Sometimes the Good Guys win... but not often enough!

A retired NY Judge shared the following story in his column this week -- it is definitely worth repeating word for word!:

A grieving father’s victory over political correctness

By Daniel Leddy

April 06, 2010, 8:17AM

On Oct.12, 2000, the USS Cole, a Navy destroyer, was in the process of refueling at the port of Aden in Yemen. As unsuspecting crew members were preparing to have lunch, a small craft, manned by terrorists and armed with an estimated 1,000 pounds of explosives, approached the Cole.

The ensuing explosion killed 17 American sailors and injured 39 others.

The following year, footage of the suicide bombing was used by Osama bin Laden in a video in which he sought support for his network of murderers.

In one segment, men are seen carrying rifles and chanting praise to Allah “who made us victorious the day we destroyed the ship on the sea.” In another, children, dressed in military fatigues and carrying rifles, are being indoctrinated in how to become full-fledged Islamic screwballs.

Marc Nieto, 24, an Engineman 2nd Class, was only two weeks away from completing his six-year tour of duty aboard the Cole when he was murdered by Bin Laden’s thugs.

His father, Jesse, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, has been working since 1994 as a civilian employee at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

In 2001, Jesse Nieto began displaying various decals on the privately-owned vehicle he drove to work each day. Their twofold purpose, he says, was to honor his son and express his own personal views regarding Islam and terrorism.

Among the conventional decals were a gold star, a combat ribbon, and messages that read “REMEMBER THE COLE, 12 Oct. 2000,” and “WE DIED, THEY REJOICED.”

Three other, controversial decals were the subject of a lawsuit that was decided last week by a gutsy federal court judge. One stated, “ISLAM = TERRORISM”; another showed a picture of Calvin, from the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, urinating on a cartoon illustration of the Islamic prophet Mohammed; and a third was of the American Flag with the words “Disgrace My Countries [sic] Flag And I will [defecate] on your Quran.”

On July 31, 2008, Nieto was ordered to remove these three decals from his vehicle by the camp’s deputy inspector. When he refused, military police cited him for violating a base traffic regulation which prohibits the display of “extremist, indecent, sexist or racist messages” on motor vehicles.

Following a hearing at the base’s traffic court, Nieto was escorted to his vehicle where he was forced to remove the three decals.
Subsequently, however, he added another decal, this one depicting an Islamic crescent moon and star with a diagonal line superimposed upon them and the words “No Quarter” and “Islamic Terrorist.”

As a consequence, Nieto was ordered to remove every decal from his car. When he refused to do so, he was ordered to take his vehicle off the base and keep it away from any other federal installation until the “offensive stickers are removed from it.”
THE LAWSUIT



Instead, Nieto initiated a federal lawsuit against the commanding officer of Camp Lejeune and its Traffic Court magistrate. Represented by the Thomas More Law Center, he argued that he had a First Amendment right to express his political message through the decals.

The extent to which speech may be restricted on government property depends on the nature of the property. Regulatory power is greatest when, as in the case of Camp Lejeune, the property is not freely accessible by members of the public. In such instances, speech may be restricted as long as it is not done merely because the government disagrees with the speaker’s viewpoint.

At the court hearing, the military defendants admitted that pro-Islamic messages such as “Islam is Love” or “Islam is peace” would be permitted on the base.

Hence, it became clear to Senior U.S. District Court Judge Malcom J. Howard that Nieto’s speech was being restricted simply because officials disagreed with his message.

Put another way, while the prohibition against “extremist, indecent, sexist or racist messages” was neutral on its face, it was being applied in a discriminatory manner against Nieto.

While the military claimed that it was merely trying to prevent speech that might inflame the passions of others on the base, Judge Howard correctly noted that pro-Islamic messages carried that very same incendiary potential for people like Nieto and others at Camp Lejeune who share his view of Islam.

Although Judge Howard’s legal reasoning was impeccable, you can be sure that many other federal judges would have concocted some convoluted rationale to reach a contrary, politically correct result.

Howard, perhaps not so coincidentally, was appointed to the bench by President Reagan in 1988. Which proves once again that every presidential appointment to the judiciary has consequences for the country.

Political correctness may yet trump sound judicial reasoning here if the Obama administration pushes an appeal. Yet, for the moment, Jesse Nieto and, derivatively, his murdered son, have their victory because Judge Howard had the courage to apply the law faithfully.

Ponder that for a moment. Ponder the degree to which society has been subverted by political correctness that any judge should truly merit accolades just for deciding an issue even-handedly.

(Daniel Leddy’s column appears each Tuesday on the Advance Editorial Page. His e-mail address is JudgeLeddy@si.rr.com.)

Thanx and a Tip O' the Stetson to my ole' Air Force Buddy, Pat, for the Heads up!