One Week in Sweden


An Intro to ‘One Week in Sweden

John R. Houk, Editor

Essay by Fjordman

Posted on November 21, 2017

 

I try to keep tabs on one of my favorite essayists Fjordman. Fjordman doesn’t get a lot of play in the USA I am guessing because he is from Norway/EU and is often denounced in Europe as being a Right-Wing Islamophobe. An accusation that can get you thrown in jail by European Leftist Multicultural government elites under crazy hate-speech laws.

 

In case you haven’t read Fjordman essays very often, you should be aware that Fjordman is a pseudonymous pen name that he used for years to protect his anonymity. Anonymity was important because of the crazy Muslim Supremacists dominating European violence who enjoy killing non-Muslims for criticizing Islam.

 

Pretty much everyone who knows about Fjordman today knows his real name of Peder Jensen. He was exposed because the loony Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik leaned on twisted interpretation of Fjordman’s essays trying to inspire cultural violence against Muslims by killing Norwegian youths. Since Breivik seemed to base most of his twisted thoughts on Fjordman (other notable Counterjihadists were in his manifesto) essays, the Norwegian police arrested Fjordman as if he was some kind of Breivik co-conspirator. Although completely exonerated, Fjordman’s legal name became public knowledge – exposing him to crazy Muslims.

 

This happened to Fjordman circa 2011. Fortunately he is still writing essays. The essay you are about to read demonstrates the correlation between Muslim refugees/immigrants in Sweden erupting in huge pockets of violence against Swedish non-Muslims. This is important to Americans, because the Dem Party wants to continue bringing in Muslims who do not have any inclination of assimilating into American culture of Religious Liberty and the Liberty guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

 

JRH 11/21/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

One Week in Sweden

 

By Fjordman

November 12, 2017 4:30 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • In Sweden, car-burnings are not major news anymore; they have become a part of daily life. Cars are torched in Swedish towns on a regular basis.

 

  • Between January and September 2017, Sweden experienced 6000 car-burnings. That equals roughly 22 car fires per day. Schools and other buildings are sometimes targeted by arsonists as well.

 

  • Meanwhile, a report claims that Swedish students and other citizens have been pushed to the back of the public-housing queue. The authorities thus sometimes prioritize recently-arrived asylum seekers and immigrants over the country’s native population.

……………………………….

If you search for crime, you can find it in any society. Sadly, in Sweden today, you do not have to search very hard. A casual look at newspapers on any random day will be filled with stories about armed robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, public gang shootings and perhaps explosives in restaurants. This crime wave is no longer merely confined to the major cities. Many smaller towns and some rural communities are now affected as well.

 

In some Swedish municipalities, harassment and violent threats have become major issues even at public libraries. In the town of Trelleborg, in the autumn of 2017, a gang of 30-50 youths effectively occupied the local library. One mother, who asked that her name not be used, explained that she is now scared to visit the library with her children. The last time she went, visitors were harassed by a loud, aggressive youth gang. When a guard asked the gang-members to leave, they surrounded him. The local police say that they are aware of this problem, but that they do not have sufficient staff to patrol the library every day.

 

In October 2017, an 81-year-old Swedish woman in the town of Mölndal was harassed and threatened by some youths while walking her dog. A few boys around the age of 12 walked in front of her and blew cigarette smoke in her face; one of them threatened to attack her dog and her. Then he spat her in her face. The woman now says that she is afraid to go out. The local police confirm that elderly people are harassed in similar ways. In a separate incident, some youths stole a loaf of bread from another woman in her 80s.

 

On the evening of October 29, 2017, a car was torched in the Muslim-dominated district of Rosengård in Malmö. On October 30, another car was torched in the same area. The local daily Sydsvenskan mentioned these incidents with just a couple of sentences. Why? Because car-burnings have become a part of daily life. They are not major news anymore. Cars are torched in Swedish towns on a regular basis.

 

Between January and September 2017, Sweden experienced 6000 car-burnings. That equals roughly 22 car-burnings per day. (Insurance companies estimate that about half of these incidents are attempts at insurance fraud.) Schools and other buildings have been targeted by arsonists, as well.

 

Cars burn in the Stockholm suburb of Husby during a riot on May 20, 2013. (Image source: Telefonkiosk/Wikimedia Commons)

 

The police in parts of Sweden have also experienced, in recent years, a rising number of violent attacks. Police vehicles and stations have been targeted; sometimes even policemen in the privacy of their homes.

 

On October 29, 2017, a stone was thrown through the front door of the police station in the small town of Kinna. A police station in Dalbo, Växjö had several windows smashed with stones and was shot at with fireworks. The local police chief commented that the police earlier experienced vandalism against their cars, too. A police station at Vännäs in northern Sweden was hit by a rock a day earlier.

 

On October 29, a police patrol in the town of Linköping was ambushed by people throwing rocks at them. One policeman was injured, struck in the face by a stone.

 

On October 18, a police station in the southern city of Helsingborg was hit by an explosion. No one was injured, but a large part of the building, as well as the windows on the building opposite, were damaged by the blast. “This is very serious. An attack on the police is not just an attack against society, but on everyone’s safety,” said Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson.

 

On October 28, in the middle of the night, someone fired roughly 20 bullets into the private home of a police officer in Västerås. The policeman and his family were asleep at the time. The shots went straight through the house and into the neighbor’s house. According to the regional police chief Carin Götblad, only luck prevented anyone from being hit.

 

Despite many such incidents, Johanna Skinnari, a researcher at the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, claims that it is not possible to determine whether or not attacks on the police are becoming more common. She did add, however, that “ordinary threats and harassment” are on the rise. Her research, she explained, found that these attacks tend to reinforce the “intimidation capital” of the perpetrators, “to show they’re tough and not afraid of the police.”

 

A Swedish policewoman described how criminals have published photographs of her, her husband and her 2-year-old son, whom they threatened to murder. She said that similar stories about police officers in Sweden are now common. Some policemen have begun checking for bombs under their cars before starting them. As one violent criminal told the Swedish police: “You are no longer hunting us. We are hunting you. We will hunt you and your families.”

 

Swedes pay some of the world’s highest taxes. Despite this burden, parts of the country suffer from a chronic lack of police resources. Many crimes go unsolved. Witnesses are sometimes afraid of talking to the police. At other times, the police lack the capacity to investigate even serious crimes such as murder or rape.

 

Being a policeman is not an attractive job in Sweden today. The risks are high; the salary is low. The majority of Swedish police officers — an alarming 58% — are considering finding a different profession.

 

The police warn that foreign criminals view Sweden as a most attractive country. If you steal something, the chances of being caught are almost zero. If you should be sentenced for a crime, you might spend only a short time in a comfortable prison. A lot of weapons are illegally circulating among criminal gangs, from pistols to hand grenades.

 

A journalist, Ivar Arpi, commented that parts of the country are no longer under the control of the state. At many train stations, libraries and hospitals, threatening and harassing the staff have become a daily routine. In troubled areas, shops are forced to close: thanks to rampant crime, they can no longer buy insurance. Throwing stones at the police or rescue service personnel is now “normal.” The use of hand grenades in attacks in Sweden is now comparable to regions of Mexico in which drug cartels operate.

 

The Gothenburg regional daily Göteborgs-Posten argues that a “low-intensity war” is currently being waged against the Swedish police. This situation exists, the newspaper notes, although the Swedish economy is still strong. What happens to these tensions if the economy suffers a downturn?

 

PO Hellqvist, who has worked for 30 years at the Swedish Security Service (Säpo), sounded an alarm on a “power struggle” between Swedish authorities and criminal gangs in certain areas. He says he is concerned about the growth of parallel societies, complete with their own “morality police,” partly cut off from, and often hostile to, the rest of society. Such communities have historically been a breeding ground for terrorism. Hellqvist adds he is even more worried about people who become radicalized locally than about ISIS jihadists returning from the Middle East. The local radicals, he notes, are more numerous.

