« | »

Mojave WWI Memorial Cross Is ‘Stolen’

From a quietly amused Los Angeles times:

Mojave Desert cross, focus of long legal battle, is stolen

The 7-foot steel and concrete symbol honoring WWI vets had stood atop Sunrise Rock since 1934. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that it could stay put. The VFW has offered a $25,000 reward.

By David Kelly, Los Angeles Times

May 12, 2010

Less than two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the controversial 7-foot-high Mojave Desert cross could stay put, but on Sunday someone else decided it should go.

Investigators who arrived at its former perch Monday found a few bits of rusty metal, 1.6 million acres of desert and a big mystery on their hands.

"One day it was there, the next day it wasn’t," said Linda Slater, spokeswoman for the Mojave National Preserve, where the cross stood for 76 years. "It was bolted directly to the rock, and the bolts were cut. Someone has that cross."

Whoever that someone is could have driven right up to it, knocked it down, loaded it up and been in Las Vegas, Barstow or dozens of other communities in a few hours, officials said.

Not that uprooting the monument would have been easy. This is the third incarnation of the cross, which has been vandalized before. It was made of steel pipes 3 to 4 inches wide, filled with concrete.

"It would be extremely heavy to move," Slater said.

Which puts the lie to the other claims that it was stolen for its value as scrap metal.

Intended as a memorial to soldiers who died in World War I, the cross stood atop Sunrise Rock along remote Cima Road since 1934. For the last decade it sparked court battles over whether a solitary religious symbol should be allowed on public land…

The VFW has offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible.

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel at the Liberty Institute, which represented veterans groups during the legal fight, stressed the timing of the theft.

"It hasn’t even been two weeks since the Supreme Court decision, and evidently someone didn’t like that decision and took the law into their own hands and tore it down," he said. "It’s clear this wasn’t done by one person. It was done with a lot of planning and intention. They completely unearthed the base plate in the ground."

In 1999, national park employee Frank Buono, represented by the ACLU, filed a complaint saying the cross was unconstitutional because it represented just one faith — Christianity. A judge ordered that it be covered with a wooden box until the matter was resolved.

Congress tried to transfer the land to private owners so the cross could be legally displayed, but a federal court ruled against the plan.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling last month saying the Constitution does not "require the eradication of all religious symbols from the public realm" and sent the case back to federal court for reconsideration

The real symbolism here is how the left treats the rule of law. They simply will not accept being told ‘no.’ Even by the Supreme Court.

They simply take matters into their own hands. They are ruled only by their anger and hatred.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, May 12th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Mojave WWI Memorial Cross Is ‘Stolen’”

  1. NoNeoCommies says:

    Two thoughts:
    1-This symbol will be replaced as many times as it is removed and may well increase in size.
    2-By doing this, the perpetrators prove they are not disagreeing; they are despising, hating, attacking, demeaning, and disparaging the people this symbol honors. They are intolerant perpetrators of a hate crime and they are smearing all of the people that fought to have this cross removed, no matter what their reason may be.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      “2-By doing this, the perpetrators prove they are not disagreeing; they are despising, hating, attacking, demeaning, and disparaging the people this symbol honors. They are intolerant perpetrators of a hate crime and they are smearing all of the people that fought to have this cross removed, no matter what their reason may be.”

      Agreed. This has been proven time and time again and will continue courtesy of the progressives. The most intolerable of any group of people to any and all who do not agree with their philosophy.

  2. JohnMG says:

    …..”The real symbolism here is how the left treats the rule of law. They simply will not accept being told ‘no.’ Even by the Supreme Court…….”

    Which cuts straight to the matter of Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

    In other words, “If we can’t get the decision we want from the current court, we will pack the court with people who WILL give us the decision(s) we want.”

    That woman(?) must not be seated. She’s an unknown quantity and will prove far worse than Stevens could ever aspire to be!

    • Petronius says:

      Kagan an unknown quantity?

      Well, maybe, but she is short, fat, and partly bald, and that makes her a good fit with the rest of the No-Good Nine.

