memorial in order to save it.
Further, the language used by the Supreme Court in the Salazar v. Buono opinion written by Justice Kennedy strongly rejects the ACLU’s secular extremism position on crosses at memorials, and in the public realm generally. The Salzar vs Buono opinion states regarding the cross:
         “[A]  Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, a Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”
The Supreme Court further stated, in contradiction to ACLU’s extremist secular position: 
    “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs.  The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.”
    
This is strong language indicating the view of the Supreme Court.  Hopefully, it will persuade the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, the most liberal circuit in the country, not to overturn our victory over the ACLU in the U.S. District Court which preserved Mt. Soledad “as it is, where it is,” and has been for over sixty years, with a cross honoring fallen veterans intact.
But, while this is good news, there is a long fight to be made: The Supreme Court remanded the Mojave Desert case to the U.S. District Court in Riverside for further proceedings consistent with the High Court’s decision. It is all but certain that the Mt. Soledad case will also be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Thus, we have to keep fighting the ACLU, which has become the Taliban of American Liberal Secularism, and other intolerant secular fanatics who are attempting to impose their extremist secularism on America and destroy all symbols of our American history and heritage if they have a religious aspect, particularly the cross. 
FOR GOD AND COUNTRY FOREVER; SURRENDER TO THE ACLU– NEVER!
(Rees Lloyd, a former staff attorney of the ACLU of So. Cal., is a longtime civil rights attorney and now one of the attorneys fighting the ACLU’s secular extremist attacks on veterans memorials as Director of the Defense of Veterans Memorials of the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project of The American Legion Dept. of Cal.)
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Man Arrested For Shooting at Escaping Robbers

A Gresham man has been arrested for firing his gun at robbers escaping from a robbery in their car. The two robbers stole about $2,800 worth of cell phones from an AT&T store.

The man holds a concealed weapons permit, but was faulted for firing his weapon in a public place, even though no one was injured.

The robbers escaped.

KGW 8 News

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

If You Voted Yes on Measure 66 & 67 "For the Children" Then You’re a Chump

Because guess what? As predicted, the state is in hole $562 million next year already. Schools will take a hit in the Governor’s 9% across-the-board cut backs (here).
And don’t give me the ‘we would have been worse off if we hadn’t voted in favor’ jive because the democrats shouldn’t have been increasing spending in the last few legislative sessions. What was it again? A forty-four percent increase in the past four years? That’s not a taxing problem, that’s a spending problem.And because they fail to prioritize spending properly we end up with these hacking cuts in the budget in a wholesale way–for the children.
How about we start cutting increases for the public employee unions first? It’s for the children, you know.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Dino Rossi to Make Announcement at 7am Wednesday on Senate Decision

ADVISORY                                                 

Rossi announcement online tomorrow @ 7 a.m.
Seattle, WA – Dino Rossi will make an online video announcement tomorrow about the U.S. Senate race.  The announcement will be posted on his web site, www.dinorossi.com, at 7 a.m. Pacific Time.
Dino sent a message to his supporters on his Twitter and Facebook.
###
Rossi is running neck and neck with Patty Murry in the latest Rasmussen poll. This could be interesting. 
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

City of Portland Misses the Obvious on Emergency Plan

We talked about it on the show yesterday, but, for the record, every time the Portland Rainbow City Council talks about spending money on an emergency staging center or the like I wonder why they’re missing the obvious. Is it because the anti military and down-with-America attitude pervades this town so much that city “leaders” have missed the ‘no duh’ opportunity in front of their faces? Is it willful ignorance? Willful idiocy?


Here’s the issue as seen in the Zero the other day,

Commissioner Randy Leonard, who oversees the Water Bureau, complained that the proposed water increase isn’t enough to enable the city to buy an 11-acre patch of land owned by the Oregonian Publishing Co. in Northwest Portland for use as an emergency staging area. The city wants to buy property — paid for from water fees — to use for equipment and services in the event that an earthquake or other catastrophe cuts the city’s west side off from the Bull Run water supply.

We have to buy new real estate —from the newspaper of record (which is sucking wind, btw) to buy a new staging area? No, we don’t. The USS Ranger Foundation (here) has –for free– offered the City a place to use in the case of emergencies. The Ranger is currently sitting in mothballs in Bremerton, Washington awaiting it’s new assignment as a reef at the bottom of the big drink or as a museum, venue, hospital, cafeteria, tourist attraction on the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon.
I choose the latter.
The Ranger has room to act as a venue for concerts, attractions, weddings etc on its huge deck and has room to house, feed and treat hundreds of people in its facility in case of an emergency. It has the ability to generate power and purify water. In its heydey, the Ranger housed 5,000 people. 
The City would allow the Ranger space near Terminal 2 on the Willamette and the Ranger Foundation and the foundation would pay all the expenses.
Why do we have to buy the Oregonian’s property again?

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

City of Portland: Leaf Me Alone

The Portland City Council thinks money grows on trees and indeed it does. Leaves translate into more money for the profligate spending crowd at the Rainbow City Council. I just found out I’m in a “leaf district.” I don’t have any deciduous trees on my lot that drop leaves on the street or require special leaf pick up, but guess what? I’m stuck for a new leaf tax passed last week by the city council.

The…2010-11 budget…includes a 6.3 percent increase in sewer and stormwater rates, and a 12 percent hike in water fees. Combined, the average residential utility bill would increase 8 percent, from $72.17 to $77.99 a month — or $234 every quarterly billing cycle.
The budget also includes a new $15 or $30 annual fee on homeowners who live in neighborhoods that receive leaf pickups in the fall, and a small increase in garbage rates. 

If, as

    
You may be aware that Portland City Council has approved a fee to help offset the costs of leaf removal programs in each of 28 specific routes (Leaf Districts) where significant numbers larger, more mature trees produce heavy accumulations of leafs, thereby impairing or preventing normal street cleaning operations.  This fee applies only to those neighborhoods that receive Leaf District Program leaf removal services.  This is to advise you that portions of your neighborhood include one or more Leaf District(s).  Beginning in the fall of 2010, property owners in a Leaf District that receives two scheduled leaf pick-ups will pay a fee of $30 per year.  Those in Leave Districts that receive only one scheduled pickup will pay a fee of $15 per year.  Businesses in Leaf Districts will also pay a fee ranging from $15 per year to $65 per year, depending on the amount of frontage occupied by the business. 
 
At the same time, to increase program efficiency and to ensure that the areas that need our most aggressive levels of leaf removal services receive them, while containing costs wherever possible for those neighborhoods with lesser accumulations of leafs, we have redefined program service levels in some areas.  Two new districts have been added and three have been removed.  These changes may or may not impact your neighborhood.  Attached, please find a table outlining specific service level changes, arranged alphabetically by district.