 

Three employees of Sweden’s public broadcasting station SVT were convicted of human trafficking after they smuggled a Syrian migrant into Sweden in 2014. They will not, however, lose their jobs because of this. At the same time, another Syrian Muslim migrant was being arrested in Germany; he is suspected of plotting a mass-murder terrorist attack.

 

Kjell-Olof Feldt, who served as a powerful Minister of Finance during most of the 1980s, was widely respected as an honest and competent minister (even though some of his fellow Social Democrats thought his economic policies too “right-wing”). In October 2017, the now-retired Feldt gave an interview to a Swedish newspaper in which he expressed concerns about the future of his own party, as well as about the future of Sweden. Feldt says that the way the established political parties have handled immigration has weakened trust in politicians. He described the current immigration policies in Sweden as a “ticking bomb“. When asked what politicians can do to solve these problems, Feldt replied: “I do not know. I think hardly anyone knows.” Current political leaders, in his view, are simply trying to keep a lid on the situation and stifle debate.

 

Meanwhile, a report claims that Swedish students and other citizens have been pushed to the back of the public-housing queue. Municipalities across Sweden suffer from a housing shortage. The authorities, it seems, have sometimes been prioritizing recently-arrived asylum seekers and immigrants over the country’s native population. The Swedish government is looking to house 100,000 more immigrants in 2018.

 

__________________________

Fjordman, a Norwegian historian, is an expert on Europe, Islam and multiculturalism.

 

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Full Disclosure – I did not get permission and will remove post if requested to do so.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the transparency and accountability of international organizations.

 

Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. We are grateful for your support. Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.

 

READ THE REST

 

Ever Wonder about Obama Pre-Politician History?


I read an interesting somewhat whimsical wondering by Paul Jacobs. Jacobs was wondering about the obvious lack of information on Barack Hussein Obama’s childhood, teen days and his college days. Now that Obama is no longer President, you’d think the wonderment would have elapsed.

 

I am with Jacobs though. If you are a Conservative, you know and understand that Obama did all in his power to delegitimize America globally and destroy America’s cultural heritage in favor of a Leftist transformation.

 

Also, I am disconcertingly suspicious of Obama’s lack of following past President’s path of not being involved his replacement’s agenda. Rather than heading to Chicago or Hawaii, Obama took up residence in Washington DC and became involved in Leftist opposition to all things Trump, ostensibly labeled as the Resistance by Left-Wing Dems wanting to perpetuate the Obama self-destructive agenda. Constantly propagandizing that Trump and his populist Conservative supporters do not have American values.

 

The irony is Conservative values are traditional American values that have made America great. Keep your eye on the operations this Barack Hussein Obama with the mysterious past.

 

The title is derived by the Editor based on Jacobs’ thoughts.

 

JRH 11/20/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Ever Wonder about Obama Pre-Politician History?

 

By Paul Jacobs

Nov 20, 1:40 PM

Posted at G+ Community Liberals Are Destroying America

 

Have you ever wondered how Barrack Obama was able to immigrate from his home in Indonesia and go to college in the U.S.? Not just go to college but live well while in college. In fact, his first 2 years of college he spent pretty much all of his time getting high and laid. This was at Occidental. Apparently, Columbia’s standards are not as high as they once were because after a 2 year binder of some kinda sex, maybe homo, and smoking weed and snorting/smoking coke he apparently qualified for one of the highest regarded universities in the nation.

During this time Barry, as he was known back then, lived off campus which is arguably considerably more expensive, and traveled extensively overseas. That is some pretty high living for some Indonesian kid. Snopes seems to be under the impression that a college scholarship is a suitable explanation, but I was rolling 2 different scholarships myself in college and though they paid for my classes and books they didn’t pay for much else. Not coke, not weed, not hanging out in clubs with people who smoke weed and snort coke and certainly not a chance in hell of any of that international traveling Barry was doing.

I don’t recall any stories about [President] 44 coming from a wealthy family do you? His stepfather had some moderate success as a businessman in Indonesia, but money goes pretty far in a place like that and few have any so it’s all relative. Besides wasn’t his mother a communist? Would a communist send their child to a rich kid’s school?

I realize I don’t have a lot of answers here just a lot of questions. Why hasn’t someone answered or even asked these questions. If Donald Trump is heard trying to squeeze one out in the morning, it is front page news and stays news until something else can be turned into a scandal. Surely it would be the end of life as we know it if the President got caught putting 2 scoops of sugar in his coffee.

To this day after 9 years of Obama trying to hog the spotlight and we still hardly know anything about him. Well he lies a lot we’ve learned that the hard way. Other than that, most of his life has been shrouded in secrecy. As if he’s some kind of deity. You are not meant to know. You could never in this life come close to understanding what it is to be the Great and Powerful Oh-balm-ah. Kneel and beg forgives you ungrateful peasants!

Regardless of whether some consider the former president a deity or not he is a public figure and the public has a right to know even now that he is no longer in office, how some mixed kid from Indonesia with a twice broken home has the funding to go to some of America’s finest schools and jet set around the world at the same time.

I don’t know what is more suspicious where Obama’s money really came from, or the medias inability to be unbiased in their reporting. Because right now there is an army of people associated with news rooms across the nation that are trying anything no matter how tiny to smear Trump in. But y’all know that already.

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Paul Jacobs

 

In the Chain of Human Events


Save The Peace Cross

 

Intro to ‘In the Chain of Human Events

John R. Houk

Intro date: 11/20/17

By Justin O. Smith

 

Justin Smith writes about Secular Humanist atheists winning a 4th Circuit Appellate Court case against Veterans that demanded the Peace Cross in Bladensburg, MD be removed from public property because it is just too Christian for those subscribing to what is essentially a Humanist religion that denies the existence of God Almighty the Creator.

 

Here are a couple of Secular Humanist quotes that the 4th Circuit essentially embraced:

 

“There is no place in the Humanist worldview for either immortality or God in the valid meanings of those terms. Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.” (Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1982) p. 145.)

 

“The classroom must and will become an area of conflict between the old and the new— the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of Humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian idea of ‘Love thy Neighbor’ will finally be achieved.” (John J. Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, January/February 1983, 26.)

 

Both of these quotes are found on the PDF: WORLDVIEW-SECULAR HUMANISM FACT SHEET; Summit Ministries; © 2016 – 2 pgs.)

 

SEE ALSO:

 

Conservapedia: Humanism

 

Conservapedia: Secular humanism

 

JRH 11/20/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

In the Chain of Human Events

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/18/2017 7:36 PM

 

To you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders fields” — Lt Colonel John McCrae / Second Battle of Ypres

 

The forty foot tall Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, at the intersection of Maryland Route 450 and US Alternative Route 1 and just five miles from the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Court’s cross-hairs, is the object of the American Civil Liberties Union’s and atheists’ hatred, along with their hatred for many other inherently Christian Latin crosses in America, and it is also the source of incoherent confusion for too many federal judges. If the American people do not battle most fiercely to reverse the 4th Circuit Court’s recent ruling on October 18th, that found the Peace Cross presence on public land to be unconstitutional, these anti-American groups will boldly continue their purge of anything in the public square that remotely resembles religion; and, liberty and freedom cannot long survive, unless Americans once and for all definitively crush these advocates of a public arena free from God.

 

Started in 1918 and completed in 1925 using contributions from private donors and the American Legion, the Peace Cross honors 49 men from Prince George’s County, who died in WWI. It was erected on July 13th, 1925, and it has stood as a memorial and a gathering place for the community for 92 years, inscribed with the words VALOR, ENDURANCE, COURAGE and DEVOTION.