  3. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    To be fair, nobody knows who has stolen the cross. We criticize socialist for blaming the time square bombing on the resistance (to big government, I think that should be the new moniker for the right), it is no different to do the same with this horrible crime. However, there is more reason to suspect an atheist wack job in this case then there was to suspect anybody angry with Obamacare in the time square incident.

    Whoever it was, I’m sure they had to use equipment to move it. A cross that big isn’t something you can just strap to the top of your Prius. This means they should be easier to find.

    Appropriate punishments:
    1 – Re-create no-man’s land and let them run for it.
    2 – Spray them with mustard gas or other blister agents.
    3 – Put them in a bunker and shell it all day every day for a week, Shell Shock.
    4 – Make them live in a trench from April 6th to Nov 11th with nothing but WWI rations and barely drinkable water.

    If they want to disgrace the brave men who fought and died in WWI, then they should have to bear their cross.

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”This means they should be easier to find……”

      Which pre-supposes a willingness by some federal authority to expend time and money in pursuit of the perps.

      Not a likely scenario, Banned. But I like your list of punishments. And who better to oversee their implementations? A ready pool of volunteers for an impromptu Vigilance Committee.

      Makes perfectly good sense to me.

    • MinnesotaRush says:

      I’ll throw in with these remedies, too!

      I wonder how much help the perps got from someone on the inside?

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      It isn’t quite the same to make the assumptions of guilt in this case. Times square, judging by the nature of the event and the nature of recent terrorist events, strongly hinted at a muslim/jihadist connection. IN that case, assuming tea party responsibilty was 180 degrees out from what the intitial “gut feeling” reaction should have been on the ground. This cross thing was just ruled on by the supreme court against fairly vocal opposition only a few weeks ago, and low and behold it is already missing. Thus, the substantiation for reasonably looking toward those same vocal people makes logical sense. Don’t send them to the chair just yet, obviously, but it makes a lot more sense on the old “truth meter” to look there than it did to look at middle aged white conservative men for the time square thing.

  4. wardmama4 says:

    I am more frightened by the fact that since the rise of The Won – the opposition to the Constitution, the law, and American values is front and center – and it is escalating and that scares me as to where it will end up – with other parts of the World collapsing around us.

    -‘In 1999, national park employee Frank Buono, represented by the ACLU, filed a complaint ‘- That is where I would start to look for clues as to how someone got there and managed to take down a 7 foot cross and disappear into thin air – I’d start with tracking his recent work schedule.

    And once again – Christianity is not un-Constitutional – it is the act of Congress or the government establishing a religion that is. Wish that the morons would not even be able to get into court (this was a war memorial – not a religious memorial) – but apparently all the judges are leftist wackos too – I wonder why that is?

  5. Gary says:

    Most disturbing of all — that 4 members of our highest court, filled with supposedly the most constitutionally savvy folks in the land, think this cross is (was) somehow unconstitutional.

    • MinnesotaRush says:

      Thomas Jefferson commented once that, “God’s justice will not sleep forever ..”.

  6. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    That is why it is important to fill the SCOTUS with members who are able to rule from the Constitution, not his or her own personal feelings, ahem Sotomayor.

    Vetting question:
    Please describe a case or instance in which the Constitution allowed/forbade a law, behavior, etc. that your political and personal feelings where contrary to the constitutionally of said law, behavior, etc.

    However, this is against everything liberal socialists believe. The constitution is merely a tool to prevent behaviors/laws they dislike, i.e. separation of church and state, and apply wild interpretations to the laws they like, i.e. gun control and abortion. Hence, being liberal automatically disqualifies one from being an impartial justice because they are incapable of objectively interpreting the Constitution because feelings are the highest law of the land to them. Their moral compass would never steer them wrong, just like it worked for Mao, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Kim Jong Il, or Ho Chi Min, or Pol Pot, or Che, or Hugo, or Castro, or…

    • Petronius says:

      My vetting question for anybody nominated by Nerobama :

      Why do you hate the Constitution?


« Front Page | To Top
« | »