Uncategorized

Admiral Jeremiah A. Denton Named Chairman Of The Thomas More Law Center’s Citizens Advisory Board

May 8, 2007 by

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian legal advocacy group based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today announced that Vietnam War hero and former U. S. Senator from Alabama—Admiral Jeremiah A. Denton, USN (Ret)—has been appointed Chairman of the Law Center’s Citizens Advisory Board. Admiral Denton commented upon acceptance of his appointment, “I can think of no greater honor and opportunity than to be chosen to succeed my dear friend Bowie Kuhn in this position. Like he did, I consider TMLC to be at the forefront of the desperately overdue movement to restore our nation’s indispensable founding values and legal standards.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “Admiral Denton represents everything good about America—a heroic patriot, a devoted husband, father, and a faithful Christian. He symbolizes everything the Law Center strives to be. We are honored that he would accept the position of ‘Chairman’ to replace another great Christian American patriot, Bowie Kuhn, who passed away in March of this year.”

Admiral Denton was a Vietnam POW for nearly eight years. Suffering severe mistreatment, he became the first U.S. military captive to be subjected to four years of solitary confinement. He first came to the public’s attention in 1966. After being tortured and threatened with more torture and even death if he did not “correctly” answer the questions posed, he was televised in front of Communist dignitaries with the purpose of having him admit to American atrocities. Instead, Denton replied, “Whatever the position of my government is, I believe it, I support it, and I will support it as long as I live.”

Admiral Denton has been a member of the Thomas More Law Center Citizens Advisory Board since 2005. He is responsible for developing the Law Center’s national strategy. He has served on the advisory board of many institutions including Christendom College, Franciscan University Steubenville and Thomas Aquinas College. He is the President and Founder of the Admiral Jeremiah Denton Foundation (AJDF) www.dentonfoundation.org. He and his wife, the former Jane Maury were born in Mobile, Alabama and they have seven children.

Brian Rooney, Director of Communications and Development had this to say, “As a Marine combat Veteran, I have always admired Admiral Denton. To me his character and courage was epitomized in a North Vietnamese televised interview, Admiral Denton feigning sensitivity to harsh camera lighting, looked into the camera lens and blinked his eyes in Morse Code spelling out the message ‘T-O-R-T-U-R-E.’ Thusly, he provided Naval Intelligence the first confirmation that American POWs in Vietnam were being tortured. Further, as spokesperson for the first group of returning POWs in1973, as he stepped from the plane he was asked to make a statement on behalf of the group. He turned to the microphones and said, ‘We are honored to have the opportunity to serve our country under difficult circumstances. We are profoundly grateful to our Commander-in-Chief and our nation for this day. God bless America.’”

Jeremiah A. Denton is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, the Armed Forces Staff College and the Naval War College. Admiral Denton retired from the Navy in 1977, and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1980. In so doing, he became the first Republican ever elected by popular vote to represent Alabama. Denton is the recipient of many awards and honors including the Navy Cross, three Silver Stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross and two Purple Hearts.

Richard Thompson further commented, “One of my favorite memories of Admiral Denton is when he was honored by President Ronald Reagan.” Ronald Reagan in his 1982 State of the Union Address stated, “We don’t have to turn to our history books for heroes, they’re all around us.” The President looked into the audience and singled out Jeremiah Denton, “One who sits among you here tonight epitomized that heroism at the end of the longest imprisonment ever inflicted on men of our armed forces.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER

May 3, 2007 by

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. And welcome to the White House. I’m honored to join you for this National Day of Prayer. I’m sorry Laura is not here. She is camping in one of our national parks. (Laughter.) I appreciate the chairman — Chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, Shirley Dobson. Thank you for your leadership on this important day. And I see you brought your husband, Jim. (Applause.)

The 2007 Honorary Chairman is with us, and that’s Chuck Swindoll. Thank you, Chuck, for being here, and I’m glad you brought Cynthia, as well. Welcome. I appreciate the members of the Cabinet who have joined. I appreciate the members of the Congress. Thank you all for being here.