 

A two-to-one vote by a three judge panel overturned the Maryland District Court’s previous 2015 decision, that the use of a cross as a military symbol of courage, sacrifice and remembrance, does not mean the state sponsors a particular religion. The plaintiffs, American Humanist Association (AHA), alleged that the cross unconstitutionally endorsed Christianity, and the Court determined the memorial “excessively entangles the government in religion”, as they justified their decision through the fallacious notion of “separation of church and state”.

 

Chief Justice Roger Gregory wrote the dissent [***Blog Editor: Entire Dissent Below] and noted that the Establishment Clause does not require “purging” religion from the public square, but requires only governmental “neutrality” on religion. He added, “In my view, the court’s ruling confuses maintenance of a highway median and a monument in a state park with excessive religious entanglement.”

 

The First Amendment [Faith-Freedom.com & Wallbuilders] compels government not to eradicate religion from the public arena, and although it forbids the establishment of a state religion, it doesn’t forbid the sponsorship of religion. If the expression of religious beliefs is an inherent God-designed part of human nature, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims, then government acting to remove religion from the public square would have seemed to our Founding Fathers to be acting in a manner antithetical to our founding principles.

 

Even should the Peace Cross be solely a Christian symbol and not also a war memorial, the argument offered by the AHA is quite a stretch. Establishing a state religion is a deliberate act by the government, as in the manner the world witnessed the USSR implement militant atheism. It doesn’t happen through scattered memorials, that were erected by private groups long ago to remember the fallen.

 

However, the courts have not been consistent on this issue. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the five foot cross erected in 1934 on Sunrise Rock, in the Mojave National Reserve, and also honoring Veterans, did not violate the Constitution; but in 2012, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court’s notion that the 43 foot tall Mount Soledad Memorial Cross, in La Jolla, California, was a violation of the First Amendment.

 

The Bladensburg Peace Cross, listed in the National Registry of Historical Places, is one of the few WWI monuments in the United States. It was erected during a time when the Cross was a commonly understood symbol of suffering, sacrifice and hope.

 

When exactly did the Peace Cross begin to violate the Constitution? Never.

 

In 92 years, the Cross remained unchanged, but America’s judges became intolerant activists after the 1947 Everson case. Leftist activist judges at all levels of the judiciary, who wallow in a sewer of anti-Americanism, have advanced the flawed premises of the anti-Christian bigots from groups like the AHA, and they have violated the Constitution in impermissible fashion, by interfering with the free exercise rights of people, who simply sought to acknowledge their Christian heritage and honor their war dead.

 

The First Liberty Institute and other defenders of the Peace Cross fear, that if the 4th Circuit refuses their request for the full court to reconsider the case, a dangerous precedent will be set. This will endanger other national treasures, such as the 24 foot Cross of Sacrifice, which was a gift from Canada that has stood in Arlington Cemetery for 90 years. The Argonne Cross, also at Arlington, marks the graves of more than two thousand Americans, whose remains were interred in 1920 from battlefield cemeteries in Europe.

 

The American Humanist Association has also sued the city of Pensacola, Florida over a cross that has stood in Bayview Park for 75 years, built on the eve of WWII. Pensacola Mayor Ashton Hayward describes the cross as “an integral part of my town’s fabric, a symbol to our local citizens — religious and nonreligious — of our proud history of coming together during hard times.” This case is on its way to the 11th Circuit Court.

 

Immediately after the October 18th ruling against the Peace Cross, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan wrote a letter to his attorney general directing him to support a legal challenge against the ruling. In part it read: “The conclusion that this memorial honoring Veterans violates the (Constitution’s) Establishment Clause offends common sense, is an affront to all Veterans, and should not be allowed to stand. I believe very strongly, that this cherished community memorial does not violate the Constitution. Your office will be Maryland’s legal voice in this important litigation.

 

While it may seem like a win each time a legal team saves one of these crosses, by illustrating its importance as a war memorial and settling for a land transfer, as performed by Congressman Duncan Hunter in the Mount Soledad Cross case, rejecting the distinct religious value the Cross has traditionally held in Christianity is not the proper direction. Our soldiers died protecting the rights that are defining characteristics of our democratic Republic and, specifically, our First Amendment. And with our religious liberties central to this issue, Congress must provide clarity to an establishment jurisprudence in shambles.

 

The idea that the public display of a Christian cross on public land should be forbidden is deeply anti-American. Our country’s topography is indelibly marked by crosses, so where does this all end for the AHA and militant atheists in their unhinged agenda to remove any semblance of religious symbolism from the public sphere?

 

Where will the atheists ever draw the line?

 

Regardless of who likes it or not, America was founded by a people, who were 98 percent Christian well into the 19th Century, and they intended America to be a Christian nation tolerant of all other religions. The first calls for America’s independence, in 1769, were issued by a group of young writers from Yale College, who were fiercely Christian, led by John Trumbull and Timothy Dwight.

 

John Quincy Adams, the sixth U.S. president, wrote: “In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human governance upon the first precepts of Christianity.”

 

George Washington declared: “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

 

This attack on the Peace Cross is also an attack on America and an attempt to undermine the idea of America, predicated on each individual’s inherent right that lies deep within our heart and soul to have individual recourse to a power greater than the state. This is a war against our Christian faith and our shared memories that we must win, if we wish to prevent America’s descent toward the darkest days of antiquity and preserve for America’s Children the Heritage of Liberty our Founding Fathers left for us.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

*** Chief Judge Roger Gregory dissent begin page 34 of PDF

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2597

 

AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION; STEVEN LOWE; FRED EDWORDS; BISHOP MCNEILL, — Plaintiffs – Appellants,

 

v.

 

MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, — Defendant – Appellee,

 

THE AMERICAN LEGION; THE AMERICAN LEGION DEPARTMENT OF MARYLAND; THE AMERICAN LEGION COLMAR MANOR POST 131, — Intervenors/Defendants – Appellees,

 

=================

 

[Blog Editor: Chief Judge Roger Gregory dissent begin page 34 of PDF]

 

GREGORY, Chief Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

 

I agree with the majority’s holding that Appellants have standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to bring this action for a violation of the Establishment Clause. But I disagree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that the display and maintenance of the war memorial in this case violates the Establishment Clause. I therefore respectfully dissent in part.

 

I.

 

The Establishment Clause provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. To properly understand and apply the Establishment Clause, it must be viewed “in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress.” Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 14–15 (1947). The early colonization of America was a time marked with religious persecution. Immigrating settlers fled religious suppression in Europe only to be met with similar treatment in America. “[M]en and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated.” Id. at 10. Those regarded as nonconformists were required “to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.” Id.

 

The Establishment Clause was intended to combat the practice of “compel[ling individuals] to support and attend government favored churches.” Id. at 8; accord Myers v. Loudoun Cty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 402 (4th Cir. 2005). The Clause’s historical setting reveals that “[i]ts first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431 (1962). The realization of its goal meant that the government must “‘neither engage in nor compel religious practices,’ that it must ‘effect no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion,’ and that it must ‘work deterrence of no religious belief.’” Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 698 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring) (plurality opinion) (quoting Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 305 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring)).

 

But the Clause does not require the government “to purge from the public sphere” any reference to religion. Id. at 699. “Such absolutism is not only inconsistent with our national traditions, but would also tend to promote the kind of social conflict the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.” Id. (citations omitted). While neutrality may be the “touchstone” of the Establishment Clause, it more so serves as a “sense of direction” than a determinative test. McCreary Cty. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 454 U.S. 844 (2005). We cannot view neutrality as some sort of “brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious.” Schempp, 374 U.S. at 306 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Thus, in reviewing the challenged war memorial, this Court must seek general rather than absolute neutrality. We do so by engaging in the three-factor analysis delineated in Lemon v. Kurtzman (the “Lemon test”), which requires that the memorial have a secular purpose; have a principal or primary effect that neither advances, inhibits, nor endorses religion; and not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971). The memorial “must satisfy each of the Lemon test’s three criteria” to pass constitutional muster. Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Davidson Cty., 407 F.3d 266, 269 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 367 (4th Cir. 2003)).

