WWI Mojave cross stolen?

[Blitzkrieg]

If I found them..they could keep the reward.. just give me 5 minutes alone with them...

View attachment 206809

 

[BSG 75]

BARSTOW • An anonymous caller, claiming to know the details of the theft of the Mojave Cross, contacted the Desert Dispatch newsroom at around 4 p.m. Tuesday. He said he was not directly responsible for the cross’s theft, but knew who was. He told a reporter that the person responsible for the theft wrote up the following explanation and statement regarding the removal of the cross. He asked that the Desert Dispatch to print the statement in its entirety.

We make no claims to the validity of the origins of this statement. We concluded, however, that the short time between the reporting of the cross’s theft and the receipt of this lengthy statement signified at least a strong connection. We are passing along this information in the hopes of illuminating what might have happened:

"1. The cross in question was not vandalized. It was simply moved. This was done lovingly and with great care.

2. The cross has been carefully preserved. It has not been destroyed as many have assumed.

3. I am a Veteran.

4. A small non-sectarian monument was brought to place at the site but technical difficulties prevented this from happening at the time the cross was moved to its new location.

5. The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual named Henry Sandoz. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

6. Anthony Kennedy desecrated and marginalized the memory and sacrifice of all those non-Christians that died in WWI when he wrote: 'Here one 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 irony and tragedy of that statement is unique.

7. Justice Kennedy’s words in particular and others like them from the other Justices caused me to act.

8. At the time of its removal there was nothing to identify the cross as a memorial of any kind, and the simple fact of the matter is that the only thing it represented was an oddly placed tribute to Christ. This cross evoked nothing of the sort that Justice Kennedy writes of, it was in the end simply a cross in the desert.

9. Discrimination in any form is intolerable, as is hatred.

10. Discrimination or hatred based upon religion should be despised by all Americans, and offering that this event was caused by hatred or malice is simply ignorance of the actual intent.

11. Despite what many people are saying, this act was definitively not anti-Christian. It was instead anti-discrimination. If this act was anti-Christian, the cross would not have been cared for so reverently. An anti-Christian response would have been to simply destroy the cross and leave the pieces in the desert.

12. We as a nation need to change the dialogue and stop pretending that this is about a war memorial. If it is a memorial, then we need to stop arguing about the cross and instead place a proper memorial on that site, one that respects Christians and non-Christians alike, and one that is actually recognizable as a war memorial.

13. If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned to Mr. Sandoz.

14. Alternatively, if a place can be found that memorializes the Christian Veterans of WWI that is not on public land the Cross will promptly be forwarded with care and reverence for installation at the private site.

15. In short this has happened because as Abraham Lincoln said: 'To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.' Perhaps this was an inappropriate form of protest if so I humbly request your forgiveness and understanding for the actions that I have taken here."

<broken link removed>

 

[MarkSBG]

After Doubletap gets his 5 minutes, I want mine!

That assumes that DT would leave anything for you.

Rav: Where the dirtbag
DT:

 

[Blitzkrieg]

That manifesto is a red herring/false flag

It was an anti Christ type that did this deed, as I listed in my first post

 

[CEF1959]

I'm quite sure this was the work of some stinky dredlocked hipsters.

I appreciate uninformed stereotypes as much as the next guy, but this seems more uninformed and stereotypical than usual.

Last week it was reported that Neaderthals actually bred with homo sapiens many thousands of years ago. Maybe that explains the cross theft. Come to think of it, it might explain a lot of things. I'm not talking about anyone here, of course. Just musing generally.

 

[Trlsmn]

I appreciate uninformed stereotypes as much as the next guy, but this seems more uninformed and stereotypical than usual.

Last week it was reported that Neaderthals actually bred with homo sapiens many thousands of years ago. Maybe that explains the cross theft. Come to think of it, it might explain a lot of things. I'm not talking about anyone here, of course. Just musing generally.

Neandertal (stereotypical spelling corrected) is a Homo Sapien, brainiac. Thanks for playing though, and we have some lovely parting gifts backstage.

<broken link removed> - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE
<broken link removed> - 130,000 years BCE to present

 

[Blitzkrieg]

 

[Blitzkrieg]

 

[elsullo]

BARSTOW • An anonymous caller, claiming to know the details of the theft of the Mojave Cross, contacted the Desert Dispatch newsroom at around 4 p.m. Tuesday. He said he was not directly responsible for the cross’s theft, but knew who was. He told a reporter that the person responsible for the theft wrote up the following explanation and statement regarding the removal of the cross. He asked that the Desert Dispatch to print the statement in its entirety.

We make no claims to the validity of the origins of this statement. We concluded, however, that the short time between the reporting of the cross’s theft and the receipt of this lengthy statement signified at least a strong connection. We are passing along this information in the hopes of illuminating what might have happened:

"1. The cross in question was not vandalized. It was simply moved. This was done lovingly and with great care.

2. The cross has been carefully preserved. It has not been destroyed as many have assumed.

3. I am a Veteran.

4. A small non-sectarian monument was brought to place at the site but technical difficulties prevented this from happening at the time the cross was moved to its new location.

5. The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual named Henry Sandoz. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

6. Anthony Kennedy desecrated and marginalized the memory and sacrifice of all those non-Christians that died in WWI when he wrote: 'Here one 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 irony and tragedy of that statement is unique.

7. Justice Kennedy’s words in particular and others like them from the other Justices caused me to act.

8. At the time of its removal there was nothing to identify the cross as a memorial of any kind, and the simple fact of the matter is that the only thing it represented was an oddly placed tribute to Christ. This cross evoked nothing of the sort that Justice Kennedy writes of, it was in the end simply a cross in the desert.