And the Mayor — Mr. Mayor, thank you, sir. It’s good to see you. Thanks for joining us. It means a lot that you’re here. I appreciate Mayor Ron Rordam, Blacksburg, Virginia. Mr. Mayor, we’re honored you’re here. Thanks for bringing Mary. (Applause.)

Members of the United States military have joined us. Thanks for wearing the uniform.

I appreciate those who are participating. Rabbi, thank you for your really kind remarks and strong statement. I am glad that one of my fellow Texans has made it. Mike, thanks for coming from Prestonwood Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas. And you married a woman named Laura. (Laughter.) Chaplain Houston Yu, Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets. Proud to have you here. (Applause.) Bishop Coles, thank you for bringing Leona. Proud you all are here, too. Thanks for joining us. Appreciate the United States Army Chorus. By the way, Sergeant First Class Alvy Powell, friend of Presidents 41, 42, and 43. (Laughter.) The man has got some longevity. (Laughter.)

As Shirley mentioned, since the days of our founding, our nation has been called to prayer. That’s exactly what our first President did, George Washington. “It’s the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and to humbly implore his protection and favor.” It’s interesting that the first President said those words.

For two centuries, Americans have answered this call to prayer. We’re a prayerful nation. I believe that makes us a strong nation. Each day, millions of our citizens approach our Maker. We pray as congregations in churches and in synagogues, and mosques, and in temples. We welcome people of all faiths into the United States of America.

We pray as families, around the dinner table, and before we go to sleep. We pray alone in silence and solitude, withdrawing from the world to focus on the eternal, spending time in personal recollection with our Creator.

We pray for many reasons. First, we pray to give thanks for the blessings the Almighty has bestowed upon us. We pray to give thanks. We give thanks for our freedom. We give thanks for the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend it. We give thanks for our families who love and support us. We give thanks for our plenty. We give thanks for our nation.

Second, we pray for the strength to follow God’s will in our lives, and for forgiveness when we fail to do so. Through prayer, each of us is reminded that we are fallen creatures in need of mercy, and in seeking the mercy and compassion of a loving God, we grow in mercy and compassion ourselves.

We feel the tug at our souls to reach out to the poor, the elderly, the stranger in distress. And by answering this call to care for our brothers and sisters in need, our hearts grow larger and we enter into a deeper relationship with God.

Third, we pray to acknowledge God’s sovereignty in our lives and our complete dependence on Him. This is probably the toughest prayer of all, particularly for those of us in politics. In the humility of prayer we recognize the limits of human strength and human wisdom. We seek the strength and wisdom that comes from above. We ask for the grace to align our hearts with His, echoing the words of Scripture, “Not my will, but thine be done.” We ask the Almighty to remain near to us and guide us in all we do, and when He is near we are ready for all that may come to us.

Finally, we pray to offer petitions, because our Father in heaven knows our cares and our needs. We trust in the promise of a loving God: Ask and it shall be given to you; seek and ye shall find. Inspired by this confidence we pray that the Almighty will pour out His blessings on those we love. We ask His healing for those who suffer from illness, for those who struggle in life. We ask His comfort for the victims of tragedy, and that the injured may be healed and the fallen may find comfort in the arms of their Creator. We implore His protection for those who protect us here at home and in far away lands. We pray for the day when His peace will reign in every nation and in every land until the ends of the earth.

The greatest gift we can offer anyone is the gift of our prayers, because our prayers have power beyond our imagining. The English poet Tennyson wrote, “More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.” Prayer has the power to change lives and to change the course of history. So on this National Day of Prayer, let us seek the Almighty with confidence and trust, because our Eternal Father inclines his ear to the voice of his children, and answers our needs with love.

May God bless America.

San Diego School District Removes “God” from the Classroom: TMLC Files Suit on Behalf of Teacher

May 1, 2007 by

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Poway Unified School District, located in San Diego, California. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Brad Johnson, a respected teacher who has been teaching in the school district for 30 years. The lawsuit claims that school officials violated Johnson’s constitutional rights by ordering him to remove several educational banners from his classroom walls because, according to these officials, the banners promote a “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint.