 

A.

 

I will briefly reiterate the operative facts. In Bladensburg, Maryland, in a median at the intersection of Maryland Route 450 and U.S. Route 1, stands a war memorial consisting of a forty-foot-tall concrete Latin cross (the “Memorial”). The Memorial and the median are currently owned by Appellee Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the “Commission”). Intervenor-Appellee American Legion’s symbol is displayed in the middle of the cross on both faces. The cross sits on a base and includes a plaque that lists the names of the forty-nine Prince George’s County residents who died in World War I. J.A. 1891. The plaque also states, “THIS MEMORIAL CROSS DEDICATED TO THE HEROES OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY MARYLAND WHO LOST THEIR LIVES IN THE GREAT WAR FOR THE LIBERTY OF THE WORLD,” and includes a quotation from President Woodrow Wilson. Id. Also, each face of the base is inscribed with one of four words: “VALOR,” “ENDURANCE,” “COURAGE,” and “DEVOTION.” J.A. 1963.

 

In 1918, a group of private citizens led the charge to construct and finance the Memorial. The donors signed a pledge stating that they, “trusting in God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe,” pledged their faith in the forty-nine war dead, whose spirits guided them “through life in the way of godliness, justice, and liberty.” J.A. 1168. The group also circulated a fundraising flyer stating,

 

Here, those who come to the Nation’s Capital to view the wonders of its architecture and the sacred places where their laws are made and administered may, before this Cross, rededicate[] themselves to the principles of their fathers and renew the fires of patriotism and loyalty to the nation which prompted these young men to rally to the defense of the right. And here the friends and loved ones of those who were in the great conflict will pass daily over a highway memorializing their boys who made the supreme sacrifice.

 

J.A. 2303.

 

A groundbreaking ceremony was held for the Memorial and for Maryland Route 450 (then known as the National Defense Highway) in late 1919. Several local officials spoke about the fallen soldiers and how both the Memorial and highway would commemorate their bravery and sacrifice. But the private group ultimately failed to raise enough money to construct the Memorial and abandoned the project. The local post of the American Legion, a congressionally chartered veterans service organization, then took up the task and completed the Memorial on July 25, 1925. That day, the post held a ceremony which included multiple speeches regarding the Memorial’s representation of the men who died fighting for this country and an invocation and benediction delivered by local clergymen.

 

Over time, additional monuments honoring veterans were built near the Memorial (known as the “Veterans Memorial Park”). Because the Memorial sits in the middle of a median and is separated by a busy highway intersection, the closest additional monument is about 200 feet away. Since the Memorial’s completion, numerous events have been hosted there to celebrate Memorial Day, Veterans Day, the Fourth of July, and the remembrance of September 11th. These ceremonies usually include an invocation and benediction, but the record demonstrates that only three Sunday religious services were held at the Memorial—all of which occurred in August 1931. J.A. 347.

 

Due to increasing traffic on the highway surrounding it, the Commission acquired the Memorial and the median where it is located from the American Legion in March 1961. Since that time, the Commission has spent approximately $117,000 to maintain and repair the Memorial. In 2008, it set aside an additional $100,000 for renovations, of which only $5,000 has been spent as of 2015. J.A. 562–65. On February 25, 2014, more than fifty years after the Memorial passed into state ownership, Appellants initiated this suit against the Commission under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

B.

 

By concluding that the Memorial violates the Establishment Clause, the majority employed the Lemon test “with due consideration given to the factors outlined in Van Orden.” Maj. Op. at 16. In Van Orden, a plurality of the Supreme Court determined that the Lemon test was not useful when evaluating a “passive monument.” 545 U.S. at 686. Instead, the Court’s analysis was “driven both by the nature of the monument and by our Nation’s history.” Id. As the majority recognizes, Justice Breyer’s concurrence is the controlling opinion in Van Orden. Maj. Op. at 14. Justice Breyer states that the Court’s Establishment Clause tests, such as Lemon, cannot readily explain the Clause’s tolerance of religious activities in “borderline cases,” as there is “no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case.” Van Orden, 454 U.S. at 699– 700 (Breyer, J., concurring). “If the relation between government and religion is one of separation, but not of mutual hostility and suspicion, one will inevitably find difficult borderline cases.” Id. at 700. Instead of applying Lemon to the challenged Ten Commandments display, Justice Breyer exercised his “legal judgment” and evaluated the context of the display and how the undeniably religious text of the Commandments was used. Id. at 700–04. His concurrence, however, also noted that Lemon provides a “useful guidepost[]—and might well lead to the same result”—for “no exact formula can dictate a resolution to such fact-intensive cases.” Id. at 700.

 

Relying on Lemon, and drawing guidance from Van Orden, the majority determined that the Commission articulated a legitimate secular purpose for displaying the Memorial. Nevertheless, the majority concluded that the Memorial failed Lemon’s second and third factors, finding that a reasonable observer would conclude that the Memorial has the primary effect of endorsing religion and the Commission’s maintenance of the Memorial constitutes excessive entanglement with religion. In my view, the majority misapplies Lemon and Van Orden to the extent that it subordinates the Memorial’s secular history and elements while focusing on the obvious religious nature of Latin crosses themselves; constructs a reasonable observer who ignores certain elements of the Memorial and reaches unreasonable conclusions; and confuses maintenance of a highway median and monument in a state park with excessive religious entanglement.

 

III.

 

Because Appellants do not challenge the district court’s finding that the Commission has demonstrated a secular purpose for displaying and maintaining the Memorial (the first Lemon factor), I will discuss in turn the majority’s evaluation of the second and third Lemon factors—whether the Memorial has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion and whether the government is excessively entangled with religion.

 

A.

 

Under Lemon’s second factor, we must determine “whether a particular display, with religious content, would cause a reasonable observer to fairly understand it in its particular setting as impermissibly advancing or endorsing religion.” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 271. This reasonable observer inquiry “requires the hypothetical construct of an objective observer who knows all of the pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding the [display] and its placement.” Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 721 (2010) (plurality opinion). We should not ask “whether there is any person who could find an endorsement of religion, whether some people may be offended by the display, or whether some reasonable person might think the State endorses religion.” Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 780 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, we must determine “whether . . . the display’s principal or primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion; or, put differently, whether an informed, reasonable observer would view the display as an endorsement of religion.” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 272.

 

It is undeniable that the Latin cross is the “preeminent symbol of Christianity.” Maj. Op. at 18. But we must be careful not to “focus exclusively on the religious component” of a display, as that “would inevitably lead to its invalidation under the Establishment Clause.” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 271 (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 680 (1984)). Indeed, the Supreme Court “has consistently concluded that displays with religious content—but also with a legitimate secular use—may be permissible under the Establishment Clause.” Id. (citing Cty. of Allegheny v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 579 (1989)). A reasonable observer would be aware that the cross is “not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs,” for it is “often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people.” Buono, 559 U.S. at 721.

