The Unalienable Right
Tuesday - February 9, 2010


« « MSNBC viewers - the anti-military peacenik demographic | MAIN | Dizzy Dean says: "Liberal Democrats = Socialists" » »


Maybe if they flushed the cross down a toilet at Gitmo, some liberals would vote to save it

Just as the Taliban tore down those 1500 year-old Buddha statues in Afghanistan a few years ago, the radical fundamentalists of the secular left are trying to tear down crosses in many cities around the United States. Both groups cannot abide having any symbols that violate their religious views on public display.

Today, Michelle Malkin reports some progress (via the L.A. Times) against these radical extremist forces and their attempt to tear down a war memorial cross in San Diego, California.

After an emotional six-hour hearing in which veterans pleaded with the City Council to save the cross, the council voted 6 to 3 Tuesday night to put the issue on the July 26 ballot, when voters will select a replacement for Mayor Dick Murphy.

Voters will be asked whether the cross property should be deeded to the U.S. government, which could designate it a federal monument. Supporters, including two members of Congress, want to preserve the cross, which was built in the 1950s and is one of the city's most recognizable landmarks.

There's no reason the city should have to transfer the monument to the federal government in order to protect it, constitutionally speaking, but given the current "living constitution" leanings of many judges, it may be the only way to protect the monument. Hopefully the good people of San Diego will get out there and vote to protect the monument from those who want to tear it down.



posted by: The Editors @ 11:49 am May 21, 2005


No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed for this post.


All comments are moderated, they will not appear immediately. Comments judged by the editors to be obscene, libelous, or otherwise inappropriate will be deleted. Comments will not be deleted because they disagree with the positions of this site. Respectful dissent is encouraged.

The opinions expressed by commenters are their own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the owners of this website.