The banners, which Johnson had displayed in his classroom without complaint for nearly 25 years, contained the following phrases: “In God We Trust,” the official motto of the United States; “One Nation Under God,” the 1954 amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance; “God Bless America,” a patriotic song considered to be the unofficial national anthem of the United States; “God Shed His Grace On Thee,” a line from “America the Beautiful,” a popular patriotic song; and “All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator,” an excerpt from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. School officials objected to the banners because they included the words “God” and “Creator.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Cleansing our Nation’s classrooms of our religious heritage and history and imposing viewpoint restrictions on speech to silence such expressions advance no legitimate educational purpose. In fact, such actions undermine the primary purpose of public education: to prepare students for citizenship in our Republic.”

The lawsuit alleges that the school district violated Johnson’s constitutional rights by imposing a viewpoint-based restriction on his speech. It further alleges that this restriction “serves no valid educational purpose, is not reasonably related to any legitimate pedagogical concern, and conveys a government-sponsored message of disapproval of and hostility toward religion” in violation of the United States and California Constitutions.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented, “It is without question that religious people founded this Nation. As a result, references to God are common in our songs, mottoes, and slogans. And it is the responsibility of our Nation’s public schools to educate students to be informed citizens. Consequently, it is the responsibility of all public school teachers, including Mr. Johnson, to educate students regarding our Nation’s history and its founding. Mr. Johnson’s educational banners serve that purpose.”

The lawsuit seeks to have the speech restriction overturned so that Johnson can continue to display his banners, as he had been for 25 years.

Allegations of NCIS Misconduct in Haditha Case: Investigation Demanded

April 24, 2007 by

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center today announced that it will request the Secretary of Navy to investigate allegations of improper and unconstitutional interrogation methods employed by Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agents against Marine witnesses. Law Center attorneys obtained the information during interviews of several key Haditha witnesses.

The Thomas More Law Center, a Christian legal advocacy group based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is representing Marine Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Chessani, who is charged with failing to investigate and report 15 Iraqi civilian deaths in connection with a Marine response to a terrorist ambush that occurred in Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “There are disturbing reports that American servicemen were treated like POWs by their own government. In fact, more concern has been shown toward the treatment of Iraqi prisoners than towards our Marines. An investigation of these allegations is in order. ”

According to Marine witnesses, in some cases interrogations lasted up to 18 hours. During prolonged questioning sessions, Marines were not allowed to eat, drink, or use the bathroom. In some cases, Marines were kept in segregated rooms of an old Iraqi dam that were damp, dark, and “dungeon like.” These interrogation sessions occurred while the Marines were still involved in combat operations in Haditha, a hostile insurgent city.

Many witnesses reported that the questioning was accusatorial, confrontational, and at times insulting. One officer stated that agents yelled and threw things at him during his questioning. Witnesses believed that the agents had already concluded that there was wrongdoing and were not interested in information that would tend to exonerate the Marines. One witness stated that it was his perception that the NCIS agents had an agenda—they were going after the officers in the battalion.

Witness interviews revealed that Marines in Iraq raised concerns about the NCIS interrogation techniques immediately upon receiving reports from the Marines who were questioned. One senior officer from the battalion stated that when he brought these allegations to the attention of the senior NCIS agent in Iraq at the time, the agent “blew him off completely.”

Recent news stories corroborate the allegations of mistreatment on the part of NCIS agents. According to a North County Times article, in some cases NCIS agents refused to provide attorneys for suspects who asked for them. The article reported that “[s]ome of the interrogations that took place in Iraq before the regiment returned to Camp Pendleton in April took place over as long as 12 hours . . . and the suspects were not allowed to take bathroom breaks. Instead, they were given bottles to use to relieve themselves.” The article noted that “[t]he treatment of the suspects was so bad that at least two officers who were not a direct part of the investigation complained to their superiors.”