 

Despite the religious nature of the Latin cross, a reasonable observer must also adequately consider the Memorial’s physical setting, history, and usage. The Memorial was created to commemorate the forty-nine soldiers who lost their lives in World War I, as explicitly stated on the plaque attached to its base. See J.A. 1891 (“THIS MEMORIAL CROSS DEDICATED TO THE HEROES OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY MARYLAND WHO LOST THEIR LIVES IN THE GREAT WAR FOR THE LIBERTY OF THE WORLD.”). The plaque also includes a quotation from President Woodrow Wilson stating, “The right is more precious than peace. We shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts. To such a task we dedicate our lives.” Id. Each face of the cross includes the American Legion seal and each face of the base is inscribed with one of four words: “VALOR,” “ENDURANCE,” “COURAGE,” and “DEVOTION.” J.A. 1963. The Memorial has functioned as a war memorial for its entire history, and it sits among other secular monuments in Veterans Memorial Park, though it is separated from the other monuments by intersecting highways.

 

The majority concludes that the size of the Latin cross making up the Memorial overwhelms these secular elements. In the majority’s view, the Memorial is unconstitutional based predominantly on the size of the cross, and neither its secular features nor history could overcome the presumption. But such a conclusion is contrary to our constitutional directive. We must fairly weigh the appearance, context, and factual background of the challenged display when deciding the constitutional question. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 679–80; Cty. of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 598–600. Although a reasonable observer would properly notice the Memorial’s large size, she would also take into account the plaque, the American Legion symbol, the four-word inscription, its ninety-year history as a war memorial, and its presence within a vast state park dedicated to veterans of other wars. Would the majority’s version of a reasonable observer be satisfied and better equipped to evaluate the Memorial’s history and context if the cross were smaller? Perhaps if it were the same size as the other monuments in the park? Though Establishment Clause cases require a fact-intensive analysis, we must bear in mind our responsibility to provide the government and public with notice of actions that violate the Constitution. What guiding principle can be gleaned from the majority’s focus on the cross’s size? Understandably, the majority’s decision would lead to per se findings that all large crosses are unconstitutional despite any amount of secular history and context, in contravention of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

 

The majority also makes much of the Memorial’s isolation from the other monuments in Veterans Memorial Park, as it sits in the median of a now busy highway, making it difficult to access. But a reasonable observer would note that the Memorial was placed there as part of the concurrent creation of the National Defense Highway to commemorate the soldiers of World War I, not as a means of endorsing religion. And, though Veterans Memorial Park does not include any other religious symbols as memorials, there is no evidence that the state formally foreclosed the possibility of erecting any other religious symbol. Also, the reasonable observer would note that the Memorial’s physical setting does not lend itself to any religious worship. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 702 (stating that religious display’s location in large park containing other monuments suggested “little or nothing sacred,” as it illustrated residents’ historical ideals and “did not readily lend itself to meditation or any other religious activity”).

 

Additionally, due to the Memorial’s location, the majority explains that a reasonable observer would not be able to easily examine the Memorial’s secular elements. Maj. Op. at 23. This is because the Memorial “is located in a high-traffic area and passers-by would likely be unable to read the plaque,” which is small and badly weathered. Id. at 23. However, the reasonable observer’s knowledge is not “limited to the information gleaned simply from viewing the challenged display.” Pinette, 515 U.S. at 780–81 (O’Connor, J., concurring). That the average person in the community may have difficulty viewing all of the secular elements of the Memorial while stuck in traffic or driving at high speeds is of no consequence, for the reasonable observer “is not to be identified with any ordinary individual, . . . but is rather a personification of a community ideal of reasonable behavior” who is “deemed aware of the history and context of the community and forum in which the religious display appears.” Id. at 779–80 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, the reasonable observer’s ability to consider these secular elements is by no means diminished.

 

Further, quoting Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1116 n.18 (9th Cir. 2011), the majority states that the large size and isolation of the Memorial “evokes a message of aggrandizement and universalization of religion, and not the message of individual memorialization and remembrance that is presented by a field of gravestones.” Maj. Op. at 22. In Trunk, the Ninth Circuit considered a forty-three-foot free-standing cross and veterans memorial erected in a state park. 629 F.3d at 1101. The court evaluated the history of the Latin cross generally, its use as a war memorial, the history of the particular war memorial at issue, and its physical setting. Id. at 1102–05, 1110–24. The cross in Trunk had no secular elements; instead, it was unadorned and without any physical indication that it was a war memorial until after litigation was initiated to remove it. Id. at 1101–02; see also Smith v. Cty. of Albemarle, 895 F.2d 953, 958 (4th Cir. 1990) (concluding that crèche, unassociated with any secular symbols, prominently displayed in front of government building, and unaccompanied by any other religious or nonreligious displays, conveyed message of governmental endorsement of religion). The court concluded that a reasonable observer would perceive the presence of the cross as the federal government’s endorsement of Christianity, due in part to its long history of serving as a site of religious observance, with no indication of any secular purpose for almost three decades. Id. at 1125.

 

But here, the Memorial has always served as a war memorial, has been adorned with secular elements for its entire history, and sits among other memorials in Veterans Memorial Park. The Memorial’s predominant use has been for Veterans Day and Memorial Day celebrations, although three religious services were conducted at the Memorial nearly ninety years ago. Also, the invocations and benedictions performed at the annual veterans celebrations are not enough to cause a reasonable observer to perceive the Memorial as an endorsement of Christianity in light of its overwhelmingly secular history and context. Further, guidance from Van Orden provides that the Memorial’s ninety-year existence and fifty-year government ownership without litigation is a strong indication that the reasonable observer perceived its secular message. See 545 U.S. at 702–03 (stating that challenged monument’s presence on government property for forty years provided determinative factor that it conveyed predominately secular message). The Memorial stands at a busy intersection, yet this case is the first time the Memorial has been challenged as unconstitutional. Those fifty years strongly suggest “that few individuals, whatever their system of beliefs, are likely to have understood the [Memorial] as amounting, in any significantly detrimental way, to a government effort . . . primarily to promote religion over nonreligion,” or to “engage in,” “compel,” or deter any religious practice or beliefs. Id. at 702 (quoting Schempp, 374 U.S. at 305 (Goldberg, J., concurring)); see also Buono, 559 U.S. at 716 (“Time also has played its role. [After] nearly seven decades[,] . . . the cross and the cause it commemorated had become entwined in the public consciousness.”). This significant passage of time must factor into the Court’s analysis and “help[] us understand that as a practical matter of degree [the Memorial] is unlikely to prove divisive.” Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 702.

 

With the foregoing facts, circumstances, and principles in mind, I conclude that a reasonable observer would understand that the Memorial, while displaying a religious symbol, is a war memorial built to celebrate the forty-nine Prince George’s County residents who gave their lives in battle. Such an observer would not understand the effect of the Commission’s display of the Memorial—with such a commemorative past and set among other memorials in a large state park—to be a divisive message promoting Christianity over any other religion or nonreligion. A cross near a busy intersection “need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society. Rather, it leaves room to accommodate divergent values within a constitutionally permissible framework.” Buono, 559 U.S. at 718–19 (citations omitted). We must be careful not to push the Establishment Clause beyond its purpose in search of complete neutrality. “[U]ntutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands,” but of extreme commitment to the secular, “or even active, hostility to the religious.” Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 699 (quoting Schempp, 374 U.S. at 306 (Goldberg, J., concurring)). Finding that a reasonable observer would perceive the Memorial as an endorsement of Christianity would require that we pursue a level of neutrality beyond our constitutional mandate. I therefore conclude that the Memorial does not violate the second factor of the Lemon test.

 

B.

 

The Lemon test’s final factor asks whether the challenged display has created an “excessive entanglement” between government and religion. Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 272– 73. “The kind of excessive entanglement of government and religion precluded by Lemon is characterized by ‘comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance.’” Id. at 273 (quoting Lemon, 403 U.S. at 619). This inquiry is one of “kind and degree,” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 684, “and because some interaction between church and state is inevitable, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the ‘[e]ntanglement must be “excessive” before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause,’” Koenick v. Felton, 190 F.3d 259, 268 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 233 (1997)).

