You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
ACLU threatens talk-show hosts over cross
2005-06-04
The ACLU, representing an atheist, is threatening five San Diego-area personalities with legal action over the proposed wording of a ballot initiative that will determine the fate of a historic cross on city land.
I'm sure I'm missing something here, I thought the ACLU stood for free speech.
The five behind the Mt. Soledad initiative are KFMB radio talk-show host Rick Roberts; KOGO radio talk-show host Roger Hedgecock; San Diego Padres radio announcer Jerry Coleman, Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif.; and SoledadNational.com Director Phil Thalmeimer.

The attorney for atheist Philip Paulson, James McElroy, has told the men he will file the challenge next week. McElroy claims that a number of their statements on the ballot, prepared for the July 26 city-wide vote, are "false and misleading."
So hold a debate.
Some statements at issue include, "as in the case with Mount Soledad, wherever veterans are honored with the symbols of the fallen, an intolerant few will launch frivolous lawsuits that waste our tax dollars..." Another statement under challenge is, "in 2004, the president of the United States signed legislation designating the Mount Soledad site as a 'National War Memorial,' necessitating the land transfer." McElroy also objects to the sentence, "Vote Yes to transfer the land to the federal government and to permanently preserve Mount Soledad -- as it is where it is."
Other than stilted English, I don't see a legal claim.
Last month, the San Diego City Council allowed voters to decide the fate of the historic cross, which overlooks the Pacific Ocean in nearby La Jolla. The legal battles date back to 1989.

Roberts said today he and the others "will defend the wording in court." While there has been "a legal challenge against all five of us, I think we will prevail in court," he said. Roberts stressed that the issue is important for those who want to preserve the heritage of San Diego, which includes the La Jolla cross. Donations for that cause are being taken by both radio announcers and SoledadNational.com.

Roberts also is a regular guest host for Michael Savage's nationally syndicated radio show. Hedgecock substitutes for Rush Limbaugh occasionally. Coleman will be inducted this summer in the Baseball Hall of Fame as a radio announcer.
Now it's clear. I'm surprised Move.on and George Soros haven't jumped on this.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#11  You guys don't know their game by now? If you don't get what you want at the polls, you go to the courts. It doesnt matter what the will of the majority is, the common people(us?) are to goddamned stupid to know what is best for this country anyway.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2005-06-04 23:16  

#10  only if their suit had merit, or was opposed by pussies on the winning side (think McCain)., In this case they'll come out tainted and no $ if I have anything to say about it ;-)
Posted by: Frank G   2005-06-04 22:36  

#9  What the ACLU is doing looks like an annoyance campaign on its surface, but evidently there is a rule that allows them to recover "legal costs" of their suit against the state whenever they win a separation of church and state case. They are like a tumor that is mutating.
Posted by: Super Hose   2005-06-04 22:03  

#8  The ACLU will get away with their intimidation game until the people stand up to them, then they will slink away and look for other prey or venues to ply their trade.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-06-04 21:59  

#7  Re #6: And now, the NEXT element of the Master Plan!....BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
Posted by: Karl Rove   2005-06-04 20:27  

#6  Via Econopundit:

And now this enigmatic tidbit from Drudge:

American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding documents over repeated objections of its records manager and in conflict with longstanding policies on preservation, disposal of records... Developing...

Perhaps we're overimaginative, but doesn't this suggest (especially given the current celebration of whistleblowers everywhere) some disgruntled ACLUer has something embarassing and otherwise documented to (a) complain about and/or (b) announce in public?
Posted by: anonymous2u   2005-06-04 16:31  

#5  Me thinks a check needs to be cut.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2005-06-04 16:30  

#4  I'm sure I'm missing something here, I thought the ACLU stood for free speech.
Doc, only the Left's speech is to be untethered; all the rest of us are to stifle ourselves like good little peasants.
Posted by: GK   2005-06-04 13:44  

#3  Whoa, nice! (In San Diego)

And right or wrong, the whole idea of the ACLU/atheists suing five radio hosts for the wording of a ballot initiative they didn't write is just ludicrous. Seeing the subject, it's even more hilarious ... in that wrong kind of way.

If they're this intolerant about historical significants, I've got a few temples and covens on the next-to-go list ...
Posted by: Edward Yee   2005-06-04 12:44  

#2  LOL - here in SD it just kicked up the "save the cross vote" by about 50,000 votes. When you have rival radio hosts working together in joint broadcasts to get something done, you've got a brushfire going. The ACLU's too fucking stupid to see that this totally diminishes any standing they might've had. It also falls on teh same ballot as the new mayoral election, and Donna Frye (stupid dessicated bitch) is oppposed to saving the cross. Bye Donna!
Posted by: Frank G   2005-06-04 12:17  

#1  Who says athiesm is NOT a religion? Why shouldn't IT be separated from the state and reduced to the status of ... um ... say, Methodists?
Posted by: Bobby   2005-06-04 11:40  

00:00