These latest revelations add to the increasing difficulties facing prosecutors. From the beginning, the case has been fraught with legal problems and inappropriate pre-trial publicity, which has prejudiced the ability of the charged Marines to obtain a fair trial. In fact, Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerney, a 35-year veteran of the Air Force and former Joint Force Commander, has already publicly stated that all charges against the Marines should be dismissed because the Marines could not get a fair trial as a result of undue command influence. McInerney was referring to the outrageous statements of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha—statements that were made before the investigation even concluded. Murtha declared that the Marines had committed “cold-blooded” murder of civilians in Haditha on November 19, 2005 and that the officers were covering it up.

Thompson concluded, “This entire investigation has been nothing but a political witch- hunt instigated by insurgent propaganda operatives, anti-war media, and anti-war politicians. The government has spared no expense seeking to find wrongdoing on the part of our hard-fighting Marines. They should spend like resources investigating these serious allegations of investigatory misconduct. Our servicemen deserve as much.”

Federal Judge: Catholic Church’s Stance Against Homosexual Adoptions Justifies Govt’s Hostility

April 23, 2007 by

ANN ARBOR, MI – In its brief filed last week with the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Thomas More Law Center urged the court to reverse a federal judge’s ruling that an anti-Catholic resolution of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was constitutionally justified because the Church opposed adoptions by homosexual couples.

District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, a President Carter appointee and one-time counsel for the National Organization for Women (NOW), ruled that the Board resolution condemning Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality and urging the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian legal advocacy group based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is appealing the ruling on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco. Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, observed, “Judge Patel clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church. During oral argument and in her written decision she claimed that the Church ‘provoked the debate’ by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded ‘responsibly’ to all of the ‘terrible’ things the Church was saying. This judge attempted to rationalize the evocative rhetoric and venom of the resolution which are sad reminders of Catholic baiting by the Ku Klux Klan.”

Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution, the San Francisco Board voted—again unanimously—to condemn some 25,000 Evangelical teens who gathered in the city to express their opposition to homosexual conduct. Openly gay San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno said the teenage group is “obnoxious” and “disgusting” and should not be tolerated. He told the Christian group to “get out of San Francisco.”

Thompson remarked, “The policy of San Francisco is one of totalitarian intolerance of Christians of all denominations who oppose homosexual conduct. My concern is that if the judge’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will further embolden the San Francisco Board in its anti-Christian attacks.”

The anti-Catholic resolution, adopted March 21, 2006, alludes to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and describes the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” “defamatory,” “absolutely unacceptable,” “insensitive and ignoran[t].” The resolution calls on the local Archbishop to “defy” the Church’s teachings and describes Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is responsible for safeguarding the doctrine on the faith and morals of the Church throughout the Catholic world, as “unqualified” to lead.

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling this matter, observed, “Our constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith. In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power now has the backing of a federal judge.”

Catholic doctrine proclaims that allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. According to Church authority, such policies are gravely immoral and Catholic organizations must not place children for adoption in homosexual households. Accordingly, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has directed Catholic organizations to adhere to the Church’s moral teaching.

The Law Center’s lawsuit claimed that the City’s anti-Catholic resolution violated the First Amendment, which “forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general.” The Law Center argued that the “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to Plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community.”

In her written opinion upholding the resolution against the Law Center’s constitutional challenge, the federal judge defended the City by essentially claiming that the Church invited the attack by publicly expressing its teaching on moral issues. The judge stated, “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement, by its [doctrinal] statement. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of this provocation.”

Thompson commented, “Even more remarkable was the judge’s questioning during oral argument. When Mr. Muise explained to the judge that the constitution is a restriction on government because the government has the power of the law to coerce behavior, the judge responded coldly, ‘You saying, the power to condemn someone to Hell isn’t more important to some people than being condemned by the state to have to pay a fine or go to jail?’ Mr. Muise, who was stunned by this comment, responded by explaining that the Church doesn’t condemn anyone to Hell, only God has that authority. To which the judge wryly stated, ‘I’m glad to hear that.’”

Partial Birth Abortion Statement by the President

April 19, 2007 by

I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial-birth abortion. Today’s decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people’s representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America. The partial-birth abortion ban, which an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed and I signed into law, represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America.

The Supreme Court’s decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.