 

The majority concludes that the Memorial fosters excessive entanglement because of the Commission’s ownership and maintenance of the Memorial. But the Commission’s maintenance of the Memorial and the land surrounding it could hardly be considered the sort of state surveillance that Lemon intends to prohibit. See Lemon, 403 U.S. at 615–20 (concluding that challenged action excessively entangled state with religion by requiring state to supplement salaries for teachers in parochial schools); see also Mellen, 327 F.3d at 375 (determining that public university’s supper prayer violated Lemon’s third prong because school officials “composed, mandated, and monitored a daily prayer”). Rather, the Commission is merely maintaining a monument within a state park and a median in between intersecting highways that must be well lit for public safety reasons. There is no evidence that the Commission consults with any churches or religious organizations to determine who may access the Memorial for events. Nor is there evidence that the Commission is required to be involved in any church-related activities to maintain the Memorial.

 

Further, the majority observes that “any use of public funds to promote religious doctrines violates the Establishment Clause.” Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 623 (1988) (O’Connor, J., concurring). But, in Agostini, the Supreme Court held that a federally funded program that paid public school teachers to teach disadvantaged children in parochial schools did not cause an excessive entanglement between church and state. 521 U.S. at 234–35. Likewise, the Commission’s use of $122,000 over the course of fifty-plus years for lighting and upkeep is not a promotion of any religious doctrine, as the Memorial is a historical monument honoring veterans.

 

I therefore conclude that the Memorial does not violate the third factor of the Lemon test.

 

*         *         *                              

 

This Memorial stands in witness to the VALOR, ENDURANCE, COURAGE, and DEVOTION of the forty-nine residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland “who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world.” I cannot agree that a monument so conceived and dedicated and that bears such witness violates the letter or spirit of the very Constitution these heroes died to defend. Accordingly, I would affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

The Obama Uranium-1 Story even FOX News Won’t Speak About!


The next time you hear a Leftist radical – er, I mean Democrat – tell you that Crooked Hillary did not approve Uranium One because she was just one of nine who gave unanimous support OR that President Barry Soetoroer, I mean Barack Hussein Obama – was the greatest President in U.S.; then direct them to this very informative essay by Andrew Benjamin.

 

JRH 11/18/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

The Obama Uranium-1 Story even FOX News Won’t Speak About!

 

By Andrew G. Benjamin —— Bio and Archives

November 17, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

 

Midday on November 14th, FOX News talking head Shepard Smith, whom we might charitably label as a liberal non-heterosexual who may not like Donald Trump, meaning his politics have everything to do with his sexual preferences and whom he would vote for, and very little to do with reality, gave the nation a much-needed reality check.

 

Hillary Clinton is innocent of all charges. As Shepard opened his mouth, we saw former FBI Director James Comey’s eyes peeking out.

 

Shepard’s was a monologue over which the liberal press went bananas. Or “ape” if you will.

 

You see, the Clinton-Uranium-1 Story is, according to Shepard and the Kool Aid his media mates at CNN and MSNBC drink, a fairytale. Or given the much overused cliché, “a nothing burger”, a fabrication of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

 

The line is the line according to Smith and his media mates on every other channel that would give the death penalty to Team Trump and his family at the earliest opportunity, for the mere outrage of winning an election, with the stories of every Democrat calling for impeachment.

 

“The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.” said Smith.

 

SHEPARD SMITH YOU TUBE

 

VIDEO: Fox News’ Shep Smith Methodically Debunks Uranium One Conspiracy Theories [Blog Editor: Leftist Shep Hogwash]

 

Smith’s monologue was meant to dispel any suspicion still hanging in with FOX viewers about the Clintons who have, throughout their illustrious careers, only benefited the nation. It was meant to reinforce in liberal minds the fact that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin who made them pull 63 million levers across America for Donald Trump. It is meant to fix in one’s mind the notion that the entire Trump Team is guilty of perjury and even treason. And the idea that Barack Obama colluded with Hillary and the Russians about anything is preposterous, since their suspected collusion is not reported on any channel except for Shepard’s, and therefore does not exist.

 

The gist of Shepard’s historical “innovation” is that Hillary Clinton is wholly innocent of accusations about how and why the $145 million wound up in her family’s slush fund AFTER the sale took place. It is to dispel the notion of a possible RICO (organized crime) investigation into the Clinton Matter. Shepard’s spin suggests that the Clintons are hardly greedy, in fact, never; or self-dealing and treacherous. Donald Trump is, for questioning the Clinton Matter in tweets.

 

The bottom-line of Shepard’s astonishing Aesop’s Fables and the non-contextualization of history (as well as the record of the players), was that there were nine cabinet members of CIFUS, The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, who had unanimously, of their free will, approved the “good deal” that was ultimately approved by the president himself. The same president who appointed the self-same cabinet.

 

Clearly, as in law, precedent must rule in this matter, the same as the precedent for the Iran Nuke Deal which was a Good Deal for America (that was the line our past president from some central African nation told us); as the North Korean Nuke Deal was a Good Deal for America (which was the line the husband of the last female Democrat presidential candidate told the nation over two decades ago); as is the Uranium-1 good deal from which ONLY the Clinton Family Foundation profited. It had to be a Good Deal for America, and the $145 million slush fund the Clintons can do with as they will happens to be a sidebar.

 

Every deal from which America’s enemies profit has to be a Good Deal for America.

 

Or charity – if you will.

 

Especially with all the Good Deals in which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got involved.

 

For example:

 

  • The BenghaziGate Good Deal in which the United States got run out of North Africa by a band of extremist religious thugs, got Americans killed just to make the deal better, and made certain that that nation was taken over by ISIS.

 

 

  • The Iran Nukes Good Deal which insured that Iran will not only continue to develop IBCM’s – Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles– but in less than eight years arm them with MIRVs – Multiple Re-entry Vehicles tipped with nuclear bombs. that Good Deal was meant to make Americans happy.

 

  • The Eric Holder Fast & Furious Good Deal in which 55,000 Mexicans and some Americans were murdered by weapons seized by Barack Obama and Holder from American citizens, and given to the Mexican drug cartels. Hillary was SecState at the time dealing “diplomatically” with Mexico for America’s benefit.

 

  • The IRS-gate Good Deal in which American organizations and groups with words in their names such as “American,” “Patriot,” “Constitution,” and similar suggesting a faith in law and allegiance to the nation, were targeted for examination – and then deliberately paralyzed from raising funds for political campaigns.

 

  • The DNC-Clinton Primary Fix-Gate Good Deal in which a year prior to the presidential primaries one candidate received, by written agreement from the Party itself, full control of the party, its activities and decision-making, and all the money the party raised. Funds which she promptly redirected to her own campaign and into her own pockets. Clearly, she was never greedy and self-dealing and never had any interest in uranium.

 

Under the greatest president ever, Barack Obama, and his former SecState Hillary, Good Deals for America were almost a daily occurrence and even Settled Science.

 

In 2009 and 2010, in a bid to corner and dominate the global uranium market, Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, was anxious to take over a majority stake in the uranium mining company UrAsia formerly owned by Clinton ally and benefactor, Canadian Frank Giustra.

 

After the board members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States appointed by Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton’s nod approved the sale, as well as managing the approval of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission leadership appointed by Barack Obama at Clinton’s behest, Russia bought the rest of Uranium One in 2013. Clearly, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with this Good Deal to benefit the American People and put America’s uranium assets in Russian hands.

 

As the CFIUS includes the State Department as one of the regulatory body’s members, Hillary asserted that she had nothing to do with “massaging” the deal because she never had any interest in money, uranium, or even her own agency at State. She kept insisting that a number of agencies had agreed to the good deal for America because they too, had no interest in making the Clintons fabulously wealthy. According to the latest reports from insider sources on the inside speaking anonymously behind closed doors at an undetermined date and place, she did not go so far as to suggest that selling off America’s assets and wealth was also a good deal, but we might presume that she was thinking it.