9. Discrimination in any form is intolerable, as is hatred.

10. Discrimination or hatred based upon religion should be despised by all Americans, and offering that this event was caused by hatred or malice is simply ignorance of the actual intent.

11. Despite what many people are saying, this act was definitively not anti-Christian. It was instead anti-discrimination. If this act was anti-Christian, the cross would not have been cared for so reverently. An anti-Christian response would have been to simply destroy the cross and leave the pieces in the desert.

12. We as a nation need to change the dialogue and stop pretending that this is about a war memorial. If it is a memorial, then we need to stop arguing about the cross and instead place a proper memorial on that site, one that respects Christians and non-Christians alike, and one that is actually recognizable as a war memorial.

13. If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned to Mr. Sandoz.

14. Alternatively, if a place can be found that memorializes the Christian Veterans of WWI that is not on public land the Cross will promptly be forwarded with care and reverence for installation at the private site.

15. In short this has happened because as Abraham Lincoln said: 'To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.' Perhaps this was an inappropriate form of protest if so I humbly request your forgiveness and understanding for the actions that I have taken here."

<broken link removed>

So, other than conveniently stating that this letter must be false, none of you Constitution haters have any comment on the CONTENT of the letter?............................elsullo

 

[Trlsmn]

So, other than conveniently stating that this letter must be false, none of you Constitution haters have any comment on the CONTENT of the letter?............................elsullo

You've worded your inquiry so that any responders are already "Constitution haters" by definition.

 

[CEF1959]

Feeling a little insecure in your viewpoints, gentlemen? The amount of effort being put into the attack mode to ensure there are no contrary views suggests so. Or are you part of the "Truth not Tolerance" squad? Don't be hesitant to admit it. Some famous world leaders were members. Was Mussolini's authoritarian intolerance driven by pathetic insecurities? Hmm. Not for me to judge.

 

[Trlsmn]

Feeling a little insecure in your viewpoints, gentlemen? The amount of effort being put into the attack mode to ensure there are no contrary views suggests so.

Wow! this thread is about some jackhole taking away a "view" that SCOTUS seems to agree with.

What would you have forum users do? Should we all agree with each other, give high fives and glad hands? What would be the fun in that?

 

[CEF1959]

Adulthood would work.

 

[Trlsmn]

Adulthood would work.

Would work too............



................stop the labeling?

...............stop the name calling?

...............stop the incomplete sentences?

 

[tionico]

the concept of "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. What IS:

CONGRESS shall make no law ESTABLISHING a religion (meaning a religious sect.. catholic, episcopalian, lutheran, moslem, mormon).... nor to PREVENT the free exercise thereof.

Will SOMEONE please tell me how that cross, having sat in the desert for some seventy years, is the result of Congress making a law......? It is patently simple to see how Congress, should they have forced the removal thereof, would have passed a law PREVENTING the free exercise of religion on behalf of some parties......

so, will someone tell me once more HOW this thing is illegal? If Michael Newdow is "offended" at the presence of that cross, he can simply not drive his car in the desert closely enough to see it. Or drive there at night, where he can't. How many millions of public money did he cost We the People to try and get this thing removed? I would not be surprised in the least if he, or one of his crones, were behind its disappearance.

By the way, to maintain a simple cross as a public memorial does not 'ESTABLISH" any religion. Something like a statue of some long dead pope MIGHT, or of John Calvin, or of Henry VIII as head of the Church of England, or of Joseph Smith....... but a simple cross? WHICH religion does this "establish"?

 

[jagerMR]

Wasn't it the ACLU or some other outfit that raised the stink about it?

No, actually it was some f-tard up HERE in Portland that saw it ( rather, hiked OUT of his way to see it) then came home and complained about it, the ACLU obviously jumped on board since thats their over-all goal. Destroy America and all that it is.

 

[Trlsmn]

No, actually it was some f-tard up HERE in Portland that saw it ( rather, hiked OUT of his way to see it) then came home and complained about it, the ACLU obviously jumped on board since thats their over-all goal. Destroy America and all that it is.

That figures, I'll bet it isn't a native Portlander either! JagerMR long time no see! How you been?

 

[Member 5605]

That figures, I'll bet it isn't a native Portlander either! JagerMR long time no see! How you been?

Your right he was probably from Eugene or Corvallis.

 

[longcolt]

the concept of "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. What IS:

CONGRESS shall make no law ESTABLISHING a religion (meaning a religious sect.. catholic, episcopalian, lutheran, moslem, mormon).... nor to PREVENT the free exercise thereof.

Will SOMEONE please tell me how that cross, having sat in the desert for some seventy years, is the result of Congress making a law......? It is patently simple to see how Congress, should they have forced the removal thereof, would have passed a law PREVENTING the free exercise of religion on behalf of some parties......

so, will someone tell me once more HOW this thing is illegal? If Michael Newdow is "offended" at the presence of that cross, he can simply not drive his car in the desert closely enough to see it. Or drive there at night, where he can't. How many millions of public money did he cost We the People to try and get this thing removed? I would not be surprised in the least if he, or one of his crones, were behind its disappearance.

By the way, to maintain a simple cross as a public memorial does not 'ESTABLISH" any religion. Something like a statue of some long dead pope MIGHT, or of John Calvin, or of Henry VIII as head of the Church of England, or of Joseph Smith....... but a simple cross? WHICH religion does this "establish"?

Good post: It is interesting how folks will put a spin on the Constitution to support their personal agenda. Hate God, then spin the Constitution to get rid of God. Hate Guns, do the same.

Thats the approach of the "activist" and we have always had them around and just need to tell them to shut up and move to Cuba or Russia. Maybe help them along by paying for their airline ticket.

 

[LogicBomb]

I wonder what would happan if that cross was a inverted pentagram, or a statue of some 3 headed monkey god....