 

What Shepard Smith failed to disclose is that the “friendly” – as opposed to hostile – Uranium One takeover began in 2005. Meanwhile behind the scenes we presume Hillary Clinton was the senator at the time pushing the deal. And Frank Giustra still owned the company.

 

The Clintons were at his side for no reason at all all this time. For example, no reason like this, reported by the Times:

 

“The $500,000 (speaking) fee (in Moscow)—among Mr. Clinton’s highest—was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin…”

 

Meanwhile, as Team Clinton reportedly spent $1.2 Billion on getting her elected to the presidency mostly so no investigation will ever be launched into the Clinton Good Deals (that $1.2B represents One Thousand Two Hundred times a Million dollars) CNN gave you updates 24/7 for months about the Russians using FACEBOOK to infringe on American democracy and turn an American election in Donald Trump’s favor.

 

With the $6500 that FACEBOOK reported the Russians spent.

An amount that would not buy a used steel, never mind, gold, Rolex.

 

According to the Times:

 

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, (Hillary Clinton) then a senator.

 

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

 

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

 

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming ‚Äúa powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared. ‚Ķ The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

 

What Shepard Smith neglected to disclose among all the good deals going down among his media mates at CNN and MSNBC, The NY Times and WashPo, is the timing and the timeline, and that 1 + 1 may actually equal 2. Possibly 3.

 

The Times:

 

“Mr. Telfer’s (the chairman of UrAsia) undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal…..”

 

At least no interest in the deal until a former president who made previous Good Deals that armed North Korea with nukes and ICBMs, came to the rescue with a $500,000 speech that lasted at most 10 minutes, with “guarantees” for millions more to arrive shortly for which no speeches will will [sic] be made. And a box of cigars.

 

Bill Clinton, with Hillary at his side in the early years, made sure that the Kahakh mines would become Russian mines. And the American mines become Russian mines. She was SecState at the time, and if you’re seeing a conflict of interest and self-dealing, you are seeing things.

 

It appears Shepard deliberately neglected the obvious for political reasons of his own, in a speech that LeftMedia is now celebrating thinking that FOX News, just like they, are now in the tank with the Clinton narrative. Look, $145 million goes a long way to persuade the reluctant that the sky is not blue.

 

For after all, there are no more deserving people to benefit from all the Good Deals than the ones who made them: Barack Obama and the Clintons.

 

Theirs is the Good Deal that stipulated that:

 

  1. The $145,000,000 that wound up at the Clinton Family Foundation for no reason at all got there for no reason at all.

and

 

  1. That, for no reason at all Barack Obama appointed ALL the voters at CIFUS and the other agencies under his command who approved the Good Deal without ANY dissent. And then Barry approved the sale himself according to Smith.

 

For absolutely no reason at all.

 

Not even the $145,000,000 reason and a genuine replica of the Reset Button.

 

REPORT TO CONGRESS – CIFUS

 

[Blog Editor: Title to PDF of above link: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS); By James K. Jackson; Congressional Research Service; 54 pgs.; 10/11/17]

 

_______________

© Andrew G. Benjamin

 

Andrew G. Benjamin is a real estate and tax specialist, equities trader, a former economic advisor to New York city mayor Rudy Giuliani; serving on the transition team’s Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget. Benjamin also wrote extensively about intelligence, economic issues, the Mideast, terrorism, technology, high end audio and transnational politics.

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press.

 

Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com 

 

Dem Sexploitation


John R. Houk, Editor

November 17, 2017

 

Earlier I discovered Leeann Tweeden was sexually harassed by Senator Al Franken in the old boy’s creepy entertainment days. Now I am discovering Uncle Al also harassed Melanie Morgan once involved with Move America Forward (Pro-Troop support) but now with Media Equalizer (co-founder).

 

Here is a look at some stories that begin with Tweeden’s allegations, then has some Majority Leader McConnell calling for a Franken ethics investigation which includes Morgan’s experience with Uncle Al.

 

JRH 11/17/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

VIDEO: Leeann Tweeden: Senator Al Franken kissed and groped me without my consent

 

Posted by KABC RADIO

Published on Nov 16, 2017

 

Leeann Tweeden shares her story on McIntyre in the Morning

 

“Senator Al Franken kissed and groped me without my consent, and there’s nothing funny about it”

++++

Melanie Morgan: After TV appearance, Al Franken harassed me too

 

By Brian Maloney 

November 16th, 2017, 14:06 EST

Exclusive to the Media Equalizer

With additional reporting from Martin Walsh

 

 

Al Franken—Author/Comedian days

 

Immediately raising questions about double-standards in the media and on Capitol Hill, a Los Angeles radio news anchor today accused Senator Al Franken (D-MN) of sexually assaulting her.

 

Now, Media Equalizer Co-Founder Melanie Morgan has come forward as well, recounting her own experience with the onetime comedian, liberal radio host and activist. Morgan’s disturbing encounter was sparked by daring to disagree with Franken during an August, 2000 edition of ABC’s Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher.

 

Earlier, a bombshell report published by KABC on-air personality Leeann Tweeden accused Franken of kissing and groping her without her consent while she was asleep.

 

Shockingly, Tweeden even provided a photo as evidence, which shows Franken with his hands on her breasts while he smiles for the camera.

 

 

 

Tweeden said the sexual assault occurred in December 2006, when they were both on a USO Tour to support and entertain U.S. soldiers.

 

“It wasn’t until I was back in the U.S. and looking through the CD of photos we were given by the photographer that I saw this one,” Tweeden wrote about the photo on in her KABC article.

 

“I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated,” she wrote. “How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?”

 

Tweeden said Franken had written a skit in which he would kiss Tweeden, where she said she “agreed to play along.”

 

“When I saw the script, Franken had written a moment when his character comes at me for a ‘kiss’. I suspected what he was after, but I figured I could turn my head at the last minute, or put my hand over his mouth, to get more laughs from the crowd,” she wrote.

 

Tweeden wrote that Franken insisted that they rehearse the kiss several times before the show, which she said made her “uncomfortable.”

 

“He repeated that actors really need to rehearse everything and that we must practice the kiss. I said ‘OK’ so he would stop badgering me. We did the line leading up to the kiss and then he came at me, put his hand on the back of my head, mashed his lips against mine and aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth,” she wrote.

 

“I immediately pushed him away with both of my hands against his chest and told him if he ever did that to me again I wouldn’t be so nice about it the next time,” she added.

 

According to Newsweek, Franken has since released a statement saying he didn’t recall the incident.

 

“I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann. As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it,” he said in a statement.

 

Melanie Morgan Radio Host

 

In response to the disturbing allegations made against Franken, Media Equalizer and Media Equality Project Co-Founder Melanie Morgan has come forward to recall her own frightening encounter, sparked by a seemingly-mundane and even obscure topic of political disagreement.

 

Morgan, who was a ABC Radio talk show host for KSFO / San Francisco at the time, appeared August 19, 2000 on ABC’s late night show Politically Incorrect.

 

She was joined by Franken, William Baldwin, and then-Colorado Lt. Governor Joe Rogers on the panel.

 

Morgan and Franken had a dispute over the OMB’s budget numbers.

 

“I was invited and unaware of who his guests were going to be that night,” Morgan said.

 

Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect

 

“I made a statement about the budget numbers, Franken challenged me, I challenged him back. It was about spending priorities, actually just a mundane discussion. But he obsessed over it.”

 

After the show, Morgan said Franken wouldn’t leave her alone, insisting on continuing the argument.

 

“He approached me backstage, angrily called me out on those numbers and insisted he would prove he was right. He wouldn’t leave me alone, he kept following me. As a woman, his presence and proximity to me felt very threatening and intimindating [sic].

 

“I didn’t realize his creepy behavior after the show meant it would continue in the days to come.

 

“He approached Carol, the show’s producer and demanded my home phone number, which was a clear violation of network protocol. I had thought that was the end of the story and was shocked when he started calling my home, badgering me repeatedly.

 

“I became fearful and called Carol to complain and asked her to tell him to back off. But he made another call after that. I thought that he might end up stalking me at my home in Northern California, it was that bad.

 

“By the third phone call I was outraged and terrified, as he is really disturbed,” Morgan recounted.

 

Morgan said Franken finally left her alone, but only after she pushed back and threatened “to call the police and make a report that he was harassing me.”

 

To this day, she says she is haunted by it: “I never forgot that experience and it informed me of his lack of character and obsessive personality. I believe every word Leann wrote.”

 

With many calling on Republican Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore to step aside following claims of sexual misconduct from decades ago, will Franken be asked to resign as senator?

 

“I will happily testify before the Senate Ethics Committee, should a hearing be held regarding Franken’s behavior,” Morgan added.

 

[See Also:

 

From SNL to US Senate, Franken has a long history of bizarre behavior

 

Morgan calls for ethics committee investigation into Franken harassment / misconduct claims]

 

+++++++++++++++++++++

VIDEO: Melanie Morgan: Al Franken harassed me after TV appearance

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Nov 16, 2017

 

Media Equalizer co-founder speaks out on ‘The Ingraham Angle’ about her experiences.

 

++++++++++++

Moore mocks McConnell’s call for an investigation into Franken

 

By Mark Moore

November 16, 2017 | 2:15pm | Updated 4:45pm

New York Post

 

Mitch McConnell (left) and Roy Moore Getty Images

 

Roy Moore, the Republican Senate candidate accused of sexual misconduct, took a shot at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday, mocking his call for an ethics investigation into groping allegations against Sen. Al Franken.

 

“Al Franken admits guilt after photographic evidence of his abuse surfaces. Mitch: ‘Let’s investigate,’” Moore tweeted.

 

“In Alabama, ZERO evidence, allegations 100% rejected. Mitch: ‘Moore must quit immediately or be expelled,’” Moore wrote.

 

McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, has called on Moore to drop out of the Alabama special election after nine women have came forward to accuse him of sexually harassing or assaulting them decades ago.

 

After Leeann Tweeden alleged that Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, forcibly kissed and groped her during a USA tour to the Middle East in 2006, McConnell called for an ethics probe into the senator.

 

Tweeden also released a photo of Franken grabbing her chest while she was sleeping on a military plane.

 

Franken apologized to Tweeden, a television host for KABC, but said his recollection of their encounter was different.

 

He said he would cooperate with the Senate ethics investigation.

 

Moore has denied the allegations against him, calling them “fake news.”

_________________

Dem Sexploitation

John R. Houk, Editor

November 17, 2017

________________

Melanie Morgan: After TV appearance, Al Franken harassed me too

 

Copyright © 2014-2017 The Media Equalizer

__________________

Moore mocks McConnell’s call for an investigation into Franken

 

© 2017 NYP HOLDINGS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 

 

Al Franken accused of kissing, groping LA TV host without consent


I have to wonder if ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN et al Mainstream share this news about Senator Al Franken sexually groping former Fox Sports and Playboy celeb poser Leann Tweeden?

 

JRH 11/16/17

Please Support NCCR

********************

Al Franken accused of kissing, groping LA TV host without consent

 

By Barnini Chakraborty

November 16, 2017

Fox News

 

A California TV host and sports radio broadcaster on Thursday accused Democratic Sen. Al Franken of kissing and groping her without her consent in 2006.

 

Leeann Tweeden posted a blog detailing the alleged incident and also tweeted a picture of what seems to be a grinning Franken standing over her as she sleeps, pretending to grab her breasts.

 

 

 

Franken said he doesn’t remember the kissing incident but apologized for posing for the picture. He said he intended it to be funny — but it wasn’t.

 

“I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann,” Franken said in an initial statement. “As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it.”

 

Tweeden says she was disgusted to learn she was groped as she slept (Reuters

 

Franken later issued a detailed statement saying there’s “no excuse” and he feels “ashamed,” while also offering to cooperate in an ethics investigation into the matter.

 

“I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed,” Franken said. “… I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn’t matter. There’s no excuse.”

 

He added, “I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.”

 

Tweeden said the abuse took place during a USO Tour in Afghanistan.

 

The radio host came forward in a shocking open letter on blog (Reuters)

 

Franken, a former writer for “Saturday Night Live,” wrote a sketch for the tour in which his character kisses hers on stage. He was an Air America radio host at the time of the incident. He was elected ot the U.S. Senate in 2008.

 

Tweeden said Franken repeatedly pressured her to practice the kiss backstage and at one point forcibly kissed her.

 

“I immediately pushed him away with both of my hands against his chest and told him if he ever did that to me again I wouldn’t be so nice about it the next time,” she wrote. “I walked away. All I could think about was getting to a bathroom as fast as possible to rinse the taste of him out of my mouth.”

 

Tweeden said she felt “disgusted and violated” – and that the abuse didn’t stop there.

 

A photographer, who was with them on their C-17 cargo plane ride back home, snapped a picture of what looks to be a sleeping Tweeden, still wearing her flak vest and Kevlar helmet, and a grinning Franken appearing to grab her breasts.

 

“I couldn’t believe it,” she wrote. “He groped me, without my consent, while I was asleep. I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated. How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?”

 

Tweeden said she thinks Franken asked someone to take the photo “knowing I would see it later, and be ashamed.”

 

The accusations against Franken come on the heels of an avalanch of allegations out of Capitol Hill on sexual harassment and gender hostility. Multiple incidents out of D.C. and other state houses have shed light on the dificulties [sic] victims facewhen trying to report their accusers.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Ethics Committee should review the matter.

 

“I hope the Democratic Leader will join me on this,” McConnell wrote in a statement. “Regardless of party, harassment and assault are completely unacceptable – in the workplace or anywhere else.”

 

About 1,500 former Capitol Hill aides have signed an open letter to House and Senate leaders demanding that Congress put in place mandatory harassment training. They’re also calling to revamp the Office of Compliance, a small office that deals with these complaints and that few knew even existed.

 

Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

_________________

©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Blog Editor: I read this Fox post with the proviso posted one hour ago. Hence, if you check the link, there is a good chance of future editing. 

 

NoGuff Writes of Facebook Jail


 

John R. Houk

© November 15, 2017

NoGuff writes on Twitter: “… I’m in Facebook Jail for 30 days now. For what, I don’t know. They won’t tell me. Could you do me a flavor and post this on FB for me so people know? Thanks a lot.”

 

I am uncertain of the veracity of the message I received on my Twitter @SlantRight2). As you have probably surmised I am not exactly an expert with Twitter usage. I am guessing NoGuff sent the above “Facebook jail” notification because I can find no mention of it on his Twitter page.

 

When Facebook jail is judged upon its users, I am also unsure if the Facebook incarcerated page disappears during the suspension. In case it doesn’t, I found three Facebook profiles with the name Facebook in it. The first is very active. The later two had nearly zero activity. For your examination here are the three:

 

  1. No Guff (NoGuff)

 

  1. NoGuff McGuff

 

  1. No Guff

 

 

Being both in Facebook jail and Google jail for various censorship ludicrous reasons I say, “SPREAD THE WORD!” It is very annoying to be in a Social Media jail when the only you have done is blog accurately without profanity are racist slurs.

 

JRH 11/15/17

Please Support NCCR